ISLAMIC TERRORISTS GOT A BOOST THIS WEEKEND ... FROM "AMERICANS"

The loons opposed to the liberation of Iraq and the war on terror had their protest march in Washington over the weekend. Yes, I know. Perhaps tens of thousands of people attended. This is the nature of the left. These people are not what you would call used to independent thought processes. They're sheep, easily led to marches such as these. Why do you think we call them "collectivists?" These are people focused on the "community" and not the individual. As such, they are easily herded by those with the stronger personalities into group activities to promote one leftist cause or another. Seriously --- take a look at protest marches either for or against some idea. You will always find that liberals can be gathered into these groups more easily than conservatives. The difference is one's sense of individuality. The more you value your individuality the less likely it is you will be involved in a protest march, either for or against anything. And just who is it in our culture that is promoting a war against individuality? Well, that would be the left. So ... 'nuff said about the size of the crowd at the pro-Saddam march.

Now that we've covered the size of the crowd, let's address the effect. You can trust that the Islamic jihadists were all smiles this weekend as they read whatever coverage there was of the march. The Islamic goons view these marchers --- every single one of them -- as Americans protesting the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and people in support of the insurgents who are killing American soldiers. The insurgency was emboldened and will be strengthened, hopefully only for the short term, by this march --- just as they have been emboldened by Democratic opposition to the war. As a result, additional American soldiers will die.

Question: Just where do you think the United States and its coalition partners would be today in terms of establishing a freely elected government in a peaceful Iraq if Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran had known that all Americans and all American politicians were solidly unified behind George Bush? You know the answer ... even though many of you just don't want to admit it.

One more thing. The protestors were yelling "Peace Now!" Sounds good, doesn't it? Well ... I guess that all depends on what your definition of "peace" is. So many of you don't actually remember the era of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union. Soviet officials were always eager to promote the idea of peace, along with their American apologists. Then, as now, the definition of "peace" was important. To the Soviets the stated definition of "peace" was "the absence of any opposition to world Communism." Those were leftists shouting "peace now" back then; and they were leftists shouting "peace now" this weekend. So ... what's the definition?

Do I have to spell it out to you?

Well, my rather non-activist friend. That was quite a mouthful. Your post does not surprise me at all. I happened to be one of the “sheep” in attendance at the rally this past weekend. I also happen to be one of the “sheep” who actually questioned the presidents take on the information about weapons of mass destruction. I also happen to be one of the “sheep” who wondered why the inspectors where removed after gaining access. I also happen to be one of the “sheep” who questioned the president’s link between saddam hussien and 9-11. I also happen to be one of the “sheep” that questioned the president’s cost estimate of the war. I am also one of the “sheep” who never understood why the president refused to put the 400,000 troops on the ground as requested by his generals. I am also one of the “sheep” who stood in absolute amazement as the president changed the reasoning behind the invasion from a link to 9-11 to weapons of mass destruction to regional stability to freeing the Iraqi people with nary an explanation nor a blink of an eye while all the while still calling veteran John Kerry a “flip-flopper”. I also happen to be one of the “sheep” who called into question the president’s humanitarian commitment as he played golf And guitar while thousands of U.S. citizens were suffering after hurricane Katrina. I am also on of the “sheep” who wonder if anyone will ever be held accountable for outing a CIA agent after also having questions about the president’s policies. I also happen to be one of the “sheep” who happen to think one of our nations greatest assets is The Constitution including The Bill of Rights with it’s guarantees of certain liberties not seen in many other nations on this planet including the right to assemble and to engage in peaceful protest.

Perhaps you are right and I am just a “sheep” after all. But I never once thought of a sheep as one who actually questions authority, exercises their constitutional rights and tries to find the truth when the numbers don’t even come close to adding up. If this is your definition of what a “sheep” is, while you sit on your couch listening to a pill-popping DJ named Limbaugh who still blames everything wrong in this country on Bill Clinton’s blowjob and the liberal media, despite Republican control of 2.5 branches of Government for years now, then I am guilty as charged. And damn proud of it.

I am also pleased that you are so concerned about how are enemies viewed this demonstration. You seem to think quite a lot like them so I guess you would know how they view democracy in action. Perhaps, next time, we should actually think about their reaction before a military invasion so that we would better be able to control the resistance before ordering more and more American body bags. Oh yeah, I forgot, the “sheep” also mentioned that fact before the war and people like you thought they were full of shit then too. I guess that’s how you “support our troops”

War should be a tool of last resort, not convenience or profit or as a way of securing your legacy.

Why don't you get off you ass and do something if you believe in it so much? Oh, Rush didn't tell you to.

Originally posted by gmsisko1
Seriously --- take a look at protest marches either for or against some idea. You will always find that liberals can be gathered into these groups more easily than conservatives.

Uhhhh........I hate to break it to you, but the people who do NOT run things will be far more likely to object to the policies of the political leaders than those who DO run things (the conservatives).

As Tapeworm so eloquently pointed out, if it could ever be said that there are *sheep*among us, the true *sheep* are those citizens who meekly go along with whatever the leaders say, even when those leaders are exposed as unmitigated, pathological liars, even when those leaders are sending their sons to the other side of the world to die for control of foreign oil supplies, even when those leaders have dragged a nation into a very expensive foreign boondogle that may cost the taxpayers a trillion dollars before its over.

Also, despite your despicably dishonest spin on it, for an American citizen to come out against the war, to be FOR peace, is NOT in any way to be a cheeleader, as you put it "in support of the insurgents who are killing American soldiers". The people opposing the war do not want anyone from EITHER side killing the other ones.

In closing, it would please me greatly if you would take your dogmatic rightwing --"Everbuddy who don't support the Iraqi war is a durty UnAmurican who wonts U.S. military personel to DIE!!"-- spew and cram it back up your a$$ where it came from. Thank you.

Originally posted by Freethinker

In closing, it would please me greatly if you would take your dogmatic rightwing --"Everbuddy who don't support the Iraqi war is a durty UnAmurican who wonts U.S. military personel to DIE!!"-- spew and cram it back up your a$$ where it came from. Thank you.

I'm not sure that is possible as that would require actual thought.

how come anyone who "questions authority" is instantly elevated to genius status by the idiot left wing?

Its like "If you want to be an independent, intelligent person who doesnt follow the crowd, jump into this crowd of 300,000 people who all think alike"

Originally posted by Travh20
how come anyone who "questions authority" is instantly elevated to genius status by the idiot left wing?

Its like "If you want to be an independent, intelligent person who doesnt follow the crowd, jump into this crowd of 300,000 people who all think alike"

I rest my case.

its painful to see it spelled out for you like that isnt it?

Originally posted by Travh20
how come anyone who "questions authority" is instantly elevated to genius status by the idiot left wing?

