Print Page - Al-qaeda Leader In Iraq Praises Republican Defeat

http://newsvote.bbc....ast/6137082.stm

A statement purportedly from the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq hails the defeat of Republicans in the US mid-term polls.

The audio message, whose authenticity has not been verified, was published on Islamist websites and was said to be the voice of Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

The Democrats' victory in Tuesday's Congressional elections was a move in the right direction, the speaker said.

Outgoing US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had stepped down to flee the Iraqi battlefield, he added.

He told US President George W Bush to "stay on the battleground".

"I tell the lame duck (US administration) do not rush to escape as did your defence minister. "The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.

What nut would promote terrorists propaganda?

Maybe you can ask the fear mongers themselves.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 14 2006, 10:20 PM)

What nut would promote terrorists propaganda?

Maybe you can ask the fear mongers themselves.

Posting this article is nothing like making a fear ad. There is nothing scary in it. I wondered what people here might have to say about Al Qaeda rejoicing over the Democrat win. How is posting a REAL news article promoting terrorist propaganda?.... Simply because it could be looked at negatively towards the Democrats it's bad?

You call it on what you think real news. The Republicans lost all creditability and are so desparate for Americans to vote for them that they used terrorists to make a point.

Al Qaeda have been making threats since Regan was president, but you never see Republicans use them to campagain for votes until Bush came along.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 15 2006, 06:06 PM)

You call it on what you think real news. The Republicans lost all creditability and are so desparate for Americans to vote for them that they used terrorists to make a point.

There is no election coming up so your point is hilariously wrong. This is a real story. It aired on all news outlets. It's on BBC NOT Fox. Why do you proclaim anything negative against the democrats as propaganda?

QUOTE

Al Qaeda have been making threats since Regan was president, but you never see Republicans use them to campagain for votes until Bush came along.

Obviously the fact that the U.S. was never attacked on its own soil until Bush's term does not warrant listening to these claims. HAHA!!!

It is not news that is against Democrats. Al Qaeda make threats all the time. You twist the idea around that the Democratic led congress and senate will pull out when the person who can pull the troops is Bush and not the Senate and Congress. Meanwhile, Republican politicans believes that this war still can be won and hold on hope on the Baker commission to wave a magic wand and the problem is all fixed. Conservative and liberals experts says there is no 'victory' that Bush imagined years ago where you see Shites, Sunnis and kurds dancing together over defeat of Saddam.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 15 2006, 08:25 PM)

It is not news that is against Democrats. Al Qaeda make threats all the time. You twist the idea around that the Republican led congress and senate will pull out when the person who can pull the troops is Bush and not the Senate and Congress. Meanwhile, Republican politicans believes that this war still can be won and hold on hope on the Baker commission to wave a magic wand and the problem is all fixed. Conservative and liberals experts says there is no 'victory' that Bush imagined years ago where you see Shites, Sunnis and kurds dancing together over defeat of Saddam.

You're right, the news is FOR the democrats but that is beside the point. I never twisted any idea around. If so how did I do that? I NEVER said the Republican(I think you meant democrat) led house and Senate(Congress is both) will pull out.

Also, Bush is not the only one who can pull the troops out. Congress can override the president and had to approve the troops staying. This is all in the system of checks and balances that our constitution put in place. Basically you're wrong on all counts.

It's not that Republicans believe the war can be won. It's that they KNOW it HAS to be won. Losing the war on terror is not acceptable. Anyone with any sense knows that. Nobody thinks anyone can fix it. It's going to take time and nobody has EVER said anything different other than the democrats who won this election by making claims that they'd either pull out or speed up the process.

Even Bush said that it has been different from what they invisioned. What happened was the extremists who would be attacking and planning attacks on civillians are now attacking our troops overseas. Most Iraqi's have rejoiced over the fall of Saddam.

anyone else notice how gas prices were down before the election but rose dramatically after?

QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Nov 15 2006, 08:45 PM)

anyone else notice how gas prices were down before the election but rose dramatically after?

They didn't here....

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 16 2006, 03:43 AM)

You're right, the news is FOR the democrats but that is beside the point. I never twisted any idea around. If so how did I do that? I NEVER said the Republican(I think you meant democrat) led house and Senate(Congress is both) will pull out.

Also, Bush is not the only one who can pull the troops out. Congress can override the president and had to approve the troops staying. This is all in the system of checks and balances that our constitution put in place. Basically you're wrong on all counts.

Well, the problem is that Democrats don't have 60% majority so they can't override Bush's veto anyways.

QUOTE

It's not that Republicans believe the war can be won. It's that they KNOW it HAS to be won. Losing the war on terror is not acceptable. Anyone with any sense knows that. Nobody thinks anyone can fix it. It's going to take time and nobody has EVER said anything different other than the democrats who won this election by making claims that they'd either pull out or speed up the process.
Even Bush said that it has been different from what they invisioned. What happened was the extremists who would be attacking and planning attacks on civillians are now attacking our troops overseas. Most Iraqi's have rejoiced over the fall of Saddam.

The war HAS to be won is not a strategy. Sometimes you have to lose the battle in order to win the war. Besides, the popularity of the war will go down dramatically next year when the Democratic congress will start holding hearings on how Bush misled us into the war. By then, Bush's approval ratings will go to the 20's and probably into the teens. He will be the worst president in history since James Buchanan who couldn't stop the Civil war.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 16 2006, 08:31 AM)

Well, the problem is that Democrats don't have 60% majority so they can't override Bush's veto anyways.

If they were to make a strong case against it and have some legitimate points then they could get the 66 votes necessary in the senate to veto the president. Since they can't do that then it won't happen. It's 2/3, not 60%.

QUOTE

The war HAS to be won is not a strategy. Sometimes you have to lose the battle in order to win the war. Besides, the popularity of the war will go down dramatically next year when the Democratic congress will start holding hearings on how Bush misled us into the war. By then, Bush's approval ratings will go to the 20's and probably into the teens. He will be the worst president in history since James Buchanan who couldn't stop the Civil war.

I liked how the senators yesterday tried to tell the general what was not a strategy. It was just as meaningless as when you say it now. Nobody claimed it was a strategy except for you. Simply saying "what's going on is not a strategy" is not a strategy. The democrats have no plan. The American people have given them a chance to do it better than Bush like they said, and bottom line is they are not going to. They don't have a clue. Nobody has even so much as given a rational thought on what to do. All I've heard is, pull out. Cut off funding, or stay the course which we're already doing. Since pulling out and a timed withdrawal are not valid options, I'm looking forward to what the democrats do.

Also, your wild speculation on the president is unncecessary. We already know how you feel about him, nobody cares to hear your predictions.

QUOTE

Also, your wild speculation on the president is unncecessary. We already know how you feel about him, nobody cares to hear your predictions.

Nixon was dogged by watergate, Regan by Iran Contra, and Clinton by Monica. All was done because of Congress. You can say that I am making wild speculations. A year from now, you will eat your words.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 16 2006, 09:02 AM)

We can argue about whether Democrats, Republican or top Generals have a plan or not. Before the election, the media asks whether we should pull troops or not. Now the media asks when we should pull out. In about 2 years, you will see a Democrat running for president with a pullout plan.

You depicted how the media tells people what to think rather than letting the public hear the facts and form their own opinions. Without that you said nothing. In 2 years the Democrats might have a half-ass plan. So far all they do is wait on the Republicans to take a stand and then set up shop on the other side of the street.

QUOTE

Nixon was dogged by watergate, Regan by Iran Contra, and Clinton by Monica. All was done because of Congress. You can say that I am making wild speculations. A year from now, you will eat your words.

Nixon and Clinton were deemed to do something unconstitutional. Not sure what you're talking about with Regain. So far, nobody has came up with anything Bush has done that is unconstitutional. Even IF these bloodhounds come up with something to attempt to accuse the president of I wouldn't eat my words because all it would mean is you had a lucky guess. I don't think you will..... someone will eat their words and there is a great chance that it's not going to be me. The liberal spin wagon will do their best, but at the end of the day I think the American people will be tired of hearing how bad the Republican plan is without being countered by a better plan or any plan at all. The liberals may have convinced them over time that the war is for nothing, but they will not stay there long once they realize there is no substance.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 16 2006, 07:20 PM)

You depicted how the media tells people what to think rather than letting the public hear the facts and form their own opinions. Without that you said nothing. In 2 years the Democrats might have a half-ass plan. So far all they do is wait on the Republicans to take a stand and then set up shop on the other side of the street.

The Republicans complaining that Democrats have no plan is clearly a smokescreen of Republican's failures. The Democrats can ire retreat all they want but Bush won't listen to them so what's the use?

QUOTE

Nixon and Clinton were deemed to do something unconstitutional. Not sure what you're talking about with Regain. So far, nobody has came up with anything Bush has done that is unconstitutional. Even IF these bloodhounds come up with something to attempt to accuse the president of I wouldn't eat my words because all it would mean is you had a lucky guess. I don't think you will..... someone will eat their words and there is a great chance that it's not going to be me. The liberal spin wagon will do their best, but at the end of the day I think the American people will be tired of hearing how bad the Republican plan is without being countered by a better plan or any plan at all. The liberals may have convinced them over time that the war is for nothing, but they will not stay there long once they realize there is no substance.

