Print

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 20 2006, 08:15 PM)

More insults, more bs, no facts.

U.S., France reject Iran request for more talks

Actually, your link supported my point. You're the only one spitting BS. They said there's no point in talks until Iran suspends its nuclear weapons program.

QUOTE

What great timing of the this 'study' after Republicans losing the election. Besides, Bush didn't even mention that he will follow either one of the 3 plans.

HAHAHA. As I said before, Bush has said all along it's up to the generals on the ground.

QUOTE

I don't think Bush is very favorable as a result of the war, not because he is a conservative. So throw more insults and less facts, because you stick your foot up your mouth.

When have I EVER stuck my foot in my mouth? You've been lying the whole time. Do you really still think you're right? We both know you didn't like Bush as soon as he became president. It's easy to discern simply from your comments about Republicans. You're not smart enough to be good at lying. Yes I'm putting you down now.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 21 2006, 03:28 AM)

Also, if anyone besides fug ster  or throwingks ever actually reads these threads take a read here. This is from the man that fug ster thinks the US should have direct talks with. In short, he denies the holocaust ever happened and insinuates that the state of palestine is being punished for it. He also goes on to say that he can see the day when israel and US are wiped off the map. His actions support his claims because he funds Al Qaeda(this has been openly spoken about in the news for the past month or so) and Hezbollah. He openly praises Hezbollah as well.

If the US were to have direct talks with him, what would they say? He thinks we are "the great satan".

You're very intelligent, its pug_ster and not fug ster, moron.  Maybe he is a madman and such, problem with Bush like Ahmadinejad is that they are all talk and no action.  If the US is not going to attack Iran, don't provoke them by telling them 'axis of evil.'  Hardline Muslims like Ahmadinejad rose to power because Muslim's discontent towards the US.

QUOTE

Do you guys really think if we weren't in Iraq everything would be fine? Do you really think Iraq is for nothing? You've stated that you think the Iraq war has made everything worse, but you're getting confused on which came first, the chicken or the egg. Things have been like this over there for how many decades? Now you're just hearing about it. We learned our lesson on isolationism with WW2. Again we tried it and again we were attacked on our own soil and dragged into it and again we're going to have to end it. Yet you want to stick your heads in the sand. 85% of the Iraqis that voted, voted for Democracy. Yet you lie and say they don't want it.

I've said that Bush's idealistic quest to spread demoracy is one thing.  But the failure to execute is another.  And that's what everybody is complaining aboiut.  Why can't Bush be more forthcoming about freeing Iraq from Saddam as a primary reason rather than excuses of wmd?  

QUOTE

You need to get your facts straight and open your eyes. You're severely misguided because if you think we can go back to life pre-2001 you're crazy. The war on terror must be fought. Nobody knows what it will take to keep extremists from trying to cleanse the world of "US" but it must be fought.

Who did 9/11?  Taliban in Afghanistan not Iraq.  Yet Bush pulled troops and money out from Afghanistan and sends it to Iraq.  If we didn't do that, we would've probably have Bin Laden's head and have a better position on influence in the Middle East.  Instead, we seem to be the occupiers of the Middle East.  Spare me that bs on pre-9/11 crap when Bush is not doing his job.  

QUOTE

Actually, your link supported my point. You're the only one spitting BS. They said there's no point in talks until Iran suspends its nuclear weapons program.

You've said that Iraq don't want to have talks on Nuclear disarmerment yet I provided an link to counter it.  And now you said the link support your point.  Who's shoving his foot up his a$$?  Sad.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 21 2006, 10:50 AM)

You're very intelligent, its pug_ster and not fug ster, moron. Maybe he is a madman and such, problem with Bush like Ahmadinejad is that they are all talk and no action. If the US is not going to attack Iran, don't provoke them by telling them 'axis of evil.' Hardline Muslims like Ahmadinejad rose to power because Muslim's discontent towards the US.