I wouldn't know.

Not once in my life have I ever seen that said or suggested.

its painful to see it spelled out for you like that isnt it?

Yeah..*heh, heh*...you hurt me bad...*ha, ha,ha*...I don't think I can live with myself...*chuckle, chuckle*...after that one.

well, considering Barbara Streisand is now announcing Global Warming emergencys, i think its safe to say the left is full of themselves, and all one has to do to be holier then thou is buy into their ideology.

Originally posted by Travh20
well, considering Barbara Streisand is now announcing Global Warming emergencys, i think its safe to say the left is full of themselves, and all one has to do to be holier then thou is buy into their ideology.


The case was rested. If you honestly think that my intention in going down to Washington was to give support to the enemy, then there is nothing I can say to you. If you think that Barbara Streisand is the voice of all of the left than bully for you. The case is indeed rested. And It is becoming more and more painful by the minute.

like I have said 100 times before, you may not be activley supporting the terrorists, but if you were, you would act no differently

Originally posted by Travh20
like I have said 100 times before, you may not be activley supporting the terrorists, but if you were, you would act no differently

So...Dissent is unamerican? To question is unpatriotic? To demand answers is treason? Trav, are you wearing your Brown Shirt again?

And I and those like me are "sheep" :@@:

Originally posted by Tapeworm
So...Dissent is unamerican? To question is unpatriotic? To demand answers is treason? Trav, are you wearing your Brown Shirt again?
Your point is well taken, Tapeworm, but do you think it's appropriate, given the nature of his questioning your stance, to call him a brown shirt? I see your point, but for cryin' out loud, I also see his...can you???

He came just short of calling me a terrorist supporter because I questioned my government. If anyone was harsh I think it was him. I can understand standing behind ones country in times of trouble but the situation in Iraq and all of the reasoning behind it is insane.

Originally posted by Tapeworm
He came just short of calling me a terrorist supporter because I questioned my government.
No he didn't - he simply stated that IF you were a terrorist supporter, your actions would probably be no different than they are currently. Let's not forget that making an observation, and alluding to something are two different things. You alluded that Trav was a racist, violent right-winger. Now I ask you: was that appropriate?
Originally posted by Tapeworm
I can understand standing behind ones country in times of trouble but the situation in Iraq and all of the reasoning behind it is insane.
I fully disagree. I think the execution was poorly planned, and to be completely honest, the people were lied to, but the reasoning behind it was fucking brilliant. I can already see where this conversation is going to deteriorate, and yes, to a degree, it was totally about controlling the energy reserves in the area. However, that doesn't rob the effort of nobility when the people living there were under an oppressive dictatorship. I also believe that we've done far more to help those people than we have to hurt 'em - i.e. rebuilding schools, hospitals, starting a basic economy driven by democracy, and keeping the neighboring countries in tow while securing jobs for those working to better Iraq. With the support of our fellow countrymen, this would've been an attainable goal, but half of the time, people can't see the forest for the trees - so unfortunately, we find ourselves hopelessly deadlocked. Giving up on this effort is akin to needlessly admitting defeat. I think it behooves us all to avoid doing that if we wish to save a few more buildings from being bombed on our own soil. If the terrorists can manipulate us though our own population, then they're going to do it, period. Was Saddam a terrorist? You bet your ass he was – he paid the widows of suicide bombers, ergo, a major fucking supporter of such acts.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Your point is well taken, Tapeworm, but do you think it's appropriate, given the nature of his questioning your stance, to call him a brown shirt? I see your point, but for cryin' out loud, I also see his (Trav's)......can you???

I not only do not see his point, I adamantly state that he HAS NO fucking point.

To claim --as Travh20 has done-- that the actions of those in the peace movment are tantamount to them actively supporting the Middle Eastern terrorists is not only insupportable, it is despicable and dishonest.

Lastly, i find it incredible that you'd castigate one person for asking another if he's "wearing his Brown Shirt", when that person has just accused the other person of being a terrorist supporter.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I not only do not see his point, I adamantly state that he HAS NO fucking point.
I think it was fairly obvious that he was simply calling attention to the irony that was, in and of itself, incredibly apparent. You dissenters have your following, as do the pro-war people, but you constantly call attention to the "dimwitted sheep" that comprise our camp, while at the same time, you have no issue ignoring the confoundedly dissolute, onanistic, maladjusted, armpit-licking, feel-good populous that simply travels to an area without the ability to recognize the benefit this war will bring our nation in due time. Do you seriously think everyone who opposes this war has a brain? On that note, do you seriously think everyone who supports it is retard? If so, then to quote Tapeworm, I can't help you. In short, my question is simple: why are we sheep, and you're not? That’s all Trav was trying to point out.

Originally posted by Freethinker
To claim --as Travh20 has done-- that the actions of those in the peace movment are tantamount to them actively supporting the Middle Eastern terrorists is not only insupportable, it is despicable and dishonest.
As for this claim, he simply made an observation. If you were a terrorist supporter, you'd be acting in the same manner, would you not? (Well, maybe you'd plant a bomb, but for the most part, I don't think this is disputable.)

Originally posted by The Praetorian
In short, my question is simple: why are we sheep, and you're not? That’s all Trav was trying to point out.

Wrong.

Trav went MUCH further.

He claims to that those who are lobbying for an end to the Iraq war are defacto terrorist supporters.

I do not know if ALL the people who support this clusterfuck of a "war" are retarded, but it most certainly seems to me that ONE of them ----who says that protsesting the war equals "actively supporting the terrorists"--- is.

Originally posted by Freethinker
He claims to that those who are lobbying for an end to the Iraq war are defacto terrorist supporters.
Okay, that's patently false, and you and I both know it, BUT...would the actions of a terrorist supporter be any different?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Okay, that's patently false, and you and I both know it, BUT...would the actions of a terrorist supporter be any different?

IMO......yes.

Vastly different.

If a person WERE intent on **supporting the terrorrists**, how laughably inept, meaningless and ineffective would it be, in the furtherance of that aim, for that person to simply travel to Washington and participate in a march??!?!?!?

Is there ANYONE on this planet so goddamned stupid as to believe that Ahmed the Terrorrist, sitting in a cave on the other side of the world, gets his local newspaper the next day, reads an article on the protest in Washington and suddenly exclaims to his brothers-in-arms --"Allah be praised!! NOW!!! NOW we FINALLY have a reason to FIGHT!! My friend the terrorirst supporter, Joe Schmoe from Kokomo Indiana was AT this very march!!! OH!, we can now travel into the field to fight the infidel, knowing in our hearts that our friend Joe is supporting us by marching in marches in the capital of the evil capitalist oppressors!! Praise Allah for that march!!"

It is so preposterous as to be embarrassing to even discuss it. (but then, it came from Trav, so what can be expected?)