The Gingrichites who staged Clinton's impeachment are not of moral ground. Newt, Richard Armey, Tom Delay, Henry Hyde, Robert Livingston, and Dan Burton, who burned Clinton have marriage issues or corruption issues. Those same type of people from the Republican corruption machine protected Bush from being investigated. Since they lost their majority, the Democratic Congress will be pushing the buttons on what kind of investigations they want. When the investigation on how Americans are misled on going to War on Iraq goes full swing, the republicans have to distance themselves from Bush and those Repubs won't be talking about 'staying the course' in Iraq anymore.

What did Clinton do that was deemed unconstitutional?

The impeachment was not about having an affair with Monica, rather lied about it. Yeah, that's what millions of our tax dollars was used for.

Shows that most Americans was sick and tired of the trial.

http://news.bbc.co.u..._out/278019.stm

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 16 2006, 11:27 PM)

The Republicans complaining that Democrats have no plan is clearly a smokescreen of Republican's failures. The Democrats can ire retreat all they want but Bush won't listen to them so what's the use?

It's not a smokescreen until someone shows this plan. Nobody has, nobody will commit to anything. YOU'RE providing the smokescreen to make an excuse for your party not having a plan.

QUOTE

The Gingrichites who staged Clinton's impeachment are not of moral ground. Newt, Richard Armey, Tom Delay, Henry Hyde, Robert Livingston, and Dan Burton, who burned Clinton have marriage issues or corruption issues. Those same type of people from the Republican corruption machine protected Bush from being investigated. Since they lost their majority, the Democratic Congress will be pushing the buttons on what kind of investigations they want. When the investigation on how Americans are misled on going to War on Iraq goes full swing, the republicans have to distance themselves from Bush and those Repubs won't be talking about 'staying the course' in Iraq anymore.

First of all, lying under oath is unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment. That answers all of the following remarks intended for entrapment. Why was I asked that anyways? The guy was impeached... face it. Your remarks on Bush being proven of wrongdoing are again outlandish. Give it up. You're not miss cleo.

Oh please, if what Clinton did in his personal life and doesn't conflict he does as president, it doesn't matter as long it is not illegal. Last I heard, having an affair might be immoral but not illegal. You ever seen any Democrats and Republicans are being investigated let alone impeached for doing so? No. Those Gingrichites forced Clinton to come out to answer those stupid personal questions while Gingrich himself doesn't have to stand up under oath to be questioned about his extramarital affair. Other presidents are known to have extramarrital affairs but did the congress impeach them because of that? no. Meanwhile Gingrich spends more taxpayer money on other meaningless investigations like whitewater, filegate, and travelgate.

Going back to your subject on "winning war on terror' and win the peace at Iraq is just pipe dreams now. The problem with Bush is that he wants to spread his ideals and his 'democracy' on those who don't want them. He knocked Iraq down and thinks Iran, Syria and all the other 'terrorist' regimes will fall like dominoes. Instead they gotten more united against US and because they feel their religion and way of life is attacked.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 17 2006, 01:02 PM)

Oh please, if what Clinton did in his personal life and doesn't conflict he does as president, it doesn't matter as long it is not illegal. Last I heard, having an affair might be immoral but not illegal. You ever seen any Democrats and Republicans are being investigated let alone impeached for doing so? No. Those Gingrichites forced Clinton to come out to answer those stupid personal questions while Gingrich himself doesn't have to stand up under oath to be questioned about his extramarital affair. Other presidents are known to have extramarrital affairs but did the congress impeach them because of that? no. Meanwhile Gingrich spends more taxpayer money on other meaningless investigations like whitewater, filegate, and travelgate.

Look, we can go back and forth on this all day. Fortunately there are courts to decide on this matter. We all know what they decided

You're barking up the wrong tree on this one because you didn't, you aren't and you will never win it.

QUOTE

Going back to your subject on "winning war on terror' and win the peace at Iraq is just pipe dreams now. The problem with Bush is that he wants to spread his ideals and his 'democracy' on those who don't want them. He knocked Iraq down and thinks Iran, Syria and all the other 'terrorist' regimes will fall like dominoes. Instead they gotten more united against US and because they feel their religion and way of life is attacked.

If we don't win the war on terror and it's not possible, then what alternative does that leave? Seriously think about what you're saying. You don't make nearly as much sense as you think you do.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 17 2006, 09:30 PM)

Look, we can go back and forth on this all day. Fortunately there are courts to decide on this matter. We all know what they decided

You're barking up the wrong tree on this one because you didn't, you aren't and you will never win it.

We will see what happens in the next 2 years, and you will be complaining that Democrats have nothing to do but to dog Bush. You didn't even bother to reply and dismiss what I said because it is true and you don't even have a counter argument.

QUOTE

If we don't win the war on terror and it's not possible, then what alternative does that leave? Seriously think about what you're saying. You don't make nearly as much sense as you think you do.

http://www.cbsnews.c...in2195169.shtml

Problem with you is that you are ignorant and don't see things others in the world sees it. You think that every country out there is fighting Bush's war on terror and agrees with Bush 100%. Bush thinks that he can call Iran and Syria the axis of evil and everybody else would agree. Yet countries like China or Russia still trades with them and they will probably get nukes unless Bush does something about that. Most of the Iranians thinks that it is their right to acqure nuclear weapons. So what else to do, maybe we can start nuking China and Russia because they are helping Iran. And then we can nuke Saudi Arabia because the people there provide the finances for 9/11.

Face it, Bush can't push his 'conservative compassion' policy to the middle east let alone to the US. Sometimes it is better to nothing than to make things worse.

Other countries don't really care about 'our democracy' and defense capability. Other countries admire us because of our culture and free market society. We couldn't pry into countries like China with the threat of weapons. Instead we made our influence by giving them ideas of individual ownership, listening to our rock music, and promise of jobs so that they can make our crap. We ran away from Vietnam 30 years ago yet they welcome us with opening arms today because they want the very same things that China got. Yet there are countries like Cuba where we still have nasty cold-war relations with because we have trade embargos with them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10533439/

Countries like Iran was taking in some of our culture until a hard liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad felt that our cultural influence have a negative effect.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 17 2006, 03:13 PM)

We will see what happens in the next 2 years, and you will be complaining that Democrats have nothing to do but to dog Bush. You didn't even bother to reply and dismiss what I said because it is true and you don't even have a counter argument.

http://www.cbsnews.c...in2195169.shtml

Problem with you is that you are ignorant and don't see things others in the world sees it. You think that every country out there is fighting Bush's war on terror and agrees with Bush 100%. Bush thinks that he can call Iran and Syria the axis of evil and everybody else would agree. Yet countries like China or Russia still trades with them and they will probably get nukes unless Bush does something about that. Most of the Iranians thinks that it is their right to acqure nuclear weapons. So what else to do, maybe we can start nuking China and Russia because they are helping Iran. And then we can nuke Saudi Arabia because the people there provide the finances for 9/11.

Face it, Bush can't push his 'conservative compassion' policy to the middle east let alone to the US. Sometimes it is better to nothing than to make things worse.

Well first off don't tell me what I think because not only are you totally wrong on everything, you are so far out there in all of your posts I'm wondering if you were in the slow class growing up. Put the Star Wars book down for a second Mortimer. I'm so tired of you trying to rip on me but then if I use the word "you" in a sentence you cry about how i can't talk about the subject at hand but rather, you. You're a hypocrite in the worst way.

Anyways, Bush didn't call those people "the Axis of evil" to garner support. He called them that because he declared war on terror and they are the ones supplying the people, money, and equipment to the major terror organizations. These other countries will only care if it's in their best political interests... hey that's politics. It's not as easy to get support when you're no more important to the countries you'd like to sway than the people you're trying to sway them against. Iran and Syria are assets as far as resources go. Everyone knows that and nobody wants to cut off their nose despite their face. We've been attacked inadvertantly by these people because they are fighting a proxy war with us through the terrorists. We have to protect ourselves, so what do we do?

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 17 2006, 03:13 PM)

We will see what happens in the next 2 years, and you will be complaining that Democrats have nothing to do but to dog Bush. You didn't even bother to reply and dismiss what I said because it is true and you don't even have a counter argument.

What do you mean "will be complaining the Democrats have nothing better to do but to dog Bush?". That's already the case. I don't need 2 years. In the recent election there was no Democrats running against the Republican candidate. They won running against Bush. They have been Bush bashing since he's been in office and finally wore the American people down. I didn't bother to reply because you're trying to fight a battle you've already lost. You're pathetic.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 18 2006, 04:41 AM)

Well first off don't tell me what I think because not only are you totally wrong on everything, you are so far out there in all of your posts I'm wondering if you were in the slow class growing up. Put the Star Wars book down for a second Mortimer. I'm so tired of you trying to rip on me but then if I use the word "you" in a sentence you cry about how i can't talk about the subject at hand but rather, you. You're a hypocrite in the worst way.

This is more like an insult thread to you than a topic talking about Al Qaeda and Republican defeat. In any case, the more you talk, the more you stick your foot up your a$$.

