phillyTIM
Golden Member
- Jan 12, 2001
- 1,942
- 10
- 81
rape: to seize and carry off by force (applicable)
of course webster talks about rape in a sexual intercourse connotation, which we're more akin to; but the above part of mr. webster's definition applies here
and that's exactly what the bush regime did: rape iraq - it came in and forced itself upon iraq
in fact, if you don't like the word rape, then i'd be happy to call it a terroristic excursion/application
your choice, baby dawl
of course webster talks about rape in a sexual intercourse connotation, which we're more akin to; but the above part of mr. webster's definition applies here
and that's exactly what the bush regime did: rape iraq - it came in and forced itself upon iraq
in fact, if you don't like the word rape, then i'd be happy to call it a terroristic excursion/application
your choice, baby dawl
Quite the Jester, aren't you? Tell me, will you be performing at the upcoming Democratic Convention?
Calm down guys, you're going to make Ultra have an anyurism as he frantically beats his computer keys draped in nothing other than an American flag and singing Hail to the Chief
Ultra, you say four other countries invaded as well? Poland had 200 troops there, hardly a contribution, Australia had what, around 2000? And why do you think any of the 40 or so countries in the "coalition of the willing" (hahahahaha) even participated? Do you think Micronesia really cares whether Iraq is a threat to its naighbours? I don't think so. They were in it for the money. Spin it as you want Ultra, the reason given to the world was the threat posed to the world by Iraq possesing, without a doubt and with unquestionable evidence, WMD. No one would support this if it was to remove a brutal dictator, and even Iraq's neighbours, whe were supposedly threatened, did not go out of their way to support military action. The only enthusiastic supporter in that area was Israel, and it is not our responsibility to do that countries dirty work. We gave a justification, it turned out to be crap, and save some mammoth discovery, the credibility of the US has been hurt thanks to that monkey and his trainers who currently run this country. As aforementioned, Iraq + 9/11 + support from the easily manipulated masses = Anything the admin wants. Read Carbonyl and my signature, its so appropriate to these times that it is scary.
Remember that in the 2004 election. Bush lied on a grand scale and my countrymen died for it, as well as a native american mother from Tuba City, Arizona. WMD's should have been found by now. You can bet your sweet behind that the order of the day to all soldiers in Iraq is "FIND THE WMD'S!!!". No luck. I am happy the Saddam is out and Iraq is liberated. It is the lies and method used and cost to us taxpayers that bothers me. The same results could have been done in a different matter, if a well thought out plan
was placed in action, such as involving more middle east input and clandestine activities to evolve a solution. Bush put the military machine in action very early on, and to trace it back to its roots, you will find he was pissed at Saddam for the (failed) attempt on Bush Sr.'s life. He had to color this war differently to make his weak stance more palitable for world opinion and support. He barely has that now on a global scale, and this country had better remove his ars in 2004, cuz no telling what his next trick is going to be. For sure, its not focused on this economy or jobs. He isn't thinking of environmental issues, and he is pressing ahead with eroding our rights in America, and furthering the pandering to oil companies and financial donors to the republican party.
I'm still amazed no one is speaking out on the Haliburton winfall that Cheney gets for his company as a result of this invasion and the aftermath. If republicans think this is under the radar, just wait till the campaign 2004 gets underway. And remamber, bush is president as a result of a contested election and he won his brothers state with less than 600 votes. He has given us the largest defeict in decades, he squandered the surplus in a massive tax giveaway that helped the top not the bottom or middle class, and 2.5 million people who where earning a living and supporting their families are now forced into the unemployment line or on government assistance.
We may have done some good for Iraq, and maybe Afghanistan, but domestic issues will be the things this president will have to answer to, and he better find WMD's or ther lie will haunt him too.
And one thing is for sure Michael. You are the person who will be first to attack me if I post anything, even though you have nothing to substantiate your arguments. Here again, you offer nothing. Keep up the personal attacks. I'm sure some mods are watching.
BTW, where is the prediction? Or is reading comprehension not tought in Canada where you got your education?