Fug ster:

HAHAHAHAHAH All talk and no action? Yeah that's why Bush told Iraq if they didn't comply we'd take action. How can you complain about the war on terror on one hand and say Bush takes no action on the other? It's because you're stupid. Sorry man.... it's a long time overdue. I think Iran's leader will take action as well. He got his position that way. He believes God told him to do these things. We have no reason to believe otherwise. How is pointing them out they are funding the very people that kill us provoking them?

QUOTE

I've said that Bush's idealistic quest to spread demoracy is one thing. But the failure to execute is another. And that's what everybody is complaining aboiut. Why can't Bush be more forthcoming about freeing Iraq from Saddam as a primary reason rather than excuses of wmd?

..... because that's why we went in. You act like you knew before we went in they didn't have them. You didn't. Our intelligence thought they did. Give this one up. It's a matter of fact. The facts simply prove you wrong. Do you think the rest of us have forgotten?

QUOTE

Who did 9/11? Taliban in Afghanistan not Iraq. Yet Bush pulled troops and money out from Afghanistan and sends it to Iraq. If we didn't do that, we would've probably have Bin Laden's head and have a better position on influence in the Middle East. Instead, we seem to be the occupiers of the Middle East. Spare me that bs on pre-9/11 crap when Bush is not doing his job.

The Taliban didn't do it. You show your lack of comprehension. You have no clue. The taliban was harboring Al Qaeda. That's why we got rid of them. Once we got rid of them we moved on. We spent too much time and money looking for UBL when he wasn't even in Afghanistan anymore.

 

What is doing his job? I think making American safe is his job and he has obviously done that.

QUOTE

You've said that Iraq don't want to have talks on Nuclear disarmerment yet I provided an link to counter it. And now you said the link support your point. Who's shoving his foot up his a$$? Sad.

They didn't want to have talks on nuclear disarmament and that link clearly proved it. Had you read, Iran said they wouldn't disarm. They said why shouldn't we have the right. They already stated that they weren't going to disarm. Thus why Condy said that until they stopped their nuke program there was nothing to talk about. I'm so sick of keeping your lies in order. I honestly don't believe you mean to lie. I think you're just not smart enough to put all the facts together.

 

To the last question...... obviously you did.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Nov 21 2006, 07:31 AM)

Next week you will be telling us Al Qaeda has training camps in Iran. Next month you will be telling us Al Qaeda has armed it's self with WMD supplied by "him" the Irainian tyrant. Next year NBC may suggest Bush and Ahmadinejad are secret lovers.

Right so why listen to the news at all? Why even have this debate because none of us know anything firsthand? What is your point son?

QUOTE

Just because some things are suggested by a story hungry reporter does not make it true, you as a police officier should know this.

It does not make it untrue. Jumping to conclusions is one thing and people are usually wrong. It has been all but proven that what I am saying is true. You on the other hand assumed that I am a police officer when I never said that

QUOTE

The war on terror will be a never ending battle, there will always be a minority that disagree's with the majority. You can not please everyone as history has proven. You can either get on with life or you can kid yourself that security and the nanny state will keep you safe.

You can't go on living life with people pummelling you into submission. They have proven to us time and time again that unless we keep them suppressed they will come to our doorstep and impose their will. Have fun burying your head in the sand. Good thing there's people out there smart enough to ensure that you have that head that you choose to bury.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 21 2006, 09:03 PM)

Fug ster:

HAHAHAHAHAH All talk and no action? Yeah that's why Bush told Iraq if they didn't comply we'd take action. How can you complain about the war on terror on one hand and say Bush takes no action on the other? It's because you're stupid. Sorry man.... it's a long time overdue. I think Iran's leader will take action as well. He got his position that way. He believes God told him to do these things. We have no reason to believe otherwise. How is pointing them out they are funding the very people that kill us provoking them?
..... because that's why we went in. You act like you knew before we went in they didn't have them. You didn't. Our intelligence thought they did. Give this one up. It's a matter of fact. The facts simply prove you wrong. Do you think the rest of us have forgotten?

It is hopeless to post anything anymore who insults people more than they post something relevant to the topic.  Oh wait, you don't insult people.  This is the reason why some conservative Christians and just plain blind and ignorant.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 21 2006, 07:33 PM)

It is hopeless to post anything anymore who insults people more than they post something relevant to the topic. Oh wait, you don't insult people. This is the reason why some conservative Christians and just plain blind and ignorant.