QUOTE

Anyways, Bush didn't call those people "the Axis of evil" to garner support. He called them that because he declared war on terror and they are the ones supplying the people, money, and equipment to the major terror organizations. These other countries will only care if it's in their best political interests... hey that's politics. It's not as easy to get support when you're no more important to the countries you'd like to sway than the people you're trying to sway them against. Iran and Syria are assets as far as resources go. Everyone knows that and nobody wants to cut off their nose despite their face. We've been attacked inadvertantly by these people because they are fighting a proxy war with us through the terrorists. We have to protect ourselves, so what do we do?

In any case, you probably don't know that the US don't have the political power and influence or police other countries around the world, as much as the press would suggest that we could.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 20 2006, 09:04 AM)

This is more like an insult thread to you than a topic talking about Al Qaeda and Republican defeat. In any case, the more you talk, the more you stick your foot up your a$$.

Again, you show how you see everything backwards. I have never been insulting to you (that ended a few posts ago and I will never hold my tongue again.)even though you claim so. I brought up a topic and you never talked about it but tried to talk about several other topics. THEN once you realized you could get nowhere by diverting the attention off the subject you tried to talk about me. Too bad you're not smart enough and your views are too crazy for you to be able to do that.

QUOTE

In any case, you probably don't know that the US don't have the political power and influence or police other countries around the world, as much as the press would suggest that we could.

Again, don't tell me what I know and what I do not know. You have no idea.

Talking about nothing about the topic at hand, as usual.

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=2667654

In any case, idealists like Bush said we have to win the war on terror but have no plan on doing so. Instead they create more enemies that hate and defy us. Since. the US won't have 'peace talks' with Iran and Syria, they decided to have one without us. Enemies or not, Bush made a huge mistake on not getting them involved on the peace process. At least before Saddam was toppled, they are not friendly towards Iran or Syria. Now it seems that Iraq will be close to those terrorist countries than ever before. Oh well, we have to be on terrorist watch for the next several decades because of Bush.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 20 2006, 12:52 PM)

Talking about nothing about the topic at hand, as usual.

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=2667654

In any case, idealists like Bush said we have to win the war on terror but have no plan on doing so. Instead they create more enemies that hate and defy us. Since. the US won't have 'peace talks' with Iran and Syria, they decided to have one without us. Enemies or not, Bush made a huge mistake on not getting them involved on the peace process. At least before Saddam was toppled, they are not friendly towards Iran or Syria. Now it seems that Iraq will be close to those terrorist countries than ever before. Oh well, we have to be on terrorist watch for the next several decades because of Bush.

Blatant lies right there. Had you paid ANY attention at all. The so-called peace talks were to be directly with the United States. As you have so vigorously preached, the US does not run the world, so why is the US the only ones that should get involved with talks? The clear answer is since the world is effected by someone else acquiring nuclear weapons, everyone else should be involved. The US did not reject talks, they rejected being the only ones involved in the talks. Again you show hypocracy and your willingness to simply lie to get people to believe you is sad.

If you ever paid attention to what is said you'd know. The Generals on the ground are the ones that make the call on how many troops, when we pull out and so forth. The president is not micro managing. Your facts are all skewed. Since you say they have no plan(they have and always HAVE had, from day 1 the president said it wouldn't be quick. You seem to have forgotten that.), from your very article there are links to 3 proposed plans from the pentagon. http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=2668070

Basically we all know you don't like Bush and you will lie and say anything to help others feel the same way. Stick to the facts..... oh wait those don't support your arguments.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 20 2006, 09:55 PM)

Blatant lies right there. Had you paid ANY attention at all. The so-called peace talks were to be directly with the United States. As you have so vigorously preached, the US does not run the world, so why is the US the only ones that should get involved with talks? The clear answer is since the world is effected by someone else acquiring nuclear weapons, everyone else should be involved. The US did not reject talks, they rejected being the only ones involved in the talks. Again you show hypocracy and your willingness to simply lie to get people to believe you is sad.

More insults, more bs, no facts.

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

QUOTE

If you ever paid attention to what is said you'd know. The Generals on the ground are the ones that make the call on how many troops, when we pull out and so forth. The president is not micro managing. Your facts are all skewed. Since you say they have no plan(they have and always HAVE had, from day 1 the president said it wouldn't be quick. You seem to have forgotten that.), from your very article there are links to 3 proposed plans from the pentagon. http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=2668070

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.

QUOTE

Basically we all know you don't like Bush and you will lie and say anything to help others feel the same way. Stick to the facts..... oh wait those don't support your arguments.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 22 2006, 01:50 PM)

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.

Well I'm glad you feel that way. People have tried to explain all of those things, and I did pay attention. I rebutted them. That is allowed. Once they attacked me, then I retaliated. If I was agreeing with you, you'd have a different perspective. Instead since I have good points and you cannot prove me wrong, you get mad and tell me that it's ok for everyone else to do it but somehow I'm a bad guy.

Edit: I just reread the quoted statement and in it you are saying that people have tried to enlighten me to the truth but I am so hard-headed that I refuse to accept the truth. That kind of arrogance is why you are not justified in talking to me the way you are. How are you not doing the same thing? We are all posting facts that we formed our opinions from yet you think you're right and refuse to listen to what I'm saying. Now you're trying to accuse me of doing that very thing. The hypocracy is getting thick in here. You know what the funny thing about it all is? I'm not a Republican. I just get all the facts and make decisions based on them. I don't let biased media determine what I think. Maybe if you tried that, you couldn't be called a sheep. I called you that because what you were saying had no foundation but you heard it from the media. You have been hearded. It's not a putdown, it's a wake-up call.

QUOTE

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.

If people bring up counter-points that are false and have no basis, am I expected to argue them or recite history and then say... you lied? I choose to simply recite history and tell them they lied. It's true and doesn't make it wrong. It would be a never-ending debate if I considered every fallacy here and argued it. Don't be mad simply because I don't let people slip lies in.

QUOTE

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.

I think the way you just jump in when you see an opportunity to attack me is idiotic. I think it's idiotic how you call me out for being harsh but nobody else when you all clearly called me "idiot" and "moron" when I hadn't yet used a putdown . "Lack of comprehension" was as far as I got, and that is no putdown. You're a hypocrite. You see things your way and anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. I started off being peaceful, but once people start calling me an idiot and clearly making things up I am going to start playing their game.

Just because 3 people don't agree with your standpoint does not mean they agree with each others. You are confusing what people say and melting it into 1. I have stated my viewpoint in post #44. Can you please tell me which news station agrees with what I said. I will start watching it. I do not like watching the news for the aforementioned reasons. I get most of my news information from google.com's and AOL's top stories. With a close 3rd place with abovetopsecret.com. Which herder am I following?

You made a good counter point to mine in post #46. That is not saying it is correct but it is the basis for a proper debate. I will have to look into it further.

You mistook my absence as seeking for your loopholes. Do not misunderstand, I left because I wanted to see if you were consistently errant in your arguments. The couple of times I posted, my will power got bested because of how outlandish some of your statements were. I am not even going to get into "Suicide is Selfish" I left that alone at the OPs request, as you didnt, and unfortunately you stirred the pot to the point where the thread was closed.

This used to be my favorite section on the boards, but unfortunately all of the fun people have either been banned or left in their better judgment. I honestly thought you would have left by now but I can tell you aren't so it looks like it is only you, me, pug and a little arvarden for now. Like it or not, there is not a lot of moderation in these parts, so have at it with all the shenanigans you want. I am surprised pug put up with you this long. You should be glad he did. You would have been chatting with yourself the last 2 weeks.

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 22 2006, 07:20 PM)

Just because 3 people don't agree with your standpoint does not mean they agree with each others. You are confusing what people say and melting it into 1. I have stated my viewpoint in post #44. Can you please tell me which news station agrees with what I said. I will start watching it. I do not like watching the news for the aforementioned reasons. I get most of my news information from google.com's and AOL's top stories. With a close 3rd place with abovetopsecret.com. Which herder am I following?

I've heard your viewpoint many times over by watching the news. I guess now you'll want me to pull up a broadcast of people that agree with you. If you mainly get your news online, how do you know that these news stations don't support your views?

QUOTE

You made a good counter point to mine in post #46. That is not saying it is correct but it is the basis for a proper debate. I will have to look into it further.

You mistook my absence as seeking for your loopholes. Do not misunderstand, I left because I wanted to see if you were consistently errant in your arguments. The couple of times I posted, my will power got bested because of how outlandish some of your statements were. I am not even going to get into "Suicide is Selfish" I left that alone at the OPs request, as you didnt, and unfortunately you stirred the pot to the point where the thread was closed.

I didn't mistake your absence as seeking for loopholes. Even your summation of what you did was re-wording of looking for loopholes. You may not have been active in your execution, it may have been passive as you say but it is the same. Any time you lurk and don't contribute until you see an opportunity to pounce THAT is exactly what I accused you of. You may not have meant to, but you admitted it.

Also, explain to me how permanently scarring your family, anyone who ever knew you, any loved ones, anyone at work, by not knowing how to deal with a temporary problem is not selfish. Once you can answer that without bs we'll talk. Until then you're just a close-minded individual that jumps on the compassionate bandwagon even when it's counter-productive. Wait until your children get to the age where kids start picking on them in school. Are you going to express your compassion that you obviously feel because you are a human and you love these little people? Or are you going to do what you know will be best for your child in the long run and support them, but teach them how to not be submissive and how to defend theirself (not necessarily physically)? Once you know what I mean by this, come back and tell me all about it. Until then, keep these comments to yourself because you don't realize, we both stand on the same side of that argument.