How in the FUCK does anyone think that one person [a die-hard supporter of al Queda terrorism, let us say] participating in a protest march in Washington DC for a few hours is going to provide the SLIGHTEST, most infinitesimal amount of **aid** to a goddamned terrorist organization 5000 miles away???

How can you even imagine such a thing??!?! You can NOT be that fucking stupid.

you say anyone who supports the war supports george bush, so anyone who doesnt support it supports our enemys. seriously, we have gone over this time and time again. the terrorists can not drive us from iraq, from a a military standpoint, with IED's and suicide bombers. They use those things to create political pressure on our government to withdrawl form iraq, which you gladly supply with your rallies and protests. ask yourself this, who is happier to see 100,000 people protesting the war in iraq? the US soldiers or Al Zarqawi? I understand you taking offense to it, but if you really think about it realistically, you cant help but come to the conclusion that the anti war protests help our enemies in iraq more then they help the soldiers. the fact that you take such offense to something you see as so ridiculous only proves my point.

Originally posted by Freethinker
How in the FUCK does anyone think that one person [a die-hard supporter of al Queda terrorism, let us say] participating in a protest march in Washington DC for a few hours is going to provide the SLIGHTEST, most infinitesimal amount of **aid** to a goddamned terrorist organization 5000 miles away???

How can you even imagine such a thing??!?! You can NOT be that fucking stupid.
You don't see it. It's called political pressure. They could never defeat us militaristically, so you and your ilk have become their ammunition, and you've been highly effective. This war isn't baseless; Vietnam was baseless. That was over an ideology, but this war isn't. You tire from seeing American boys die for America's interest, and while I understand viewing the death toll in a negative light, you fail to see what they're dying for. Do you have any idea how much money we can make there? Ostensibly, we could control, by applying major pressure, enough oil to level, maybe even govern, Chinas rapid expanse. Why do you think they're buying every drop of oil they can get their hands on currently? I believe in being smart. Iraq was a bold fucking chess move. Now let's make it work, shall we? If you’re not thinking about tomorrow, then you’re not thinking at all.

It's just business.

Wee gee, I've read Tapeworm's stuff and to believe in what he says, you have to do some heavy duty pretending.

The first last and foremost pretending you have to do is this; the Left hasn't been beside themselves with rage over Bush since he "stole" the election from Algore in 2000. I'm aware that tapeworm didn't say this in his post, but it's key when you wish to make sense of the fact that the Left has been trying to blame every single thing that has gone wrong in America on Bush. From Enron to Rita, somehow it's always Bush's fault.


Now on to the points!


I also happen to be one of the “sheep” who actually questioned the presidents take on the information about weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, and one has to pretend that Clinton NEVER went before the U.N. and made the exact same claim that Bush made that Saddam had WMDs and that Clinton wanted regime change, then you have to go and pretend that the intelligence services from Germany, France, Britain and Russia AGREED with Bush's claim that Saddam had WMDs. Get those two sticky facts out of the way and, yes, you can believe that Bush woke up one morning with a wild hare (yes that kind of hare) up his ass and started spouting off about Saddam and WMDs.


I also happen to be one of the “sheep” who wondered why the inspectors where removed after gaining access.


Let's just pretend, on this one, that Saddam hadn't been playing "hide the WMDs" shell game since the end of the '91 Gulf war and that one last final round of weapons inspections would've done the trick. :rolleyes:



I also happen to be one of the “sheep” that questioned the president’s cost estimate of the war.


Yes, someone from the Left worried about how taxpayer's money is actually spent! Chalk that one up to the keep dreaming department. Dammit.


I am also one of the “sheep” who stood in absolute amazement as the president changed the reasoning behind the invasion from a link to 9-11 to weapons of mass destruction to regional stability to freeing the Iraqi people with nary an explanation nor a blink of an eye while all the while still calling veteran John Kerry a “flip-flopper”.


Yes we'll pretend that the world hasn't been trying to seperate Saddam from his WMDs for a dozen years, we'll also pretend that despotic regimes are NOT a breeding ground for terrorists, we'll pretend that giving those in Iraq the same oppurtunity to enjoy the same wealth, rights and freedoms we enjoy here in the U.S. won't further the cause of world peace. :rolleyes:


I also happen to be one of the “sheep” who called into question the president’s humanitarian commitment as he played golf And guitar while thousands of U.S. citizens were suffering after hurricane Katrina.

Yes we'll pretend that Bush running to a microphone and waxing eloquent on the suffering in New Orleans the way Bill Clinton would've done would've somehow eased the suffering of those New Orleans, FEMA would've done a better job, and the levies wouldn't have broken, or something. I think.



I am also on of the “sheep” who wonder if anyone will ever be held accountable for outing a CIA agent after also having questions about the president’s policies.

Yes, we'll pretend that Ms Plame wasn't posing in Vanitiy Fair mag and that her husband didn't out and out STATED, during a hearing on the issue, that on the day that Valerie Plame's name was exposed, she was NOT working as an undercover agent. Dammit.




Perhaps you are right and I am just a “sheep” after all. But I never once thought of a sheep as one who actually questions authority, exercises their constitutional rights and tries to find the truth when the numbers don’t even come close to adding up.


Yeah, and we'll just pretend that you "sheep" did question authority and exercised your Constitutional rights and truth telling when Clinton was sending U.S. troops on little expeditions in Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo and having that aspirin factory bombed in the Sudan right about the time the Monica Lewinski thing was about to break, odd timing, that. Dammit.

Didn't Jeneane Garofalo say she didn't protest Bill Clinton's little wars because it wasn't "hip" to do so?

I guess I'm supposed to go and pretend that you war protestor types really do care about the future our country, our troops and the welfare of those in Iraq and are not protesting merely for political gain (read Getting Bush.)

I'm having a hard time buying that.


I'm back, btw. :D


Dammit.

Darth Be'lal

Yes, and one has to pretend that Clinton NEVER went before the U.N. and made the exact same claim that Bush made that Saddam had WMDs and that Clinton wanted regime change, then you have to go and pretend that the intelligence services from Germany, France, Britain and Russia AGREED with Bush's claim that Saddam had WMDs. Get those two sticky facts out of the way and, yes, you can believe that Bush woke up one morning with a wild hare (yes that kind of hare) up his ass and started spouting off about Saddam and WMDs.
So, because Clinton did it, it now gets Bush off the hook for spreading false "facts" about Saddam? Ahh, I see now. If Clinton makes a mistake, Bush is now all of a sudden allowed to. That makes perfect sense. :@@:

However, I don't recall Clinton calling for war in Iraq. I also don't recall Clinton being around for the more-recent WMD inspections, which occured while Bush was in office, and which showed Saddam had no weapons. As for Germany, France, Britain and Russis agreeing, that dosen't matter what-so-ever. Bush made the first call for war. He went to war based off of bad intelligence, period. Stop passing the blame and getting Bush off of the hook for being wrong.