 

Well the blind and ignorant part is definitely all on you. You say that I insult you but yet the only thing I had said up until my most recent posts is that you have a lack of comprehension. That simply means you don't understand what I'm saying. That was obvious because I'd say something and you would interpret it a totally random and obscure way that had no bearing on reality. That was an observation... not a putdown. Meanwhile you call me a moron. If you think that, it's ok. I call you stupid because you clearly are not smart... thus stupid. You're a hypocrite of the worst kind. This forum has become you and I disagreeing over and over. I apologize to everyone EXCEPT you.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Nov 22 2006, 07:05 AM)

You are putting forward a rumour and are taking it as if it has already been proven and I'm not your Son. Thank God.

It's no rumor junior. Why stick up for them?

QUOTE

Well you work for the Police, I wasn't far off..you could be anything from tea boy to Columbo...

Ok you have no point here. Reporters often take what I say and manipulate it into something that I did not say.
(Very much like mother fug_ster) When everyone knows and reports it, it is no longer a rumor. Nobody says, "it's rumored that Iran supplies x thing". We all know they do because we do not have our head in that sand.

QUOTE

No one is pummelling us into submission or has even got close to what you are suggesting since WW2. The government has you well trained, I'll keep my head below deck while you get yours blown off for some neo cons in Washington.
 

 

HAHAHAHA now THAT is hilarious. The liberals have you trained. Do you think it's more dangerous in the US or in Iraq? I think unanimously we would say Iraq but the fact is, ~3000 innocent civillians died here in an attack. ~3000 troops have died in Iraq. It's pretty close. So here's the facts, the U.S.S coal. The airliner that was shot down (can't remember where). 9/11. Different embassy's. They are all attacks on the US. They are NOT against a uniformed military like WW2. We ignored it until they came to our homeland and did it. They intend to keep doing it. These are all facts. They have been occupied in Iraq fighting out soldiers rather than killing civillians since then. They want to kill us. If you don't believe that then you're seriously an idiot. So yes, it is painfully obvious that if we don't keep them suppressed like we have been that they will come back and continue their onslaught. They have said as much. Your content with being ignorant sickens me.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 22 2006, 08:39 AM)

HAHAHAHA now THAT is hilarious. The liberals have you trained. Do you think it's more dangerous in the US or in Iraq? I think unanimously we would say Iraq but the fact is, ~3000 innocent civillians died here in an attack. ~3000 troops have died in Iraq. It's pretty close.

Are you insinuating that there are the same number of American people in Iraq as in the U.S.A? Mathematically Iraq is exponentially more dangerous.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 22 2006, 08:14 AM)

Are you insinuating that there are the same number of American people in Iraq as in the U.S.A? Mathematically Iraq is exponentially more dangerous.

Not at all. Quit trying to look for loopholes in things I say and trying to trap me. What I said is not flawed.

You are saying that since there's far fewer people over there but since roughly the same number died then Iraq is more dangerous. #1 I never contested the fact that Iraq is more dangerous. #2 the timeline the people died in makes it blatantly obvious what I'm trying to say. In 15 minutes ~3000 died in wtc. In ~3 years ~3000 died in Iraq. It's tough to make the case that we will be safe if we quit the war on terror. It's tough to say that we have to lose the war on terror. That attitute is so (stupid is not harsh enough) that I can't even imagine what kind of decisions people that say that would make in life.

 

So now you should see the point I'm driving at. It's impossible to make the case that too many soldiers have died fighting the war on terror. We lost around the same number of innocent civillians before we were fighting it. What makes people think it will be any better? What makes people think they are done? Why do say it's Neo con propaganda? Do you still beleive that the president orchestrated 9/11? That's the kind of logic some of you are using. It's sad.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 22 2006, 09:21 AM)

#1 I never contested the fact that Iraq is more dangerous.