QUOTE

This used to be my favorite section on the boards, but unfortunately all of the fun people have either been banned or left in their better judgment. I honestly thought you would have left by now but I can tell you aren't so it looks like it is only you, me, pug and a little arvarden for now. Like it or not, there is not a lot of moderation in these parts, so have at it with all the shenanigans you want. I am surprised pug put up with you this long. You should be glad he did. You would have been chatting with yourself the last 2 weeks.

I feel that with politics as partisan as they are today we will see this forum go away very soon. It is increasingly difficult to have a mature conversation about it. People want to speak but not listen. (I realize you believe I am guilty of this.) I don't believe the nation has ever been so divided. I believe that nobody cares anymore about what is best for our country, but rather what is best for their party. I believe that people will believe what ever the news media tells them. I believe coming here and posting is fighting a losing battle. I read this forum for well over a year. I watched people like Pug_ster and jhad ur or whatever his name was come in here and say things that were so radical and blatantly untrue that I felt it my responsibility as an American to at least provide a counter argument. If you'll notice, there are no people who post in here who are moderate to conservative anymore. I'm it. There are several that would like to, but nobody wants to step into the hornet's nest. I am forced to deal with people who do this on a daily basis. I know how to deal with them. You can't pussy-foot around. Hell, I tried to be tactful. I then was being bombarded with putdowns. Then I myself was accused of putting people down when I had not! I decided there was only one choice left and now you are apauled. Well I've got to tell you, I don't really care. I toned myself down from the things i wanted to say. At the end of the day you say whatever you want about me. You already have. I have valid points that you can't disprove. If you listen to what I say without trying to find somewhere or something that you can try to find a flaw in, you'll see I have a valid point. You'll see that maybe you've been mislead.... and not by me. With the nation so evenly divided over the past few years I felt it my responsibility to find the facts on the issues that matter to me.... and most that don't. That's why when I argue, I state points with certainty. Sometimes I'm blindsided by the radical claims in here because I've never heard them. I've never heard them because they have not been discussed or reported in the many sources I read and listen to. That doesn't necessarily make them untrue but most likely it does. This very topic discusses Al Qaeda rejoicing over the democratic win. That's obviously because the democrats want to pull out of iraq. That would obviously be seen as a win for the insurgents. THAT is fact. You see Puggy try every way he could to divert and mislead the topic away from that. At the end of the day all you have to do is think about it and you realize it's true. I feel sorry for all of you. You tell me I'm blind yet you're the ones who are sitting in the dark with sunglasses on. I stayed out of this forum for over a year.... until I could take the lies no longer. Now I see you want me to leave because I bring a different point of view to the table.... I won't do it.

I don't want you to leave, I was seeing if you were going to.

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Nov 23 2006, 11:37 AM)

I want "him" to leave...I don't dislike the guy but I hate reading blocks of text that need to have paragraphs.

It's so much easier on the eye IMHO.

Well that may be true. I misspell a lot of words. I use a lot of improper sentence structure and grammar when I'm online. I apologize if it's difficult to read but I'm unlikely to change that. Usually when I have something on my mind I'll just pound the keys until I have the whole thought/s out. Then most of the time I'll proof read it and make sure that someone else has a chance to understand and hopefully correct the myriad of typos. I never consider multiple paragraphs because they are supposed to seperate thoughts. As you can tell, many of mine run together and intertwine. It is very difficult for me to seperate them and so I just leave them.

I can put up with people like BCfosheezy because I don't take things personally. I have worse things to put up with in my personal life.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15910652/

It is really pathetic that Bush is now going to NATO for help with the Iraq matter and he has to beg countries like Estonia and Latvia for help. Cheney is begging Saudi Arabia for help when Saudi Arabia is already building a wall between them and Iraq. While BCfosheezy, says that it is a 'fact' that US should not deal with Syria and Iran, the Baker report urges direct talks with them.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 27 2006, 09:06 AM)

I can put up with people like BCfosheezy because I don't take things personally. I have worse things to put up with in my personal life.

That's the same way I feel about you. The difference is, you wouldn't have had to put up with it had you not initiated the mudslinging.

QUOTE

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15910652/

It is really pathetic that Bush is now going to NATO for help with the Iraq matter and he has to beg countries like Estonia and Latvia for help. Cheney is begging Saudi Arabia for help when Saudi Arabia is already building a wall between them and Iraq. While BCfosheezy, says that it is a 'fact' that US should not deal with Syria and Iran, the Baker report urges direct talks with them.

Could you please find my quote where I say this exact thing? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You take something I say that is very clear, and you try to say that I said something that I did not. This is why I say you have a lack of comprehension and you cannot rebut it. It's because you either misunderstand what I'm saying or you're trying to spin it so hard that it is clearly not what I said. At any rate it just makes you look dumber every time you try to do it.

Let me remind you of this article that I posted that shows what kind of people you think are able to be dealt with. Next, I'll remind you that the U.S. is willing to talk with Iran after they abide by the LAST AGREEMENT we reached with them which was suspend their nuclear program. No sane person would think that a country obviously defying their previous agreements will now come to an agreement. That is especially after all of the times (including the aforementioned article) that they have stated that they will continue their nuclear program no matter what.

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin.

You have faith that Iran will abide by whatever agreement that talks might bring about yet they have already had talks and came to agreements and Iran will not abide by them.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 20 2006, 09:55 PM)

Blatant lies right there. Had you paid ANY attention at all. The so-called peace talks were to be directly with the United States. As you have so vigorously preached, the US does not run the world, so why is the US the only ones that should get involved with talks? The clear answer is since the world is effected by someone else acquiring nuclear weapons, everyone else should be involved. The US did not reject talks, they rejected being the only ones involved in the talks. Again you show hypocracy and your willingness to simply lie to get people to believe you is sad.

You're the one who tries to turn the subject from peace talks to Iran to Nuclear disarmment.

http://news.yahoo.co...n_go_co/us_iraq

It is easy for Bush that they will not have peace talks until their conditions are met. But it won't happen. And the US have to deal with it.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 27 2006, 04:08 PM)

You're the one who tries to turn the subject from peace talks to Iran to Nuclear disarmment.

http://news.yahoo.co...n_go_co/us_iraq

It is easy for Bush that they will not have peace talks until their conditions are met. But it won't happen. And the US have to deal with it.

You CLEARLY just illustrated your inability to comprehend. "Peace Talks" are pointless when Iran doesn't hold up its end of the bargain anyways. The most important of which is their nuclear armament. You saying the U.S. will just have to "deal with it" meaning Iran having nuclear weapons is just sad and shows how incredibly naive you are since they clearly want to use these against us.

Also, you clearly proved that you will say anything to attempt to put me down. Read the topic. Then reread your posts and you'll see how you swayed off subject here and there. Now you have tried to say that I changed the subject. You simply lie and just do whatever it takes. At the end of the day, you never make any ground and you always manage to achieve the highest level of "wrong" possible

.

The last 2 post are about me. Like what throwingks says, instead of trying to invalidate my point, you invalidate me. Just like how some people in the conservative right like O'Reilly, and Limburgh who puts down people rather than making a point Put forth their argument style will make them look stupid because they argue just like 10 year old. They provide the tough questions and insults and don't provide any practical answers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15910652/

Meanwhile Bush vows not to pull out from Iraq, but does not provide plan how to do it. He demands Maliki for a solution and pray that the Baker report will supply the answer. Meanwhile the 3 factions in Iraq are gearing up their territory for a all out civil war.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 28 2006, 11:45 AM)

The last 2 post are about me. Like what throwingks says, instead of trying to invalidate my point, you invalidate me. Just like how some people in the conservative right like O'Reilly, and Limburgh who puts down people rather than making a point Put forth their argument style will make them look stupid because they argue just like 10 year old. They provide the tough questions and insults and don't provide any practical answers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15910652/

Meanwhile Bush vows not to pull out from Iraq, but does not provide plan how to do it. He demands Maliki for a solution and pray that the Baker report will supply the answer. Meanwhile the 3 factions in Iraq are gearing up their territory for a all out civil war.

I invalidated your point too.

You accused me of doing nothing but invalidating you, yet YOU JUST TRIED TO DO THAT!!!! Instead you invalidated YOURSELF!!! HAHA you lied and then are guilty of the very thing you just accused me of. BTW, Who is Limburgh? You obviously have never listened to O'Reily or Limbaugh because what you just said about them is blatantly not true and thus another lie.

Why do you need a plan to stay the same. That's like saying Puggy give me a plan on how you're going to stay stupid.

Bush said he was open for suggestions (yet he hasn't got any because neither you nor anyone in your party have any) but that we'd stay until they were secure.

You diverted the subject to this... after accusing me of it. You didn't rebut any of the things I have said and then continued to do them which is not only an admission of guilt but also hypocritical.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 28 2006, 07:10 PM)

Bush said he was open for suggestions (yet he hasn't got any because neither you nor anyone in your party have any) but that we'd stay until they were secure.