Let's just pretend, on this one, that Saddam hadn't been playing "hide the WMDs" shell game since the end of the '91 Gulf war and that one last final round of weapons inspections would've done the trick.
Going to war based off of assumption is reckless. Besides, there were nations we knew had weapons. We didn't know for sure Saddam has weapons. It does not make sense we would commit to fighting a war based off of WMDs when we didn't know for sure he had them.

Yes we'll pretend that the world hasn't been trying to seperate Saddam from his WMDs for a dozen years, we'll also pretend that despotic regimes are NOT a breeding ground for terrorists, we'll pretend that giving those in Iraq the same oppurtunity to enjoy the same wealth, rights and freedoms we enjoy here in the U.S. won't further the cause of world peace.
Uhh, the world did try and disarm Saddam. And they did disarm him, didn't they?

Yeah, and we'll just pretend that you "sheep" did question authority and exercised your Constitutional rights and truth telling when Clinton was sending U.S. troops on little expeditions in Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo and having that aspirin factory bombed in the Sudan right about the time the Monica Lewinski thing was about to break, odd timing, that. Dammit.
You make me sick. Stop bringing up Clinton and trying to get Bush off of the hook. Bush was wrong. He fucked up. Period. If Clinton fucked up, so be it. But we are not talking about Clinton, we are talking about Bush.

I guess I'm supposed to go and pretend that you war protestor types really do care about the future our country, our troops and the welfare of those in Iraq and are not protesting merely for political gain (read Getting Bush.)
I can say I care far more about the security of our nation then you do. Since the Iraq war, is, making us less secure.

You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president.
William J. Clinton

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You don't see it. It's called political pressure.

If 300,000 people gather in Washinton to protest the war, does THAT somehow suddenly embolden the terrorists to fight against us??

Firstly, I would point out that NO movement of that sort is in the SLIGHTEST necessary for the terrorists to strengthen their resolve, or to attack us.

THEY ARE ALREADY COMMITTED TO DOING THAT.

But MORE importantly, it was not posited by you or Trav that the widescale movement in the US ---the "political pressure" you spoke of-- was an element in this.

You BOTH have in no uncertain terms suggested that any individual citizen who marches against the war is **supporting the terrorists"............that ANY PERSON who is pro-peace is a terrorist SUPPORTER.

Once again ---- is there ANYONE on this planet so goddamned stupid as to believe that Ahmed the Terrorrist, sitting in a cave on the other side of the world, gets his local newspaper the next day, reads an article on the protest in Washington and suddenly exclaims to his brothers-in-arms --"Allah be praised!! NOW!!! NOW we FINALLY have a reason to FIGHT!! My friend the terrorrist supporter, Joe Schmoe from Kokomo Indiana was AT this very march!!! OH!, we can now travel into the field to fight the infidel, knowing in our hearts that our friend Joe is supporting us by marching in marches in the capital of the evil capitalist oppressors!! Praise Allah for that march!!"..............................?!?!?!?!?

Sadly, if you and Travh20 are any indication, the answer seems to be --------"Yes, there ARE people that fucking stupid".

Originally posted by The Praetorian
They could never defeat us militaristically, so you and your ilk have become their ammunition, and you've been highly effective.

"Highly effective"......??? ROTFL.

Ok. Here's your big fucking chance to make your point. Lets see how you do.

I am breathless with anticipation to hear either you OR the mental retardate Travh20 describe just HOW 0.001% of the goddamned American populace coming out against the war and participating in a six hour march on Washington have been able to provide direct aid to the terrorists.

PLEASE give me your explanation. Give me all the gory details. I'm all ears.

Overdose,

I haven't posted in over a week and you show up. Why am I not surprised?


So, because Clinton did it, it now gets Bush off the hook for spreading false "facts" about Saddam?


No, my point isn't that just because Clinton did something, it's okay for Bush to do so. The idea is that it was widely believed that Saddam had WMDs, right up to the part Bush got into Office, then all the WMDs evaporate and Saddam is as clean as the wind-driven snow.



However, I don't recall Clinton calling for war in Iraq.


Well gee, one of the hallmarks of the Clinton presidency is that he avoided controversial decisions. In short, Clinton wasn't serious when he called for regime change in Iraq, it would've damaged his approval ratings.



Uhh, the world did try and disarm Saddam. And they did disarm him, didn't they?


NOW, the problem with Saddam and WMDs is that we are never going to know what he had and when he had it. It's like the police phoning the local crackhouse and telling them they are going to raid their residence in two hours. Of course, the dudes in the crackhouse are going to flush every single scrap of drugs they had. Same thing with Saddam. He had 18 months in which to dispose of his WMDs and destroy files and hard drives detailing Saddam's WMD programs. So, yeah, it does appear that Saddam didn't have WMDs, just like it would appear that the crackhouse I referred to earlier wasn't selling crack.


You make me sick. Stop bringing up Clinton and trying to get Bush off of the hook. Bush was wrong. He fucked up. Period. If Clinton fucked up, so be it. But we are not talking about Clinton, we are talking about Bush.

I'm not bringing up Clinton to get Bush off the hook, my main point is that it seems that certain elements of the Left have ethics that are situational.


I can say I care far more about the security of our nation then you do. Since the Iraq war, is, making us less secure.

You know something, I'm well aware that you are sincere in your positions, it's too bad that I don't trust the Hillary Clinton's, Cindy Sheehan's and the moveon.org types. And no, I'm not lumping you in with the others, I'm pointing out the elements of the Left I don't trust, dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
my point isn't that just because Clinton did something, it's okay for Bush to do so.

It seeem to me it's your ONLY point.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
It's like the police phoning the local crackhouse and telling them they are going to raid their residence in two hours. Of course, the dudes in the crackhouse are going to flush every single scrap of drugs they had. Same thing with Saddam. He had 18 months in which to dispose of his WMDs and destroy files and hard drives detailing Saddam's WMD programs.

Wonderful analogy!!

Let's continue it, shall we?.........and continue applying the same situation as exists in Iraq.

The police go in, discover that ALL the drugs have been disposed of. There ARE NO drugs left in the house. But instead of leaving, the police pull their guns and kill a significant number of the men, women and children living there. A little bit of "pre-emptive" justice, wot?!?! After all, one of those six year olds they just shot MIGHT have later got a whiff of some drug, and tried to kill the mayor or sumpin!!!!.......right?!?!?!

Still comfortable with your little fucking anaology?!?!?!?

Still think it was perfectly ok for the police to open fire and kill those women and children there, even thought there were NO drugs to be found?!?!?