QUOTE

Do you think it's more dangerous in the US or in Iraq? I think unanimously we would say Iraq but the fact is, ~3000 innocent civillians died here in an attack. ~3000 troops have died in Iraq. It's pretty close.

I don't know why I even try.   It is not the same number. I think you have a major problem with understanding how numbers work. This is 1 example and the other is you not understanding that this section is 5 active threads, which was discussed before.

To remain on topic. I agree with Al-qaeda. I praise America that Democrats have gained power. In 8 years, if A Democrat is the incumbent, I will praise America that Republicans have gained power.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 22 2006, 08:59 AM)

I don't know why I even try. It is not the same number. I think you have a major problem with understanding how numbers work. This is 1 example and the other is you not understanding that this section is 5 active threads, which was discussed before.

To remain on topic. I agree with Al-qaeda. I praise America that Democrats have gained power. In 8 years, if A Democrat is the incumbent, I will praise America that Republicans have gained power.

 

Lol I don't know why you even try either. The 5 threads thing was pointless because you were wrong. I understood but you were lying for your own cause. Also, I didn't insinuate that it was as dangerous here as over there. Notice how I said I think it would be unanimous it would be iraq. Then I say BUT the numbers of deaths are ~3000. They are pretty close. Not the danger is pretty close. I was trying to drive a different point. No matter what, you're still wrong I'm wondering why I even bother explaining anything to you guys.

 

Also, you probably don't know this by what I say, but I feel that no elected official should ever be re-nominated unless time of war demands it.

[throwingks]

In the last 14 days thee have been under 10 active topics here. I am not counting how many you posted in. I dont really care. Keep slinging because, let me tell you, you don't come off any more correct or any more intelligent with all the nonsense. The only person you are hurting is yourself, credibility-wise.

If you feel the War in Iraq helps with homeland security then go for it, but others are not so blind. The War in Iraq helps get more Democratic nations in the Middle East which helps Americas democratic cause, in the Middle East. The truth is, it should be the U.N.s cause. But, Bush didn't want to listen when the U.N. said you don't have probable cause. France was considered pussies by America so much that we called French Fries, Freedom Fries because we couldn't understand why they wouldn't back us. The truth is, because we did not have the intelligence to go over there. Or, if we did, like you say, we weren't in the mood to show the World our intelligence. France and the others that questioned us were the brave smart nations, not us. And, we are yet to prove them otherwise.

Leaving now would be bad. But, there is no plan to say when it is right. That is my problem. We went there, that is done, no changing if it was wrong or right. What are the attainable goals, so that we can leave?

[pug_ster]

http://www.cbsnews.c...in2204944.shtml

It seems that there are more than 100 Iraqi civilians killed every day due to the senseless violence every day.  It is already a civil war when ordinary civilians kill each other and Bush didn't even address this problem and you can send 100,000 more troops and it won't address this issue.  Many conservative experts already concluded that Iraq is a lost cause and we have to leave.  Unfortunately, Bush don't acknowledge and poured more american money and blood into it.

BCfosheezy, you just don't see the signs that Bush's war on terror is essentially putting more fuel to the fire.  Iraq used to be enemies Iran and Syria now they are having peace talks without us.  The rise of power of Hardliner Muslim like Ahmadinejad in Iran.  The assassination of a popular Christian Politican in Lebanon.  All this is caused by the rift between US and the Muslim nations in the Middle East.

You can complain about how we must win the war on terror when Bush doesn't even fix the root cause, which is the discontent of Muslims towards Christians.  These terrorist organizations feeds off the hate from ordinary Muslims which would otherwise don't care.  The US have such paranoia towards Muslims and incidents like this wouldn't happen pre-9/11.  Even the pope is doing a better effort to strengthen relations between Christians and Muslims visiting them.

Bush is fighting the war on terror like how we are fighting the Vietnam war because of 'communist agression.'  We won the peace at Vietnam today because we lost the war 30 years ago.  Whether you understand it or not, most Americans don't want a war, they want peace.  And unless Bush does start looking at the root causes, we won't have peace.  BCfosheezy, you can do all the namecalling you want, but like many others said in this thread, the only person who you try to make an a$$ of is yourself.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 22 2006, 09:40 AM)

In the last 14 days thee have been under 10 active topics here. I am not counting how many you posted in. I dont really care. Keep slinging because, let me tell you, you don't come off any more correct or any more intelligent with all the nonsense. The only person you are hurting is yourself, credibility-wise.