Bush can't leave unless Iraq is secure. Bush says that Iraq is not secure until Iran and Syria stop sending insurgents and Iran stop having a nuclear program. What is the chances that is going to happen? When hell freezes over. Bush already ran out of 'political capital' long time ago and his vision of Iraq as a 'free, stable and soverign' country is unrealistic.

Blame on the Democrats, Iran, Syria, Maliki, libeals, me, throwingks, and Arvarden for not providing the Bush's idealistic solution for not stabilizing Iraq. To many experts out there, Iraq is a lost cause. And we can only contain this mess. In the end of the day, Bush started this mess. Since he is at the helm, he can do more or the same, or he can admit failure and do whatever it takes to contain this mess.

http://www.rushlimba...plan.guest.html

It seems that Limbaugh's plan to win the war in Iraq is to "Just blow the place up."

And no, don't this raving lunatic opinions doesn't mean anything but I thought it was funny to bring it up.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 28 2006, 03:30 PM)

http://www.rushlimba...plan.guest.html

It seems that Limbaugh's plan to win the war in Iraq is to "Just blow the place up."

And no, don't this raving lunatic opinions doesn't mean anything but I thought it was funny to bring it up.

Why lie about it if you're going to post a link? It only says "Just blow the place up" sarcastically as the proposed liberal solution on how to get out of there.

QUOTE

Nobody is! We could do the Limbaugh Plan. The Limbaugh Plan is win in Iraq and get out. The Limbaugh Plan would consist of many things which many say are impossible. Stop the politics. Have both parties line up for US victory. Of course, it's a pipe dream because the fact of the matter is, as I said. Have you heard all the calls over the weekend, "We've gotta send troops into Darfur!" That started before we left on Tuesday and that's there now. What the case is as I mentioned brilliantly to a caller last week, the left in this country will send our military anywhere where we do not have our own national interests at stake. They'll send 'em on Meals on Wheels programs. They'll send them to stop a bloody civil war in Africa.

Bush says we won the war on Iraq years ago yet nobody believes it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15944072/

Looks like the scapegoating is underway blaming on al-Maliki for the troubles in Iraq. Typical Bush fashion.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 29 2006, 09:05 AM)

Bush says we won the war on Iraq years ago yet nobody believes it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15944072/

Looks like the scapegoating is underway blaming on al-Maliki for the troubles in Iraq. Typical Bush fashion.

Well, you've continued to change the subject away from things that represent the left as it is. Instead you focus on simply trying to tear the right down rather than have any substance to yourself. Since you won't talk about the substance I brought forth, I will again prove you wrong. Bush never said we won the war on Iraq. That was a spin job by the liberals. Next, nobody blamed him(Al-Maliki) for the troubles in Iraq. The VERY article you posted proves you wrong. All it said was the Iraqi people are not embracing him as well as they had hoped and it lays out ways he can get more of them to embrace him. Nowhere does it even imply that he is responsible in any way for the troubles in Iraq. You act like you can lie and then nobody will read the link you posted.

I'm talking about topic at hand and you are talking about me. How can you 'prove' someone wrong by insulting? You got some serious mental issues.

In any case, don't forget about Bush's 'mission accomplished' when he says that gave freedom to the people in Iraq.

In any case, 2 months ago, Rice asked Maliki to 'straighten' out the problems in Iraq when Maliki is just merely a puppet.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/5410586.stm

I like to see you talk more so you can further stick your feet up your ass.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 29 2006, 11:21 AM)

I'm talking about topic at hand and you are talking about me. How can you 'prove' someone wrong by insulting? You got some serious mental issues.

You're lying again. I simply read the article and it was not what you said. I guess I didn't prove you wrong, your article did. I didn't insult you. Post what I said that wasn't true and you can call it an insult.

QUOTE

In any case, don't forget about Bush's 'mission accomplished' when he says that gave freedom to the people in Iraq.

I haven't forgot about it. The banner was put up there after the fall of baghdad. That meant that the regime had fallen. Did it not? The Iraqi people have voted and 85% voted to have a democratic state. THAT is the Iraqi people having freedom. Is it not? So what is your point?

QUOTE

In any case, 2 months ago, Rice asked Maliki to 'straighten' out the problems in Iraq when Maliki is just merely a puppet.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/5410586.stm

I like to see you talk more so you can further stick your feet up your ass.

Again you see everything backwards. It's you lying and I'm in here showing it. LOL. You even try to spin the fact that you got caught lying every time. Stupid always finds a way to show itself and you are no exception.

Excerpts from the article you posted:

CODE

Mr Maliki told state television ahead of Ms Rice's visit that security would be achieved in the next two or three months, saying the country was in the final state of "confronting the security challenge".

CODE

En route to Baghdad, Ms Rice told reporters: "Our role is to support all the parties and indeed to press all the parties to work toward that resolution quickly because obviously the security situation is not one that can be tolerated and it is not one that is being helped by political inaction. "They don't have time for endless debate of these issues. They have really got to move forward."

Read that for yourself. That means do something because we're not going to be here forever. As someone who doesn't want to be in Iraq it seems rational that you'd support that line of reasoning. Instead you're bashing her and calling the leader of Iraq a "puppet". If you need any help removing those feet just let me know. Although it shouldn't be too hard getting those size 5's out.

I see you didn't reply. It seems like your replies are just new news posings rather than rebuttles. Here's a new news posting for you to further illustrate the people you're suggesting we "talk" with about their nuclear weapons and that we'll just have to "deal" with them having them. THIS ARTICLE should alarm you.

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Dec 1 2006, 10:29 AM)

Not really, this should ALARM you

Well since it has nothing at all to do with me or the topic at hand, it doesn't alarm me at all.

QUOTE

The US does not hold the moral high ground nor does my country. If we insist on taking the moral high ground we must lead by example.

Who does hold the moral high ground? Why do you think you've taken a history class? Is it to learn from the past? That's right. Doing nothing and hoping people will not do things to harm us has been tried, and it has failed every time. History proves you wrong.

QUOTE

STOP trying to vilify a country you have little to no understanding of apart from the odd ABC mouth piece nonsense. Sure, Ahmadinejad and his gang are out spoken and out of line at times but he would never get the backing of the Irainian people for a strike on us ~~or even Israel~~. Tell a lie he might get support if Israel keeps acting up.

When has he ever needed the support of the Iranian people to strike? I'm not trying to villify anyone, the leader of Iran is doing it himself. Prove it wrong or stop interjecting. I provided links to this information. I didn't make it up. Take it up with them if you don't like it.... not me. At some point you're going to have to face reality.

QUOTE

I see you didn't reply. It seems like your replies are just new news posings rather than rebuttles. Here's a new news posting for you to further illustrate the people you're suggesting we "talk" with about their nuclear weapons and that we'll just have to "deal" with them having them. THIS ARTICLE should alarm you.

You don't have anything important to say except insulting me. So why should I bother to reply. And you accuse me of diverting the subject.

Over the history there are senseless wars and necessary wars. Kuwait war was started because Iraq attacked Kuwait, we pushed back Iraq, and that was it. WWII was started because of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and we have to drive them back. Attack on 9/11 was justified so that go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (not Iraq).

Senseless wars are startes with senseless ideals. Korean and Vietnam war was justified because we want to stop the 'communist agression.' We started war on Iraq because we believe there is WMD and we are mislead what Terrorism starts from there.

To Iran, attack on Iraq and many of Bush's Verbal threats seems to them what it is a necessary war because the survival of their country and Islam is at stake. As we have saw what Korea did when their backs are into the wall, Iran will do whatever it is necessary to defend themselves. So acquisition of Nuclear weapons and helping Iraqi Militias is not out of the question. I am not condoning what they do. But Bush should put up or shut up. Either they attack Iran (which is impossible), or ease the pressure off from Iran.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 1 2006, 01:16 PM)

You don't have anything important to say except insulting me. So why should I bother to reply. And you accuse me of diverting the subject.

Over the history there are senseless wars and necessary wars. Kuwait war was started because Iraq attacked Kuwait, we pushed back Iraq, and that was it. WWII was started because of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and we have to drive them back. Attack on 9/11 was justified so that go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (not Iraq).

Senseless wars are startes with senseless ideals. Korean and Vietnam war was justified because we want to stop the 'communist agression.' We started war on Iraq because we believe there is WMD and we are mislead what Terrorism starts from there.

To Iran, attack on Iraq and many of Bush's Verbal threats seems to them what it is a necessary war because the survival of their country and Islam is at stake. As we have saw what Korea did when their backs are into the wall, Iran will do whatever it is necessary to defend themselves. So acquisition of Nuclear weapons and helping Iraqi Militias is not out of the question. I am not condoning what they do. But Bush should put up or shut up. Either they attack Iran (which is impossible), or ease the pressure off from Iran.

That is the first post you've made that was well thought out and commendable.(aside from the misconception of what I'm doing as I was responding to your posts and debunking them.) I respect that opinion and I think if you'd post things like that more often we might learn to get along. Looking at it from their point of view is definitely a good thing.