I mean, after ALL, the police might just claim they were still shook up over the fact that the house FORMERLY had drugs there. Oh wait!!......maybe the police can get out of this spot by saying they were "liberating" the rest of the house.

Yeah!!....that's it!

No!!....wait!!!...they could just use the excuse that they were bringing democracy to the house!!!!!!

Right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Darth Be'lal

No, my point isn't that just because Clinton did something, it's okay for Bush to do so.
Then why even bring him up?

The idea is that it was widely believed that Saddam had WMDs, right up to the part Bush got into Office, then all the WMDs evaporate and Saddam is as clean as the wind-driven snow.
Did you not read my post? The idea he had WMDs was believed right up until Bush got into office. However, the UN inspected Iraq in 2002 and came out with no weapons. Clinton didn't have that to go off of. You cannot compare what Clinton said before those inspections, to what Bush said after those inspections, and then say, well they both thought he had weapons prior to the war.

In short, Clinton wasn't serious when he called for regime change in Iraq, it would've damaged his approval ratings.
Oh yes, we must assume all Clinton cared about was his approval ratings. How typical. Anyway, he may have thought Saddam had weapons, however, was that reason enough to attack him? Maybe, maybe not. We did, afterall, give him weapons when he was benefiting the US.

NOW, the problem with Saddam and WMDs is that we are never going to know what he had and when he had it.
Again, we had reasons to doubt he had weapons. If you don't remember the UN found no weapons. That is reason enough.

Of course, the dudes in the crackhouse are going to flush every single scrap of drugs they had. Same thing with Saddam. He had 18 months in which to dispose of his WMDs and destroy files and hard drives detailing Saddam's WMD programs. So, yeah, it does appear that Saddam didn't have WMDs, just like it would appear that the crackhouse I referred to earlier wasn't selling crack.
You forget something. The UN was the police and they found no weapons. The UN was put in place to avoid war, but to be able to still act like the "police" in the situation you brought up.

Putting thousands of innocents in harms way for the assumption he still had weapons is inept. And this proves it. We went to Iraq for the WMD's, he didn't have any. Well, now that just proves we should never go to war unless we are 100% sure.

I'm not bringing up Clinton to get Bush off the hook, my main point is that it seems that certain elements of the Left have ethics that are situational.
No shit they are situational. If new infomation comes out that Saddam didn't have weapons we are going to change our stance. That is what Clinton did. He thought Saddam had weapons, then infomation came out that he didn't (while Bush was in office, 2002 UN inspections) Thus, like a smart person, changed his stance based off of new facts.

You know something, I'm well aware that you are sincere in your positions, it's too bad that I don't trust the Hillary Clinton's, Cindy Sheehan's and the moveon.org types. And no, I'm not lumping you in with the others, I'm pointing out the elements of the Left I don't trust, dammit.
I love how all of your posts say how the left's main goal is to rip Bush down and tear him to shreds. And that is all we really care about. Yet, after 5 years of Clinton not being President, the Republicans STILL try and rip whatever he did and his character to shit. Get a fucking life.

Clinton is only brought up to point out inaccuracies in your statements...because he was the most recent common example.

And i HARDLY bring up clinton...I actually wrote a post recently on all the good things he did... and he did bad things too but hey don't ALL presidents?

Originally posted by Decka
Clinton is only brought up to point out inaccuracies in your statements...because he was the most recent common example.
How does he prove any inaccuracies? Care to give me a few examples?

Originally posted by Freethinker
the true *sheep* are those citizens who meekly go along with whatever the leaders say
You're just as guilty. Your leaders just happen to be Kennedy and Dean.


Back to the original thread. The anti-war movement absolutely benefits the enemy. BUT, I don't think it is the movement's intent to help them, it just happens.

Originally posted by Brooks
BUT, I don't think it is the movement's intent to help them, it just happens.
:@@: How does it help the terrorists directly?

If anything I'd say the Pro-War movement helps out the enemy far more because most of the people in the Middle East see this war as trying to invade and occupy their lands and fill it with Western ideals, which thus creates more terrorists and hatred for America.

If anything I'd say the Pro-War movement helps out the enemy far more because most of the people in the Middle East see this war as trying to invade and occupy their lands and fill it with Western ideals, which thus creates more terrorists and hatred for America. The CIA even said this. But the Busheviks aren't ones for facts...

"Some people…seem to cling to the discredited theory that the recent attacks in London…are in retaliation for the war in Iraq. That is nonsense.”
– Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in Los Angeles

Originally posted by Brooks
Back to the original thread. The anti-war movement absolutely benefits the enemy. BUT, I don't think it is the movement's intent to help them, it just happens.
That was exactly my point earlier. Jesus, you'd think it was obvious...

Originally posted by Brooks
You're just as guilty. Your leaders just happen to be Kennedy and Dean.


Laughably false.

Kennedy and Dean are not "my leaders".

I despise the Democrats.......Kennedy and Dean included.

Originally posted by Brooks
Back to the original thread. The anti-war movement absolutely benefits the enemy.


A far more specific allegation than ***the anti-war movement** has been leveled here.

There are posters here who have alleged that a person attending an anti-war march is guilty of "supporting the terrorists".

That is far more than simply opining --"If the terrorists see 300,000 people coming out against the war, it helps them" . (personally, i don't think it has any appreciable effect on Middle Eastern terrorists or their actions, no matter how many people they read about in a newspaper being at a "rally for peace", whether it is one or 300,000, but I digress)

I have asked repeatedly for an explanation as to how an indivudual citizen of the US, marching for the anti-war cause, provided the slightest bit of "aid" or "support" to a single terrorist.

No answer yet.

(They run for their holes like rats when pressured to back up or explain their nonsensical allegations. )

We do know that Iraq had those weapons, I'll give you that. Afterall, our own government has the receipts!

NOW, the problem with Saddam and WMDs is that we are never going to know what he had and when he had it. It's like the police phoning the local crackhouse and telling them they are going to raid their residence in two hours. Of course, the dudes in the crackhouse are going to flush every single scrap of drugs they had. Same thing with Saddam. He had 18 months in which to dispose of his WMDs and destroy files and hard drives detailing Saddam's WMD programs. So, yeah, it does appear that Saddam didn't have WMDs, just like it would appear that the crackhouse I referred to earlier wasn't selling crack.



Nice analogy - except that possessing crack is currently a crime, yet possessing the weapons that the Ba'athist regime had wasn't.

The illegal weapons, like nukes, are in the hands of mostly Israel, so . . . why aren't we invading Israel? Afterall, prior to our attacks on Iraq, Israel had killed more Americans, and Israel continues to murder American civilians visiting Palestine.

The US government waited for the shelf life of the weapons they sold em to expire . . . then invaded. Why did they invade? We'll never knOw In this Life.