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Calm down guys, you're going to make Ultra have an anyurism as he frantically beats his computer keys draped in nothing other than an American flag and singing Hail to the Chief
Ultra, you say four other countries invaded as well? Poland had 200 troops there, hardly a contribution, Australia had what, around 2000? And why do you think any of the 40 or so countries in the "coalition of the willing" (hahahahaha) even participated? Do you think Micronesia really cares whether Iraq is a threat to its naighbours? I don't think so. They were in it for the money. Spin it as you want Ultra, the reason given to the world was the threat posed to the world by Iraq possesing, without a doubt and with unquestionable evidence, WMD. No one would support this if it was to remove a brutal dictator, and even Iraq's neighbours, whe were supposedly threatened, did not go out of their way to support military action. The only enthusiastic supporter in that area was Israel, and it is not our responsibility to do that countries dirty work. We gave a justification, it turned out to be crap, and save some mammoth discovery, the credibility of the US has been hurt thanks to that monkey and his trainers who currently run this country. As aforementioned, Iraq + 9/11 + support from the easily manipulated masses = Anything the admin wants. Read Carbonyl and my signature, its so appropriate to these times that it is scary.
Your state of oligophrenia is becoming more advanced. I am not trying to spin anything. I am simply refuting what has been posted here. Were there any countries out there who were saying that Iraq did not have WMD? No. Did our admin. use more than one reason for justifying the war with Iraq? Yes. Did we act alone? No. You can continue to change the subject or ask corrollary questions all you want. I don't really care. What I have stated is fact which cannot be said for every post in this thread.
You're dismissed.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
Tripleshot - I had zero attacks in my post - I just said I find comfort that you're always wrong with political predictions. You, of course, tossed in an attack on my education. I guessing you go through cycles where your meds were off and I'm sure I'll see a PM or a post from you where you threaten to get physical with me.
If you care, I find you amusing, a clown. I post when I see your posts to note my amusement. Your replies are usually even funnier than your original posts. You're good at being a buffoon, you should try it as a profession. Or you can be a network political commentator, they're about as accurate as you are.
I'm not worried about the mods. I haven't changed my posting style in the years I have been posting here. I've had a sum total of 1 post locked, and that was deliberate on my part when they banned a word that I thought was stupid for them to ban.
You, on the other hand, have multiple bannings. Mainly because you don't value freedom and try to make threats against people who do not share your views.
Michael
ps - To be clear, I'm waiting for the news on WMD as well. Many of the decisions the US makes are based on inteligence reports. They missed the lead up to 9/11 and it looks like they screwed up here as well. I waiting for the CIA to be cleaned out, top to bottom.
If you care, I find you amusing, a clown. I post when I see your posts to note my amusement. Your replies are usually even funnier than your original posts. You're good at being a buffoon, you should try it as a profession. Or you can be a network political commentator, they're about as accurate as you are.
I'm not worried about the mods. I haven't changed my posting style in the years I have been posting here. I've had a sum total of 1 post locked, and that was deliberate on my part when they banned a word that I thought was stupid for them to ban.
You, on the other hand, have multiple bannings. Mainly because you don't value freedom and try to make threats against people who do not share your views.
Michael
ps - To be clear, I'm waiting for the news on WMD as well. Many of the decisions the US makes are based on inteligence reports. They missed the lead up to 9/11 and it looks like they screwed up here as well. I waiting for the CIA to be cleaned out, top to bottom.
OpEd Washinton Post
Inspections agreements -- no matter how coercive -- never could have worked because they never addressed the fundamental issue: Hussein's desire to preserve WMD ambiguity in order to preserve Iraq's perceived influence and power. Removing that ambiguity would have removed Hussein's ability to bully, bluster and blackmail the world. Perversely, U.N. Resolution 1441's poorly implemented inspection protocols fed the worst fears of both sides. Iraq's perfunctory compliance and deceitful history guaranteed that the United States would distrust the U.N.'s lackluster assurances of compliance. By contrast, Iraq's desire to be feared guaranteed that it would always manufacture just enough ambiguity to preserve its aura of menace. The inspectors' tortured attempts to appear evenhanded succeeded only in generating even greater ambiguities about both Iraq's willingness to comply and the weapons in its possession. And Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's dramatic yet desperate presentation before the U.N. Security Council was harshly attacked by critics who maintained that, yes, America's WMD evidence was inconclusively ambiguous.
I agree with everything except the notion that Powell's evidenciary presentation was inconclusively ambiguous . . . it was CONCLUSIVELY ambiguous.