Let's look at both points of view now that we are actually communicating. U.S. doesn't want to be attacked again and we've embarked in the war on terror. We were being attacked on our own soil before and we haven't been after. We rid Afghanistan of their Taliban led government because it was aiding and embedding Al Queda. We rid the Iraqi government of Saddam because we thought he was obtaining wmd and would probably supply organizations with the intent of harming the U.S. Now, Iran is doing the Same thing and so is Syria.

Iran openly funds Hezbollah and provides weaponry to fight Israel. They refer to Israel and "the little satan" and America as "The great Satan." They are confirmed to be aiding the insurgency in Iraq against our troops. They may or may not believe we are encroaching on their land and religion. As has been stated before, Iraq and Iran did not have the best of relations before. That is not Iran's land. The US invaded Iraq once before when it was still none of our business and Iran was not worried about the US. The difference is, as you stated the US occupancy of Iraq and no timetable for withdrawal.

This is where communication between party lines drops off. There is no coordination here. Both parties want the same thing, they simply refuse to communicate to make it happen. I think Democrats believe that the US wants to stay in Iraq for some hidden agenda. Conservatives want to stay until Iraq can defend itself and remain a soverign nation. Both parties want our troops to come home safely. Democrats do not want anything successful to come from the war. If Iraq remains stable then it was not a total loss and the president will be remembered as the liberator of Iraq. They don't want that because they truly feel he is an evil man. They would have Iraqis continue their civil war just to see the president fail. All the while preaching that Iraq is in a civil war now. The difference is, with a stable government they will get nowhere with violence and eventually have to play politics to get their way. Without the government it will get bloodier because THAT'S HOW YOU GET THINGS DONE WITH NO GOVERNMENT. So there is hypocracy there.

Again, this is my opinion. I respect yours. Please respect mine and we'll start to have a more civil discussion from here on out.

Edit:

We didn't just drive Japan back. Once we reached their continent, we nuked it twice. I'd say Iraq is far more humane.

Also, don't forget we didn't just drive Iraq back. We invaded their country and destroyed their army. They never recovered from that. It was a uniformed military we were fighting against. Now, we just did the exact same thing. The difference is, once the uniformed military was destroyed we took out saddam because he was determined to always be a threat. Now Iraq has no government so we allowed Iraq to create a government of its own. It did that. Now in its infancy insurgents are coming to destroy what has been started. We are staying to protect the maturing government. We are fighting a non-uniformed military and they are hiding amongst civilians and killing those civillians. It is a whole different can of worms.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 2 2006, 04:17 AM)

That is the first post you've made that was well thought out and commendable.(aside from the misconception of what I'm doing as I was responding to your posts and debunking them.) I respect that opinion and I think if you'd post things like that more often we might learn to get along. Looking at it from their point of view is definitely a good thing.
Let's look at both points of view now that we are actually communicating. U.S. doesn't want to be attacked again and we've embarked in the war on terror. We were being attacked on our own soil before and we haven't been after. We rid Afghanistan of their Taliban led government because it was aiding and embedding Al Queda. We rid the Iraqi government of Saddam because we thought he was obtaining wmd and would probably supply organizations with the intent of harming the U.S. Now, Iran is doing the Same thing and so is Syria.

We thought he has wmd, but Bush have itchy trigger fingers before allowing inspections take place, but ok.

QUOTE

Iran openly funds Hezbollah and provides weaponry to fight Israel. They refer to Israel and "the little satan" and America as "The great Satan." They are confirmed to be aiding the insurgency in Iraq against our troops. They may or may not believe we are encroaching on their land and religion. As has been stated before, Iraq and Iran did not have the best of relations before. That is not Iran's land. The US invaded Iraq once before when it was still none of our business and Iran was not worried about the US. The difference is, as you stated the US occupancy of Iraq and no timetable for withdrawal.

The war was a failure from day 1. 1) Bush didn't bother to secure the borders with Syria and Iran and thinks that Iran and Syria won't help out with the war. Instead he expect that Iran and Syria won't send any more militias by referring them to 'axis of evil.' 2) Whenever a government falls there will be a power vacuum, US kicked out people who used to work for the government and people like al Sadr rose to power quickly. 3) There are dislikes between Kurds, Sunnis and Shites. They might fight each other for power in the country.

Many Middle East experts know this but Rumsfeld didn't even bother to take them to account before the invasion. Instead, Bush focused on attacking Iraq, topple Saddam's government and capture saddam.

QUOTE

This is where communication between party lines drops off. There is no coordination here. Both parties want the same thing, they simply refuse to communicate to make it happen. I think Democrats believe that the US wants to stay in Iraq for some hidden agenda. Conservatives want to stay until Iraq can defend itself and remain a soverign nation. Both parties want our troops to come home safely. Democrats do not want anything successful to come from the war. If Iraq remains stable then it was not a total loss and the president will be remembered as the liberator of Iraq. They don't want that because they truly feel he is an evil man. They would have Iraqis continue their civil war just to see the president fail. All the while preaching that Iraq is in a civil war now. The difference is, with a stable government they will get nowhere with violence and eventually have to play politics to get their way. Without the government it will get bloodier because THAT'S HOW YOU GET THINGS DONE WITH NO GOVERNMENT. So there is hypocracy there.
Again, this is my opinion. I respect yours. Please respect mine and we'll start to have a more civil discussion from here on out.

Iraq fell in about a month after attack. We have years to get those 3 issue addressed but instead Bush focused on getting oil from the reserves. You still talk as if we can win Iraq but it seems that Iraqi citizens are participating in the war to kill the other faction. That is civil war. And Civil wars don't end until you 1) Split the country or 2) when all the other factions lost.

QUOTE

We didn't just drive Japan back. Once we reached their continent, we nuked it twice. I'd say Iraq is far more humane.

Also, don't forget we didn't just drive Iraq back. We invaded their country and destroyed their army. They never recovered from that. It was a uniformed military we were fighting against. Now, we just did the exact same thing. The difference is, once the uniformed military was destroyed we took out saddam because he was determined to always be a threat. Now Iraq has no government so we allowed Iraq to create a government of its own. It did that. Now in its infancy insurgents are coming to destroy what has been started. We are staying to protect the maturing government. We are fighting a non-uniformed military and they are hiding amongst civilians and killing those civillians. It is a whole different can of worms.

The government can't even hold itself together. It is weak and corrupt. Maliki is merely a powerless pawn while people like Al-Sadr runs the health ministery. When any Sunni's go into Al-Sadr's state run hospitals, they never come out alive. And the worst thing is that Bush thinks he can bargain with Al-Sadr.

Just like Vietnam, we can complain how bad communist is. But we should learned our lesson after we lost Vietnam, people like Pol Pot are much worse.

So the choice is this, either we finish the job by starting a draft, or we leave.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 2 2006, 10:04 AM)

We thought he has wmd, but Bush have itchy trigger fingers before allowing inspections take place, but ok.

Well you KNOW that's not at all true. We all remember the inspectors being over there and inspecting. Then they were forced out because Iraq refused to comply. Then Iraq moved whatever it was they were moving and Iraq then complied again but were obviously giving us the run-around.

QUOTE

The war was a failure from day 1. 1) Bush didn't bother to secure the borders with Syria and Iran and thinks that Iran and Syria won't help out with the war. Instead he expect that Iran and Syria won't send any more militias by referring them to 'axis of evil.' 2) Whenever a government falls there will be a power vacuum, US kicked out people who used to work for the government and people like al Sadr rose to power quickly. 3) There are dislikes between Kurds, Sunnis and Shites. They might fight each other for power in the country.

Well you know the war wasn't a failure from day 1. It hasn't been a failure yet and it won't be. It's too bad that people like to say that for their own political agenda, but the bottom line is, the U.S. removed a harmful dictator from power and rid itself of an enemy (We haven't gained any enemies either because everyone that hates us now hated us then.). We liberated the Iraqi people and now they have voted and are stabilizing their government. We have lost 3000 troops there in about 3 years. Roughly the same number of CIVILLIANS we lost in the WTC on 9/11 in 15 minutes. The bottom line is, no war no matter who was in charge (and it's not "Bush" as claimed, it's the pentagon.) is going to go smoothly... because it's a war.

QUOTE

Many Middle East experts know this but Rumsfeld didn't even bother to take them to account before the invasion. Instead, Bush focused on attacking Iraq, topple Saddam's government and capture saddam.

They simply were under the impression that they'd be joyous that they had liberty. (They were.... for a while)

QUOTE

Iraq fell in about a month after attack. We have years to get those 3 issue addressed but instead Bush focused on getting oil from the reserves. You still talk as if we can win Iraq but it seems that Iraqi citizens are participating in the war to kill the other faction. That is civil war. And Civil wars don't end until you 1) Split the country or 2) when all the other factions lost.

Bush focused on getting oil from the reserves? Where are your references on that? That is obviously not true. Why are our oil prices still ultra high? Civil war will end when they realize that the government will not be toppled and that they have no influence if they have no voice.

QUOTE

The government can't even hold itself together. It is weak and corrupt. Maliki is merely a powerless pawn while people like Al-Sadr runs the health ministery. When any Sunni's go into Al-Sadr's state run hospitals, they never come out alive. And the worst thing is that Bush thinks he can bargain with Al-Sadr.