Blair was a bit more clever than Bush, tried to pin justification for the invasion on "human rights". I guess he hopes no one will look to closely at the occupied six counties of Ireland.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Laughably false.

Kennedy and Dean are not "my leaders".

I despise the Democrats.......Kennedy and Dean included.


Yea Brooks.. didn't you know??? Freethinker stands for NOTHING... and ive called him out on it many times with no response.

Originally posted by Deepest Red

Blair was a bit more clever than Bush

Well, yes.

But then, he had to be.

Blair has a great many individuals among his constituency who possess 3 digit IQs who tend to question his actions and policies.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Well, yes.

But then, he had to be.

Blair has a great many individuals among his constituency who possess 3 digit IQs who tend to question his actions and policies.

More Americans oppose the current imperialist war than Blair's continued occupation of Ireland.

Red's quotes:


Nice analogy - except that possessing crack is currently a crime, yet possessing the weapons that the Ba'athist regime had wasn't.



Actually red, it WAS a crime for Saddam to possess WMDs and certain other technologies after he lost the first Gulf War. The U.N. issued resolution(s) calling on Saddam to give up his WMDs which he never did. Which was why the U.S. invaded Iraq a couple of years ago. Dammit.



The illegal weapons, like nukes, are in the hands of mostly Israel, so . . . why aren't we invading Israel? Afterall, prior to our attacks on Iraq, Israel had killed more Americans, and Israel continues to murder American civilians visiting Palestine.

What's this thing certain Lefties have against Israel?



The US government waited for the shelf life of the weapons they sold em to expire . . . then invaded. Why did they invade? We'll never knOw In this Life.

Actually Red, Saddam was accused of manufactoring WMDs. Out and out proof hasn't been found, but what I've read from a U.N. report and the Kay report does point to troubling activities that happened during Saddam's reign. Dammit. Also, don't give me this bilge about oil. In the first place, name me a country that does NOT look after its own interests. Secondly, the U.S. is desperately trying to give the Iraqis a better life, which we need not do if we were just after the oil. And before you lecture me about whether or not the U.S. should be democraticizing the world, you will have to explain to me why the only thing keeping the Iraqi "insurgency" alive is foreign fighters.



Blair was a bit more clever than Bush, tried to pin justification for the invasion on "human rights". I guess he hopes no one will look to closely at the occupied six counties of Ireland


Yes, I've spotted that as well. Again, with the Bush bashing leftists, their ethics are situational. Now that Bush is trying to bring democracy to Iraq, it's suddenly the wrong thing to do.


Dammit.

Darth Be'lal

Actually red, it WAS a crime for Saddam to possess WMDs and certain other technologies after he lost the first Gulf War. The U.N. issued resolution(s) calling on Saddam to give up his WMDs which he never did. Which was why the U.S. invaded Iraq a couple of years ago. Dammit.
Right when Saddam is not helping the US, we must disarm him. But when he is helping us, oh sure, have as many weapons as you want Saddam, buddy ol' pal. Oh and sure, kill as many people as you want, as long as you are benefiting us in the Middle East! But once you stop, you are a bad bad man! You must go!

What's this thing certain Lefties have against Israel?
They took more land then they were given and if anything cause more then half of the problems in the Middle East.

Actually Red, Saddam was accused of manufactoring WMDs. Out and out proof hasn't been found, but what I've read from a U.N. report and the Kay report does point to troubling activities that happened during Saddam's reign. Dammit.
It does not point out he had weapons. Dammit. Going to war on assumption is reckless. Why didn't we attack the countries we KNEW had weapons first?

PS: No reply to my last rebuttal, a few posts above on this thread? Gonna not reply like you did in the Jane Fonda thread?

Dose's stuff..........


Right when Saddam is not helping the US, we must disarm him. But when he is helping us, oh sure, have as many weapons as you want Saddam, buddy ol' pal. Oh and sure, kill as many people as you want, as long as you are benefiting us in the Middle East! But once you stop, you are a bad bad man! You must go!


I must of explained this one a hundred times before. The U.S. has and will always do what is in their best interests. From time to time, it has meant that America has allied with some very low characters in order to defeat something that is even worse. We allied with Saddam in order to defeat Radical Islam in the guise of Iran. And no, it's not our proudest moments, but it is something that does have to be done. And yes, when the interests of the United States change, then certain low characters do get seen in a different light and are treated much more harshly, dammit.



They took more land then they were given and if anything cause more then half of the problems in the Middle East.

Only because various armies tried to exterminate Israel in the first place, dammit.


It does not point out he had weapons. Dammit. Going to war on assumption is reckless.

I agree with you there, it is a rather bad idea to go to war on "assumptions." However, are you going to tell that you trust Saddam? Especially when he said he didn't have WMDs?


Why didn't we attack the countries we KNEW had weapons first?

Well gee, Iran didn't have some 14 U.N. resolutions hanging over THEIR heads, and North Korea is protected by China, so unless you wish to inaugarate WWIII, NK is best left uninvaded. That leaves Saddam. The U.S. does the best it can with what its got.

I must of explained that one some 14 times before.


PS: No reply to my last rebuttal, a few posts above on this thread?

No, I wanted to see what Red did when I rebutted his post, dammit.


Gonna not reply like you did in the Jane Fonda thread?

Who's Jane Fonda?

you will never convince overdose that saddam was doing anyhting besides fully complying and bending over backwards to prove he had no WMDs. listening to him it is saddam who is the victim in all of this.

Darth Be'lal

I must of explained this one a hundred times before. The U.S. has and will always do what is in their best interests.
Wrong. We try to do what is in our best interest, but sometimes we fails to do so. As with the Iraq War. It is making our nation less secure. So, we are not doing what is in our best interest...now are we?

From time to time, it has meant that America has allied with some very low characters in order to defeat something that is even worse. We allied with Saddam in order to defeat Radical Islam in the guise of Iran.
Do you not think we could have taken out Iran on our own if we felt so strongly about it? We just wanted someone to do our dirty work for us, and who better then to pick Saddam? We didn't have to ally with Saddam, we just wanted to because we were lazy. And we supported him while he was killing his people and gave him weapons. And now that he isn't doing our dirty work, he is now an "evil man" and must go. But he is, of course, not an "evil man" when he is doing our dirty work. God bless the US of A.

Only because various armies tried to exterminate Israel in the first place, dammit.
Ummm, so that gives them the right to take more land? Bullshit. Just because they won the war against the other armies does not mean they can now just take land that wasn't given to them. You didn't see us taking Japan or Germany when we won WWII. That is because it isn't morally correct to take land after you win a war. But of course, Israel having their huge egos that they have, decided to take some more land because they couldn't be satisfied with what land they had. Land that was taken from people who had been living there for thosuands of years, and were now forced to move, forced to leave their homes, their lives and move on. Seem fair? No, it wasn't. It does not justify them attacking Israel, but it does not mean Israel now has the right to make things worse.