Inspections agreements -- no matter how coercive -- never could have worked because they never addressed the fundamental issue: Hussein's desire to preserve WMD ambiguity in order to preserve Iraq's perceived influence and power. Removing that ambiguity would have removed Hussein's ability to bully, bluster and blackmail the world. Perversely, U.N. Resolution 1441's poorly implemented inspection protocols fed the worst fears of both sides. Iraq's perfunctory compliance and deceitful history guaranteed that the United States would distrust the U.N.'s lackluster assurances of compliance. By contrast, Iraq's desire to be feared guaranteed that it would always manufacture just enough ambiguity to preserve its aura of menace. The inspectors' tortured attempts to appear evenhanded succeeded only in generating even greater ambiguities about both Iraq's willingness to comply and the weapons in its possession. And Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's dramatic yet desperate presentation before the U.N. Security Council was harshly attacked by critics who maintained that, yes, America's WMD evidence was inconclusively ambiguous.
I agree with everything except the notion that Powell's evidenciary presentation was inconclusively ambiguous . . . it was CONCLUSIVELY ambiguous.
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Iraq's weakness exposed openly in that region could have lead to a threat of invasion
from Iran, which had been involved on an 8 year long war with Iraq.
Strip away the charade, and a perceived weak ineffective Iraq was ripe for the picking.
If Iran had infact launched an invasion, Iraq would have been hard pressed to
defend or to repel the approaching milita.
Would the U.S. have intervened on the side of Iraq - of course.
We would have made every attempt to liberate the oil.
Our Inteligence agents controlled what they wanted known for their purposes.
from Iran, which had been involved on an 8 year long war with Iraq.
Strip away the charade, and a perceived weak ineffective Iraq was ripe for the picking.
If Iran had infact launched an invasion, Iraq would have been hard pressed to
defend or to repel the approaching milita.
Would the U.S. have intervened on the side of Iraq - of course.
We would have made every attempt to liberate the oil.
Our Inteligence agents controlled what they wanted known for their purposes.
I have bolded your attack above. You again have demenstrated you are in this thread not to offer any debate but to illicet a response by provoking an an attack from me. The members who see you do this, see you for who you really are, a petty, malcontent with an obvious agenda---none of which has to do with debating the issues.
Get a life, Michael. Your regergatation of slander about meds or my being banned is tiresome and inmature. You started this, now end it. If you continue to prod and follow me thread to thread with your slander and libelous rehtoric, you may have to worry about mods.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
Tripleshot - Yawn. Find the "attack" in the first post I made.
I really doubt that the mods will have issue with me responding to a post you made on a public forum. I also doubt they'll mind my directness in my response after you "attacked" me. If they do, they'll tell me. If it makes you feel better, feel free to forward the thread on to them for comment.
I'm also guessing the "meds" comment is factual which is why it worries you so much.
Other than the posts where you threaten people with physical harm, I have zero issues with you stating your opinion here and have never argued otherwise.
Michael
sorry - forgot to add this. I'm just being factually correct when I state that you have been banned multiple times.
I really doubt that the mods will have issue with me responding to a post you made on a public forum. I also doubt they'll mind my directness in my response after you "attacked" me. If they do, they'll tell me. If it makes you feel better, feel free to forward the thread on to them for comment.
I'm also guessing the "meds" comment is factual which is why it worries you so much.
Other than the posts where you threaten people with physical harm, I have zero issues with you stating your opinion here and have never argued otherwise.
Michael
sorry - forgot to add this. I'm just being factually correct when I state that you have been banned multiple times.
If the discussions are this heated over handing over the responsibilities of finding the WMD (the KNOWN WMD, right Alistar7?), what will they be like if none are ever found?
It's also kind of amusing that UQ says he's going to point out everytime someone fires off a personal attack, yet when it's pointed out that he's guilty of the same offense he he tells the member to shut up. WTF?
As to your question UQ, I don't recall anybody other than Iraq saying that they were certain Iraq didn't possess WMD? However I can think of at least one country who had stated that they were certain that Iraq did possess WMD. See the difference?
It's also kind of amusing that UQ says he's going to point out everytime someone fires off a personal attack, yet when it's pointed out that he's guilty of the same offense he he tells the member to shut up. WTF?
As to your question UQ, I don't recall anybody other than Iraq saying that they were certain Iraq didn't possess WMD? However I can think of at least one country who had stated that they were certain that Iraq did possess WMD. See the difference?
I suggest you go back and read again what I said i was going to point out every time it was posted. It wasn't personal attacks.
Of course I see the difference but we were hardly the only ones who were positive that Iraq had WMD. That list includes every member of the UN Security Council at a minimum.