The government is weak because it's in its infancy. The US wasn't strong for several years after its creation and it's illogical that Iraq would be any different. "Corrupt, powerless pawn, never come out alive, Bargains" and any other statement you make like that is honestly unfounded speculation is seriously unneeded. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't make it so.

QUOTE

Just like Vietnam, we can complain how bad communist is. But we should learned our lesson after we lost Vietnam, people like Pol Pot are much worse.

I believe we should learn our lesson from WW2 when we buried our heads in the sand and waited to be dragged into a conflict. The best part about all of this is, your party is going to get their turn soon enough and then you will spin their failures into victories. The very same as you accuse this administration of, yet they actually haven't.

QUOTE

So the choice is this, either we finish the job by starting a draft, or we leave.

And you finish the statement off with a wacky comment. It doesn't even make sense. You have said that Bush convinces the public with fear, but yet you just did that. THERE IS NO CHANCE OF A DRAFT. It doesn't even make sense mathematically. Let's see, we have MILLIONS of available troops. Only 3000 have died. Our enlistment rate is one of the highest it's ever been. Yet you believe we need a draft.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 4 2006, 04:05 PM)

Well you KNOW that's not at all true...

QUOTE

Well you know the war wasn't a failure from day 1....

Don't stick words in my mouth and I never said it was true.

QUOTE

They simply were under the impression that they'd be joyous that they had liberty. (They were.... for a while) Bush focused on getting oil from the reserves? Where are your references on that? That is obviously not true. Why are our oil prices still ultra high? Civil war will end when they realize that the government will not be toppled and that they have no influence if they have no voice.

http://www.cnn.com/2...uild/index.html

The prices of oil is so high because the production of oil is still lower than before the war because Iraq is a mess.

QUOTE

The government is weak because it's in its infancy. The US wasn't strong for several years after its creation and it's illogical that Iraq would be any different. "Corrupt, powerless pawn, never come out alive, Bargains" and any other statement you make like that is honestly unfounded speculation is seriously unneeded. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't make it so.
I believe we should learn our lesson from WW2 when we buried our heads in the sand and waited to be dragged into a conflict. The best part about all of this is, your party is going to get their turn soon enough and then you will spin their failures into victories. The very same as you accuse this administration of, yet they actually haven't.

Don't get confused with WWII and Iraq war. We did not want to get involved with WWII until Pearl Harbor. We attacked Japan. Al-Qaeda attacked us in 9/11, yet we attacked Iraq and there's no Al-Qaeda there. Makes sense? I think not.

QUOTE

And you finish the statement off with a wacky comment. It doesn't even make sense. You have said that Bush convinces the public with fear, but yet you just did that. THERE IS NO CHANCE OF A DRAFT. It doesn't even make sense mathematically. Let's see, we have MILLIONS of available troops. Only 3000 have died. Our enlistment rate is one of the highest it's ever been. Yet you believe we need a draft.

This is the 3rd time you try to stick words in my mouth. I didn't say we need a draft. I said if Bush Bush wants to send hundreds of thousands of troops there, we need a draft.

http://www.usatoday....rmy-study_x.htm

Unfortunately, we have 'other obligations' to other countries and not just to Iraq in terms of troops. Why does everybody else including politicans and Generals are talking troops stretching thin when you are talking about our million man army.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 4 2006, 04:52 PM)

Don't stick words in my mouth and I never said it was true.

I had no idea John Kerry would be a member of a xbox forum. Hi Mr. Kerry.

So anyways... you were FOR the comment before you were against it?

Edit:

You: We thought he has wmd, but Bush have itchy trigger fingers before allowing inspections take place, but ok.

Me: Well you KNOW that's not at all true...

You: Don't stick words in my mouth and I never said it was true.

So you just said it, you didn't say it was true. So basically we can just come in here and say any random thing and then when we're called on it we can be like I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!! Do you realize how hard you make it to not put you down?

QUOTE

http://www.cnn.com/2...uild/index.html

The prices of oil is so high because the production of oil is still lower than before the war because Iraq is a mess.

Well your statement here is incoherent and your link is irrelevant. The price of gasoline did not top $2.00 a gallon until hurricane Katrina hit. Good luck blaming that on Iraq.

QUOTE

Don't get confused with WWII and Iraq war. We did not want to get involved with WWII until Pearl Harbor. We attacked Japan. Al-Qaeda attacked us in 9/11, yet we attacked Iraq and there's no Al-Qaeda there. Makes sense? I think not.

Oh so we attacked Japan and that was it? Ok then I guess D-day is a big fat lie........ You're just plain wrong on this point. My analogy applies.

QUOTE

This is the 3rd time you try to stick words in my mouth. I didn't say we need a draft. I said if Bush Bush wants to send hundreds of thousands of troops there, we need a draft.

That's crazy because in the statement I quoted it says nothing about hundreds of thousands of troops. Mr. Kerry, don't forget that all of the previous messages are right above these comments and I can go back and look. You are not telling the truth and you know what that makes you.

QUOTE

http://www.usatoday....rmy-study_x.htm

Unfortunately, we have 'other obligations' to other countries and not just to Iraq in terms of troops. Why does everybody else including politicans and Generals are talking troops stretching thin when you are talking about our million man army.

They aren't. The media is making a big deal out of it. I'm glad you brought this up because I just watched an interview with a general and he said that we have the highest re-enlistment rate ever and lots of reservists. The media is on your side. Nobody disputes that. The facts are, we have plenty of troops. We're not stretched thin. We have nowhere near the size of our invasion force over there. We have troops stationed all over the world. We have reservists and people who are simply in the states and not in Iraq. There are plenty of troops. Common sense will tell you that.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 5 2006, 02:15 AM)

I had no idea John Kerry would be a member of a xbox forum. Hi Mr. Kerry.

So anyways... you were FOR the comment before you were against it?
You: We thought he has wmd, but Bush have itchy trigger fingers before allowing inspections take place, but ok.

Me: Well you KNOW that's not at all true...

You: Don't stick words in my mouth and I never said it was true.

So you just said it, you didn't say it was true. So basically we can just come in here and say any random thing and then when we're called on it we can be like I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!! Do you realize how hard you make it to not put you down?
Well your statement here is incoherent and your link is irrelevant. The price of gasoline did not top $2.00 a gallon until hurricane Katrina hit. Good luck blaming that on Iraq.
Oh so we attacked Japan and that was it? Ok then I guess D-day is a big fat lie........ You're just plain wrong on this point. My analogy applies.
That's crazy because in the statement I quoted it says nothing about hundreds of thousands of troops. Mr. Kerry, don't forget that all of the previous messages are right above these comments and I can go back and look. You are not telling the truth and you know what that makes you.

When you say that 'you know that it is not all that true', what are you? A freaking mind reader, and you understand how I think? No, you are a moron. And now you are spending more than half of your so-call argument making stuff up and baseless accusations against me. Do me a favor and buy yourself a clue.

And your dumbass argument why 'I guess D-day is a big fat lie...' Where you hear me say that, moron? from the pipeline? Go buy yourself another clue.

And the worst you can do is to call me Mr Kerry or Fugster? Bush need more undereducated idiots like you who can't tell the difference between patriotism and ignorance. Everybody else who replied to you in this thread thinks you are a moron. You just don't admit it.

We are losing the war on terror because the FBI don't even know who are they fighting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042604/

Maybe you can talk something else, like this subject and not about my favorite color.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 5 2006, 12:09 AM)

When you say that 'you know that it is not all that true', what are you? A freaking mind reader, and you understand how I think? No, you are a moron. And now you are spending more than half of your so-call argument making stuff up and baseless accusations against me. Do me a favor and buy yourself a clue.

LOL!!... no I don't have to be a mind reader. You just made that up so of course you knew it wasn't true. It had no factual basis and was an outright lie. I haven't made anything up and I encourage you to bring one forward. IF you do not then you concede the argument and passively admit you're lying. You're the one that needs the clue, but if I can find one for purchase I'll buy it and ship it to you. I'll need your postal address.

QUOTE

And your dumbass argument why 'I guess D-day is a big fat lie...' Where you hear me say that, moron? from the pipeline? Go buy yourself another clue.

The fact that you called me a moron in this statement is HILARIOUS because you missed the entire point. You stated that Japan attacked us and we attacked them back and it was simply untrue. There was a bigger war going on, not just US vs JAPAN. (WW2) We not only beat Japan (in this case Afghanistan) but we also ended the bigger war (in this case the war on terror). It directly relates to WW2 and the fact that you were too stupid to get the analogy proves that you need to just leave. You're not smart enough to argue with and you make things up and lie. You're too stupid to know that you're defeated on every point you try to make.

QUOTE

And the worst you can do is to call me Mr Kerry or Fugster? Bush need more undereducated idiots like you who can't tell the difference between patriotism and ignorance. Everybody else who replied to you in this thread thinks you are a moron. You just don't admit it.

Son I have quite an education. You have no idea who I am and you never know what you're talking about. Thanks for demonstrating that. Why do you think everyone replied to me in this thread? It's because I have good points. It's because I'm saying things they don't want to hear. THey know I'm not an idiot by listening to the things I say and testing my facts. Not one person in here has proven me wrong on any point. They have tried and all failed. There are at least 4 other people that read this forum and they never back me up unless I need help. They haven't backed me up one time yet.... I haven't needed it.