I agree with you there, it is a rather bad idea to go to war on "assumptions." However, are you going to tell that you trust Saddam? Especially when he said he didn't have WMDs?
We didn't "trust his word" we actually went into Iraq and inspected him. we came out with no WMDs. That is far more evidence then "trusting his word"

Well gee, Iran didn't have some 14 U.N. resolutions hanging over THEIR heads, and North Korea is protected by China, so unless you wish to inaugarate WWIII, NK is best left uninvaded. That leaves Saddam. The U.S. does the best it can with what its got.
So what if Iraq had 14 UN resolutions hanging over their head? The UN found no weapons when they inspected, period. And your lovely friends Israel has many resolutions hanging over their heads. Should we now attack them?

Originally posted by Decka
Yea Brooks.. didn't you know??? Freethinker stands for NOTHING...

Firstly, even if it WAS true that I "stand for nothing"......so fucking WHAT???

I cannot understand your psychotic need that every human on earth needs to "stand for" something.

But in point of fact, i DO happen to stand for something;

----democratic socialism.

And as a proponent of that system, I strongly STAND FOR, first and foremost, the national "Defense" (I use the term euphemistically) budget of the US being cut in half. For starters.

Originally posted by Decka
and ive called him out on it many times with no response.

You're a liar.

You have vomited up your puerile little -- "Aw, he doesn't staaaand for anything" -- spew exactly ONCE that I am aware of.....and I made a direct response to it.

I must of explained this one a hundred times before. The U.S. has and will always do what is in their best interests. From time to time, it has meant that America has allied with some very low characters in order to defeat something that is even worse. We allied with Saddam in order to defeat Radical Islam in the guise of Iran. And no, it's not our proudest moments, but it is something that does have to be done. And yes, when the interests of the United States change, then certain low characters do get seen in a different light and are treated much more harshly, dammit. And all at the expense of American soilders lives. But hey its conveinent right?

defeat radical islam? So then we decided to invade and occupy the only secular country in the ME who's new constitution is based on Islam while simultainiously inciting religious extremists through said occupation...Go America!

Originally posted by Deepest Red
We do know that Iraq had those weapons, I'll give you that. Afterall, our own government has the receipts!
Ahhh - a fan of Dave Chappelle and Negrodomous, I see.

Ahhh - a fan of Dave Chappelle and Negrodomous, I see.

Never seen it, what's that?

Seriously??? That was an almost verbatim line from Dave Chappelle's show where a black soothsayer named "Negrodomous" predicts the future/tells fortunes for random audience members who ask him questions. The one here went something like - (small white dude stands up and asks): "Negrodomous, why did President Bush think Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction?" Negrodomous responded by saying in a droll voice, "Because he has the receipt."

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Seriously??? That was an almost verbatim line from Dave Chappelle's show where a black soothsayer named "Negrodomous" predicts the future/tells fortunes for random audience members who ask him questions. The one here went something like - (small white dude stands up and asks): "Negrodomous, why did President Bush think Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction?" Negrodomous responded by saying in a droll voice, "Because he has the receipt."

"F*** your couch n*****!!!!!"

Dave Chappelle is a very, very wierd person.

Originally posted by Evakian
"F*** your couch n*****!!!!!"
He's HILARIOUS. The skit with Charlie Murphy containing the quote above was one of the funniest things I've ever seen in my life.

Originally posted by Evakian Dave Chappelle is a very, very wierd person. Maybe. But the US government (under Reagan/Bush) DID approve the sale of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam back when he was a "good" guy in their book. (hence the remark about the receipts) Later, the US government decided Saddam had to go, so he suddenly had to be changed into a --*very evil person*-- who had to have a war waged against him. The hypocrisy is off the chart. (As well as the incompetence. )

do we have to bring up our soviet allies in WW2 again? god, how many times do we have to explain this to these people? the world of geo politics and grand strategy is not set in stone. allies change, and you usually have to side with the lesser of two evils (the soviets over the nazis in the 40's, Saddam fver the ayatollah in the 80's) no one ever said saddam was a good guy

Originally posted by Travh20
do we have to bring up our soviet allies in WW2 again? god, how many times do we have to explain this to these people? the world of geo politics and grand strategy is not set in stone. allies change, and you usually have to side with the lesser of two evils (the soviets over the nazis in the 40's, Saddam fver the ayatollah in the 80's) no one ever said saddam was a good guy

That's fine Trav, and to a point I agree...how much poison gas did we sell to Stalin again?

so if we only sold saddam hundreds of tanks and aircraft nad artillery pieces and ammo it would be all fine and good?

I must of explained this one a hundred times before. The U.S. has and will always do what is in their best interests. From time to time, it has meant that America has allied with some very low characters in order to defeat something that is even worse. We allied with Saddam in order to defeat Radical Islam in the guise of Iran. And no, it's not our proudest moments, but it is something that does have to be done. And yes, when the interests of the United States change, then certain low characters do get seen in a different light and are treated much more harshly, dammit. "best interests" is a moving target Dearth, depending on who's in the White House. America has slept with, and CONTINUES to sleep with some of the filthiest assistant crack whores on the planet and usualy it's a GOP boner that gets us there. IF Saddam was such a vile and evil person there was ONE OPPORTUNITY to address that situation: at the end of Desert Storm. The interests have certainly changed since then, but the facts have not, idiot.

Originally posted by Travh20
so if we only sold saddam hundreds of tanks and aircraft nad artillery pieces and ammo it would be all fine and good?

Typical Trav.

If you have no answer or rebuttal to my point just say so, don't compound the problem by making ridiculous digressions. You are the one that said it was ok to sell weapons to Saddam based on the fact that he was our ally. Can you justify the selling of chemical weapons to him? If not, admit it was a flawed policy to begin with.

I will admit it was a bad policy in hindsight, which is what you are doing. at the time, iraq was being overrun with waves of iranian suicide troops. Clearly iraq needed some help, thier attempt to take over iran had failed, the tables had turned and Iraq was on the defensive. Fanatical Iran and the ayatollah taking over iraq and the oil fields and being within easy shot of Saudi Arabia was not an option. after the Oil embargo and long gas lines a few years earlier, the governemnt knew what awaited us if radicals gained control of the entire middle east. Short of the US getting involved, all the conventional weaponry in the world wouldnt help Iraq repel the Iranian hordes. So in a last ditch effort to maintain the status quo in the middle east the US decided to give saddam chemical weapons.. This is what I assume was the logic behind giving saddam chemical weapons. A weapon of last resort to hold onto his country so our enemy at the time (Iran) didnt take over al the oil in the middle east and be sitting at the border of Saudi Arabia.