I really don't think ANY of us have any credibility on an internet forum. You don't. I don't. Pug doesn't. It's a draw on credibility. Why does topics that I've posted in matter? I have been posting here for maybe 2 months?

QUOTE

If you feel the War in Iraq helps with homeland security then go for it, but others are not so blind. The War in Iraq helps get more Democratic nations in the Middle East which helps Americas democratic cause, in the Middle East. The truth is, it should be the U.N.s cause. But, Bush didn't want to listen when the U.N. said you don't have probable cause.

Wrong. The U.N. agreed but would never take action. You have to have probable cause to do inspections. Then Iraq refused inspections and wouldn't comply. That's probable cause. You're blatantly lying.

QUOTE

France was considered pussies by America so much that we called French Fries, Freedom Fries because we couldn't understand why they wouldn't back us. The truth is, because we did not have the intelligence to go over there. Or, if we did, like you say, we weren't in the mood to show the World our intelligence. France and the others that questioned us were the brave smart nations, not us. And, we are yet to prove them otherwise.

Not true. It is well-known that Jacque Chirac and Saddam were sleeping in the same bed. If not for the oil for food scandal with Kofe Anon holding up the U.N. I'll post an excerpt that demonstrates Chirac's "bravery". You're a sheep.

CODE

The two first met in 1975, when Chirac was prime minister for the first time, and almost instantly warmed up to one another.

Chirac became the first French leader to make an official visit to Baghdad that year, and to deepen his ties with Saddam who was vice president and "strongman" at the time.

Saddam showed his appreciation by approving a deal under which Iraq committed to granting French oil companies a number of privileges plus a 23 percent share of Iraqi oil.

Chirac repaid the favor by approving the construction of Iraq's first nuclear-power center, Tammuz, near Baghdad. The project, which subsequently emerged as the core of Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, was destroyed in an Israeli air raid in September 1980.

In 1976 Saddam paid an official visit to France, his first and last to any Western country, and was received by Chirac as a head of state.

It was not until 1991 that Chirac broke contacts with Saddam as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

The friendship forged between the two men proved profitable for both sides. France sold an estimated $20 billion worth of weapons, including Mirage fighters, to Iraq, and emerged as Iraq's biggest trading partner, in a wide-range of civilian goods and services, after Russia. In exchange, Iraq focused on France as its largest oil market in Europe.

http://www.benadoras...com/article/123

QUOTE

Leaving now would be bad. But, there is no plan to say when it is right. That is my problem. We went there, that is done, no changing if it was wrong or right. What are the attainable goals, so that we can leave?

Iraq can protect it's government from the clear and present threats. That's the goal. It's always been the goal and it has been stated MANY, MANY times. There's no point in leaving now since everything you've worked for will be immediately destroyed. They are trying to train Iraq military. Once they are strong the government will not yeild to violence. People then will be forced to realize that the game of blood doesn't win and they must switch over to the game of politics.

[throwingks]

I have not lied ever, I may have been misinformed about something (not this) but I don't lie. If all you can do is attack integrity, fuck off, I'm done. Despite multiple people explaining to you where you misunderstand, misread, you refuse to pay attention to anything if it goes against your thought process.

With everything here as a written history of what is said, you still have a bad memory.

In a debate, you pick a side and defend it. After all possibilities of a counter-point have been exhausted you win. I don't understand why you bring in things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, throwing out personal insults, such as, "you are lying", "you're a sheep" or "you are stupid." Give up your act, it's tired. Pug made a point, instead of trying to invalidate his point, you invalidate him. Even if he is a blatant liar, and an idiot (which I do not think), that does not make his point any less valid. You seem to think it does.

The reason I called you an idiot earlier is because I believe the way you discuss issues is idiotic. Nothing to do with your points, its the way you include your input, it's idiotic.