QUOTE

We are losing the war on terror because the FBI don't even know who are they fighting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042604/

Well dumbfuck, the FBI only watches within the United states. Since the war on terror is mainly being fought overseas the CIA would be the ones to blame. You just proven you're an incompetent fucktard. Please stop posting here for your own sake. You're just cannon fodder for me.

QUOTE

Maybe you can talk something else, like this subject and not about my favorite color.

Here i am, being nice to you and all you can do is call me names. I mean I know that I slaughtered your every point... but that's just because you're stupid. You can't help that. You're the one that brings it back to me every time. I have been being nice. I have simply been discussing issues with you. You changed the subject from the topic that I started and now you're hypocritically blaming me for changing a subject that I never changed.... you did. You're an idiot in the worst way. I'd love to find your mother and slap the Goddamnit out of her for bringing your dumb ass into this world. Have a nice day.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 5 2006, 08:53 PM)

LOL!!... no I don't have to be a mind reader. You just made that up so of course you knew it wasn't true. It had no factual basis and was an outright lie. I haven't made anything up and I encourage you to bring one forward. IF you do not then you concede the argument and passively admit you're lying. You're the one that needs the clue, but if I can find one for purchase I'll buy it and ship it to you. I'll need your postal address.

You are clearly delusional because you make up what the other person are going to say. Wackos like O'Reilly and Limbaugh do that. They might as well be argue with themselves they can make up counterarguments as they go. Unfortunately it doesn't fly here.

QUOTE

Well dumbfuck, the FBI only watches within the United states. Since the war on terror is mainly being fought overseas the CIA would be the ones to blame. You just proven you're an incompetent fucktard. Please stop posting here for your own sake. You're just cannon fodder for me.

Oh geez, you are being nice and you use fowl language, that's nice. Gee, since you say the war on terror is mainly being fought overseas, then people who did 9/11 are not important because they attacked in American soil.

QUOTE

Here i am, being nice to you and all you can do is call me names. I mean I know that I slaughtered your every point... but that's just because you're stupid. You can't help that. You're the one that brings it back to me every time. I have been being nice. I have simply been discussing issues with you. You changed the subject from the topic that I started and now you're hypocritically blaming me for changing a subject that I never changed.... you did. You're an idiot in the worst way. I'd love to find your mother and slap the Goddamnit out of her for bringing your dumb ass into this world. Have a nice day.

You really stooped into a new low. I expect some sluck using O'Reilly or Limbaugh like tactics who would make up what the other person said to make their point. Or maybe some idiot use personal attacks rather than making a counterargument. Even those conservative stoops woundn't resort to foul language or the use of the word 'your momma' to put the other person down.

The last time that some idiot who decided to cuss me down and the use of 'your momma' was xmedia2004 I didn't see much of him much after that.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 5 2006, 03:36 PM)

You are clearly delusional because you make up what the other person are going to say. Wackos like O'Reilly and Limbaugh do that. They might as well be argue with themselves they can make up counterarguments as they go. Unfortunately it doesn't fly here.

What have I made up? Name 1 thing.

QUOTE

Oh geez, you are being nice and you use fowl language, that's nice. Gee, since you say the war on terror is mainly being fought overseas, then people who did 9/11 are not important because they attacked in American soil.

I didn't until YOU did

What about "mainly" didn't you understand? The whole point of the war on terror is so things like 9/11 don't happen anymore. Also, a war has two sides. I think 9/11 was pretty one-sided don't you? basically, you hvae no point here and you're wrong and plain stupid for trying to make a point here. Admit it, you're wrong.

QUOTE

You really stooped into a new low. I expect some sluck using O'Reilly or Limbaugh like tactics who would make up what the other person said to make their point. Or maybe some idiot use personal attacks rather than making a counterargument. Even those conservative stoops woundn't resort to foul language or the use of the word 'your momma' to put the other person down.

I didn't make anything up. You said it, black and white. I have used counterarguments to blow everything you've said out of the water. I used foul language because you did.... it seems to be the only thing you understand. Don't act all offended now. You did it first.

QUOTE

The last time that some idiot who decided to cuss me down and the use of 'your momma' was xmedia2004 I didn't see much of him much after that.

Well I don't know what he said, but I can assure you that you deserved it. You cannot say the things you said to me and not expect retaliation. At the very least we're guilty of the same thing, so don't sound so high and mighty, because if I get banned so do you. I would encourage you to be more respectful from now on, and I will. It is a two-way street.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 5 2006, 11:11 PM)

What have I made up? Name 1 thing.

QUOTE

Well you know...

is not a valid argument.

QUOTE

I didn't until YOU did

What about "mainly" didn't you understand? The whole point of the war on terror is so things like 9/11 don't happen anymore. Also, a war has two sides. I think 9/11 was pretty one-sided don't you? basically, you hvae no point here and you're wrong and plain stupid for trying to make a point here. Admit it, you're wrong.

So we ignore about terrorists at home. Then why do we have homeland security for? It is 'mainly' not important?

QUOTE

I didn't make anything up. You said it, black and white. I have used counterarguments to blow everything you've said out of the water. I used foul language because you did.... it seems to be the only thing you understand. Don't act all offended now. You did it first.

Liar liar pants on fire, cussing, putting people down, and talking about your momma is not valid counterarguments.

QUOTE

Well I don't know what he said, but I can assure you that you deserved it. You cannot say the things you said to me and not expect retaliation. At the very least we're guilty of the same thing, so don't sound so high and mighty, because if I get banned so do you. I would encourage you to be more respectful from now on, and I will. It is a two-way street.

http://forums.xbox-s...o...267&st=180#

Read the reaction after that moron xmedia2004 made that cussing about my mother statement. Even people (pucksr) who argued against me said that went a little too far. Figured that people like you don't understand. People like you don't have the maturity to talk like an adult and have to drag 'your momma' in the picture.

Oh yeah, you speak alot of truths out there when you say "Here i am, being nice to you" and "I'd love to find your mother and slap the Goddamnit out of her for bringing your dumb ass into this world" in the same paragraph. And now you admit that you cuss and insult people and always claimed that you were a saint. You are truly a pathetic person because you say you are a man of God yet you don't preach it.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 5 2006, 07:29 PM)

is not a valid argument.

It's nicer ta\han saying "you're lying" which you are/were/are going to. So maybe you'll understand that better. Rather than, "you know that's not true" I'll just leave it at you're a liar. That better?

QUOTE

So we ignore about terrorists at home. Then why do we have homeland security for? It is 'mainly' not important?

No, again you're not smart enough to spin the subject away from what it is. The statement was "the war on terror is mainly fought overseas." Homeland security is ensuring there is no war here at home. Common sense tells you that.

QUOTE

Liar liar pants on fire, cussing, putting people down, and talking about your momma is not valid counterarguments.

I've slaughtered every one of your points. Don't get mad because I depicted how stupid you were.

QUOTE

http://forums.xbox-s...o...267&st=180#

Read the reaction after that moron xmedia2004 made that cussing about my mother statement. Even people (pucksr) who argued against me said that went a little too far. Figured that people like you don't understand. People like you don't have the maturity to talk like an adult and have to drag 'your momma' in the picture.

So now it's ok for you to have absolutely no points but to talk about nothing but me? Also, you cussed first. You put me down first. You went too far first. Don't be such a hypocrite. What are saying about "people like me". Black people? What do you mean by this racist?

QUOTE

Oh yeah, you speak alot of truths out there when you say "Here i am, being nice to you" and "I'd love to find your mother and slap the Goddamnit out of her for bringing your dumb ass into this world" in the same paragraph. And now you admit that you cuss and insult people and always claimed that you were a saint. You are truly a pathetic person because you say you are a man of God yet you don't preach it.

You misquoted me. I said "I had been being nice to you". To anyone who understands English, that means previously I had been being civil. Hell I've made several posts urging you to be more respectful but yet you manage to attack me more after I destroy your points. I won't be nice to you anymore. You are seriously the most stupid individual I have ever spoken with. This post that you just made shows that vividly because you're guilty of everything you've accused ME of. You have absolutely no points toward the subject because I've already shown how wrong you are. You should leave because you have nothing to offer.

I've never claimed I was a saint. Also, I don't preach the word of God to people who do not want to hear it. That works against what I want to do. Trying to bring my religion up is worse than me dropping "F bombs" on you. I disagree with Xmedia on everything he says except when he describes you. He nailed it.

You misquoted everything and nobody knows what you are talking about. You see everybody agreeing with you when you cried wolf that 'I lied'? You use this as your personal bitch thread. You don't any creditability here. Give it up.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 6 2006, 08:46 AM)

You misquoted everything and nobody knows what you are talking about.

Everyone knows what I'm talking about and I didn't misquote anything and you didn't depict where I did.

QUOTE

You see everybody agreeing with you when you cried wolf that 'I lied'?

They don't have to when it's blatantly obvious.

QUOTE

You use this as your personal bitch thread. You don't any creditability here. Give it up.

Oh really? How is that? You also don't have any credibility here. YOU give it up.

xboxscene.org forums

Off Topic Forums => General Chat => Politics, News and Religion => Topic started by: BCfosheezy on November 14, 2006, 08:41:00 PM