Now, knowing the situation at the time, It still wasnt wise to give the pyshco chemical weapons (which I still havent seen any proof of anyway) but whats done is done. we can sit around and argue what we should have done 20 years ago until we are blue in the face. The fact is the choice was made, for good or bad, now we have to deal with it. the argument that since we gave him the weapons means we couldnt or didnt have the right to confront him is just stupid.

The reason I brought up conventional weapons was because you made it seem like giving saddam chemical weapons was so horrible, but conventional weapons were OK. weapons are weapons. Chemical weapons are terrible things, but he could have killed just as many Kurds with a batallion of M-1 tanks, probably more since chemical weapons are hard to use effectivly.

In the end, it was a flawed policy, as you say. we should ahve though further ahead. but, knowing the situation at the time, I do understand their dedcision, even if I dont agree with it.

Fluffernutter's idiotic ravings,


"best interests" is a moving target Dearth, depending on who's in the White House.

Well gee, fluff, DUH! DUH! DUH! DUH! Of COURSE the interests of the U.S. can and do change when there is a new Administration in the Whitehouse. Thanks for explaining that water is wet, fluff, just how long did it take for you to figure it out?


America has slept with, and CONTINUES to sleep with some of the filthiest assistant crack whores on the planet and usualy it's a GOP boner that gets us there.


Yes, fluffyhead, we'll just forget that Clinton went and gave North Korea nuclear material in exchange for a promise from said Commies that they won't go and make bombs out of it. IF you could pull the head out of your ass, you'd have figured out that foreign policy screwups aren't the sole property of either political party. Dammit.


IF Saddam was such a vile and evil person there was ONE OPPORTUNITY to address that situation: at the end of Desert Storm.


Yes DS was such a wonderful oppurtunity. IF Bush Sr had the stomach for invading Iraq and the anti-war left hadn't been out trying to undermine the first Gulf War effort, it may well have happened. Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Yes, fluffyhead, we'll just forget that Clinton went and gave North Korea nuclear material in exchange for a promise from said Commies that they won't go and make bombs out of it. IF you could pull the head out of your ass, you'd have figured out that foreign policy screwups aren't the sole property of either political party. Dammit.
Clinton did it too so Bush can too! Didn't you just bring Clinton up as an excuse for Bush a few posts ago? I find it ironic that Republicans are for personal responsibility (Abortion, Welfare etc. etc.) but when it comes to Bush who they would give their left arm for, well, they will just make excuses because Clinton did it too! Give me a damn break.

PS: You didn't reply to my last rebuttal against your false claims.

Dose's reply,


Clinton did it too so Bush can too! Didn't you just bring Clinton up as an excuse for Bush a few posts ago?


That is not the point of my discussion. Fluff was telling me that when there's a foreign policy snafu, it's the Republican's fault. I was merely pointing out that foregin policy screwups are not the exclusive domain of either political party.



PS: You didn't reply to my last rebuttal against your false claims.

No dose, the brilliant fire of your intellect has left temporarily blinded. Or I'm just too lazy to respond to your posts right now, dammit.

Whoa, Darth, you're dangerously close to upgrading the vituperation to words like "bastard" and "dingleberry". Let it fly, baby, it's entertaining!

BTW, good post.

OD, he didn't bring up Clinton for any other reason than to reference how foreign policy failures take place no matter who is in the White House. They always have, and they probably always will.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
That is not the point of my discussion. Fluff was telling me that when there's a foreign policy snafu, it's the Republican's fault. I was merely pointing out that foregin policy screwups are not the exclusive domain of either political party.
He was saying how depending on who is in office the policy changes. And you said that you knew this. However, your example seems highly ironic. We are talking about Bush Senior giving weapons/gas/money to Saddam and how he was a bad man, but we still gave him weapons when we needed him. And then you bring up Clinton giving things such as that to North Korea (another bad country). As if, that we shouldn't use the point or that we are hypocrites because Clinton did it too. Now, I know you are going to say that isn't what you meant. But I seriously don't buy it. I believe your example was to prove two points, not just the one you say it was proving.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Or I'm just too lazy to respond to your posts right now, dammit.
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Overdose
But I seriously don't buy it.
Alright, but I'd be willing to bet he's not selling it...

The Praetorian's quote:


Whoa, Darth, you're dangerously close to upgrading the vituperation to words like "bastard" and "dingleberry". Let it fly, baby, it's entertaining!


Do you know that I caught flak from Vile for being rude to other posters here? Overdose PM'd me that I've been too rude and arrogant to other posters on these boards as well. SO, I took their words of wisdom to heart, EXILED myself from the boards for almost two weeks to put things into perspective and regain balance. Then I came back promising myself that I'm not going to be rude and arrogant to other posters here. Then fluffernutter has to go and call me and idiot! :rant:

Bad timing on fluffies part, dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Do you know that I caught flak from Vile for being rude to other posters here?

Don't worry Darth, Prae has been taken behind the woodshed more often than you.

Don't worry Darth, Prae has been taken behind the woodshed more often than you.

Vile: *grumbles* "Git bak her boy, time fer yer dalee beatin'!" :D

Originally posted by fluffernutter [/i]America has slept with, and CONTINUES to sleep with some of the filthiest assistant crack whores on the planet and usually it's a GOP boner that gets us there.[/i]


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
IF you could pull the head out of your ass, you'd have figured out that foreign policy screwups aren't the sole property of either political party. Dammit.

And if YOU could pull your head out of YOUR ass you might notice he used the word **usually* in refering to GOP involvement.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Don't worry Darth, Prae has been taken behind the woodshed more often than you.
This is true, Darth. I think the mods here, albeit flaming liberal, are really fair, intelligent, and for the most part, pretty lenient. As far as being sent a PM from OD, relax, at one time, I think he's sent a PM to everyone here. I don't know why Vile yelled at you, but I have to say, in all honesty, he's been really fair to me. When I was yelled at - I deserved it. I'm not saying that you were wrong, Darth, but don't fret being called names. If someone throws down, then do them the courtesy of returning the favor. You stick to the topics at hand, and I think your logic is really sound. It's okay if conversation gets a little heated around here. Do you know how boring it would be if it didn't??? Outside of Brooks, you're our second tamest conservative poster. I don't think anyone is going to jump on you for calling The Fluffer an idiot, especially seeing as to how he called you one first.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I don't think anyone is going to jump on you for calling The Fluffer an idiot, especially seeing as to how he called you one first.
Two wrongs sure make a right! :o

Darth:
I hereby retract my "idiot" adjunct from that post. Please accept my apologies and substitute "dagnabbit" instead.

Prae,

I agree with everything you've said. I can add that Vile is fair with posters and smart enough to know when to draw the line and when to let people go, dammit.


Fluffernutter,

No problem, and from here on out I'll forget that this whole thing happened.