Yeah, but we were the only ones positive that they possesed them on a scale large enough to pose an immenent threat to the United States and b, we provided "evidence" showing where they were and what the facilities that housed them looked like. Why can't you just admit that not finding any WMD is going to make the US look very, very bad? It's an undeniable truth.
I don't recall saying that we wouldn't look bad . . . because I never did. Of course we'll look bad. It was our entering argument for the war (although not our only one) and no one will remember that everyone was convinced that Iraq had WMD. The argument among nations was never if Iraq needed to be disarmed it was the how.
I think what is going to really make us look bad is that our evidence was BS, and ironically, Iraq was the one telling the truth when they said they no longer posess WMD. There is a major credibility issue at stake here, and liberating a people is not going to be enough to convince the world that we were right either way.
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I suggest you go back and read again what I said i was going to point out every time it was posted. It wasn't personal attacks.
You are correct and I was wrong. Of course, you don't mind if when you point out when someone breaks rule number 2, that someone tells you ...if you want to be a mod go talk to them about it otherwise shut up. . Do you?
Actually there was some debate as to the necessity of disarming Iraq. Bush won the broader argument by implying Saddam's history (plus anecdotal/contrived/forged evidence) was sufficient evidence that Saddam had an active, sizeable WMD program. It was only at that point . . . s/p Resolution 1441 . . . the debate became in earnest a question of methodology on how to disarm Saddam's regime.
Of course, disarmament was never the goal of this administration; just like democratic self-determination was never a goal of this administration. The goal was to end Saddam's regime . . . everything else is either gravy (control of Iraqi oil) or indigestion (Shi'ites/clerics replacing Ba'ath Party).
Of course, disarmament was never the goal of this administration; just like democratic self-determination was never a goal of this administration. The goal was to end Saddam's regime . . . everything else is either gravy (control of Iraqi oil) or indigestion (Shi'ites/clerics replacing Ba'ath Party).
We may be able to overcome it if we do it right. I think we will find them though. we just haven't had enough time to empty some warheads and ship some agent over there WMD.
Gaard feel free to point out whatever you want or attack as necessary. I don't whine about it, I just respond in kind. :beer:
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
The UN and all involved member nations - as well as the designated inspectors, were relying on the data provided by the U.S. Intelligence Agencies,
the British Inteligence agencies, and most like input from Israel, which could not categorically be mentioned because of potential bias to the data.
U.S. position within the UN offered no intelligence options, and refused to listen to dissent.
U.S. intelligence passed up to the Brain Trust became gospel and matra rolled into one.
Even when the British Inteligence tried to warn of potential disparities in the data, and
subsequently when FBI and CIA agents offered information that the inteligence being
paraded in fron of the UN was seriously flawed, they were essientially told to be quiet.
Some link data, boring read
The UN and the Inspectors under Blix came back and proved that the information that
was being presented by Powell was false and fabricated, the message was that if you
didn't go along with what we were teling them, we were prepared to go it alone, lies and all.
You are either with us or against us, and if you ain't with us, you're pro-terrorist.
Question of the DAY: Why is Iraqs' country-size now being expressed in a direct
reference to 'The Size of California' ? There are other states and/or countries that do
occupy a land mass simular in size to California - on the 'Left' coast.
Are the neo-cons preparing to launch a pre-emptive strike on California in case there are
any potential votes that are counterproductive to the Administrations 2004 goals ?
the British Inteligence agencies, and most like input from Israel, which could not categorically be mentioned because of potential bias to the data.
U.S. position within the UN offered no intelligence options, and refused to listen to dissent.
U.S. intelligence passed up to the Brain Trust became gospel and matra rolled into one.
Even when the British Inteligence tried to warn of potential disparities in the data, and
subsequently when FBI and CIA agents offered information that the inteligence being
paraded in fron of the UN was seriously flawed, they were essientially told to be quiet.
Some link data, boring read
The UN and the Inspectors under Blix came back and proved that the information that
was being presented by Powell was false and fabricated, the message was that if you
didn't go along with what we were teling them, we were prepared to go it alone, lies and all.
You are either with us or against us, and if you ain't with us, you're pro-terrorist.
Question of the DAY: Why is Iraqs' country-size now being expressed in a direct
reference to 'The Size of California' ? There are other states and/or countries that do
occupy a land mass simular in size to California - on the 'Left' coast.
Are the neo-cons preparing to launch a pre-emptive strike on California in case there are
any potential votes that are counterproductive to the Administrations 2004 goals ?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter