# sorry to report, missing GI's found dead



## AnnaDTX (Jun 20, 2006)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13432770/


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2006)

What does this have to do with attention whoring?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 20, 2006)

Tough luck.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.


They went to kill and got killed.


----------



## AnnaDTX (Jun 20, 2006)

story ive been follwing


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 20, 2006)

The Americans have been dropping Napalm on civilians since 2003.

The Pentagon denied the reports of it by the BBC.

After 2 years of denials, the Pentagon now says, yes, they have been using Napalm.

The changed the name of the bomb.


And people care about these two f*kwits who are 2 amonth tens of thousands?


Give me a break.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 20, 2006)

*Cheney & The Dark Side*

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

"Frontline" documentary makes case that Cheney used 9/11 to go to war
By Mark Rahner

Seattle Times staff reporter

The title of the "Frontline" documentary comes from Vice President Dick Cheney's own words about the war on terror: "We have to work the dark side, if you will. ... "

Last week's grim milestone of 2,500 American military deaths in Iraq will look even grimmer after tonight's "Frontline" documentary, "The Dark Side."

The damning 90-minute exposé (10 p.m. PBS) stops short of laying those bodies at Vice President Dick Cheney's feet. But it does finger Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ??? through more than 40 interviews with CIA veterans, journalists, politicians and others ??? as the ones who ignored, suppressed and manipulated intelligence after the 9/11 attacks to lead us into war with a country that had nothing to do with our attackers.

And you wonder why the GOP hasn't exactly been a sugar daddy for public television.

Comedians have made countless Darth Vader jokes about Cheney, but the film's title is no joke about The Force. It's from Cheney's own words about America's response to terrorists: "We have to work the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies."

But apparently he didn't use the actual intelligence from the agencies.

The CIA and its then-director, George Tenet, knew immediately that al-Qaida in Afghanistan was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and said so. But author James Bamford says that while the Pentagon was still smoking, Rumsfeld said, "We've got to see, somehow, how we can bring Saddam Hussein into this."

"The Dark Side" claims that 9/11 provided Cheney and Rumsfeld with a pretext for achieving their longstanding ambition to go after the Iraqi dictator and to boost executive power that they'd seen diminish ever since their days as allies in Nixon's administration. As consummate political infighters, they resented and continually undermined Tenet ??? a sports-loving man's man who had become pally with George W. Bush.

The CIA repeatedly insisted that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaida, and Tenet explicitly warned that invading Iraq would "break the back" of our counterterrorism effort. Tenet even ordered the agency's records scoured 10 years back for links. CIA vet Michael Scheuer, who led that effort, says, "There was no connection between al-Qaida and Saddam."

But Cheney, the chief architect of the war on terror and the most powerful vice president in U.S. history, had made up his mind, according to "The Dark Side." CIA vets say Cheney and his now-indicted chief of staff, Scooter Libby, made unprecedented trips to CIA headquarters to pressure and "harangue" analysts who were compiling the National Intelligence Estimate. Analyst Paul Pillar, one of its primary authors, says he regrets his role in the hastily prepared, fatally flawed document, which was "clearly requested and published for policy-advocacy purposes ... to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public."

The apparent circularity of the pro-war machinations is especially disturbing. Then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller would get off-the-record info from the White House about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, print the claims in Sunday's paper, and then Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and others would cite the articles as evidence on the Sunday talk shows to justify the invasion.

While Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell had strong reservations about Iraq, sources quoted in "The Dark Side" say the two eventually caved in. Tenet, says former weapons inspector David Kay, "traded integrity for access" to power, while Powell was ultimately a team player.

"The Dark Side" is especially timely in light of those who persisted in equating the Iraq war with the fight against terrorism in the debate leading to last Friday's pro-war House resolution.

These are the guys who want our phone records now. If "The Dark Side" is as credible as it looks ??? and it's no cheap Michael Moore job ??? they can't even be trusted to go after the right bad guys when they've got the right intelligence handed to them on a platter.


Source: www.seattletimes.com


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> The Americans have been dropping Napalm on civilians since 2003.
> 
> The Pentagon denied the reports of it by the BBC.
> 
> ...



They're Americans, the other were not.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 20, 2006)

Oh I see....that's the way you feel....


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2006)

For the most part.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 20, 2006)

True Story, but civilians are civilians, even if they have tanish colored skin.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 20, 2006)

I want our young folks to come home and get on with their life.  It's been 3+ years.

Many of them may have problems.

There aren't a lot of good jobs around anymore.


----------



## GFR (Jun 20, 2006)

*The bodies showed signs of "barbaric torture" when they were found by American and Iraqi troops on Monday, a senior Iraqi general told Reuters on Tuesday.*


Is their another kind of torture that is not "Barbaric"???


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 20, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *The bodies showed signs of "barbaric torture" when they were found by American and Iraqi troops on Monday, a senior Iraqi general told Reuters on Tuesday.*
> 
> 
> Is their another kind of torture that is not "Barbaric"???




Newspeak, son.  We tourture the enemy humanely.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 20, 2006)

True Story, while I'm making my point, I would like that say that this is sad and terrible, and I would destroy people that did this.  But I have to acknowledge the loss on both sides.


----------



## GFR (Jun 20, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Newspeak, son.  We tourture the enemy humanely.


I love Big Brother


----------



## Pepper (Jun 20, 2006)

Snafu, your attitude is absolutely horrible. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## GFR (Jun 20, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Tough luck.
> 
> You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
> 
> ...


That is a good point, but to some degree it is sad that stupid children are the one's Governments send to die. If these men were 40+ then I would agree with you but they are just children and don't know better yet. This was is evil and both sides are to blame for it.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 20, 2006)

Foreman is right. Whatever your view of the war, these guys were kids and they were tortured to death. Can't we be sad about that without having to read Snafu's frothing at the mouth?


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 20, 2006)

True Story, the guy was my age, plus he looks like a friend.


----------



## TBAR (Jun 20, 2006)

I'm not against war by any means.  I feel like something had to be done about Iraq, but at the same time, I don't think there will ever be a end to this war.  Terrorists have always been around, and they always will be IMO.  The thing that pisses me off more than anything:  How the hell is Osama Bin Laden still alive??


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 20, 2006)

Interesting little debate here.  I see Snafu's side definitely.  These people enlisted in the military knowing the risks, while the civilians in Iraq did nothing of the sort.  Nonetheless, this is impressionable youth we are talking about here.  The military has a very aggressive recruiting campaign out there that makes it seem like an awesome way to go.

I'm pretty disgusted with both Snafu and DOMS.  Neither one seems to have much respect for human life; it is lost with their partisan beliefs.  Just because one enlisted as a soldier and the other is in a country that is outside of the US, their lives don't matter and shouldn't be mourned?  Nonsense.  Like BigDyl said (I can't believe I'm saying this), I have to acknowledge the loss on both sides.  American lives aren't the only one's that matter, and being a soldier doesn't mean your life is disposable.


----------



## MCx2 (Jun 20, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *The bodies showed signs of "barbaric torture" when they were found by American and Iraqi troops on Monday, a senior Iraqi general told Reuters on Tuesday.*
> 
> 
> Is their another kind of torture that is not "Barbaric"???



There's tickle torture, thats a good one.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 20, 2006)

Watching Congress debate the Iraq War last week reminded me of how many politicians in Washington still don't get it. Some completely miss the lessons of history that teach us how important victory in Iraq is for the United States. Fortunately, the House passed a resolution to "complete the mission" in Iraq and rejected a date certain for withdrawal of our troops. But before House Republicans prevailed on this resolution, we had to sit through a debate in which some members -- amazingly -- suggested that the death of the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by U.S. air strikes means it is a good time to withdraw our troops, completely ignoring the fact that coalition troops, along with the Iraqis, have conducted nearly 500 more raids since killing Zarqawi.

It is difficult for me to convey to you how wrong I believe this cut-and-run attitude is.

The killing of Zarqawi, as I discussed last week, was a substantial win -- a win that should be built upon with greater resolve to finish the job in Iraq. It should not be used as a justification to withdraw before the job is done. 

More importantly, our efforts in Iraq have to be understood in a much bigger -- a global -- context. We are engaged in a global, long war with the irreconcilable wing of Islam. In many ways, this is the first war of globalization. Just as globalization lets us send messages all over the world instantaneously via e-mail, use our phones to call people all over the world, transfer cash in and out of stock markets all over the world and travel easily and globally, it also has a downside.

Former CIA Director George Tenet describes this downside of globalization as the "Grey World." It's the world of terrorists who can organize much more effectively and globally, trafficking in human beings for the sex trade and trafficking in drugs, international crime, illegal arms deals and illegal international transportation that is made possible by technological advances. This Grey World is the dark side of the stunning increases in standards of living, communications and transportation that have marked the modern world.

That's why Zarqawi in Baghdad has a relationship with terrorists arrested recently in Britain and Canada. That's why Zarqawi in Baghdad relates directly to what happened in Mogadishu, Somalia, where a group of Islamic extremists took control, creating the potential that Somalia could become a new Afghanistan-like center of opposition to the civilized world. And that's why Zarqawi in Baghdad relates to the developments in Aceh in Sumatra, where a local group made a deal with the central government allowing them to impose sharia, the extremist, medieval Islamic law, on all citizens, including non-Muslims. By acquiescing to the imposition of Islamic law, a new center of militant behavior is being created right in the middle of Indonesia. 

Each of these developments is tied together by the fact that in this globalized long war, terrorists reinforce each other's worldview on websites, they study each other, they communicate with each other by e-mail and mobile phones, and they very often travel to many different countries. That's why we have to recognize that while it was right for President Bush to convene a war council on Iraq last week, my hope is that he will convene a council to plan for the long war. And in the months and years ahead, we need to have an open, honest dialogue around the world with those who are willing to defend our civilization. We need to discuss how we're going to make sure that the forces of democracy, the forces of the rule of law and the forces of freedom defeat the forces of terror and tyranny who seek to threaten us in every country in the world.   Your friend, 

 Newt Gingrich 


P.S. - The rush to judgment over allegations of military misconduct in Iraq got me thinking about its effect on our fighting men and women. So I asked a former Marine who served two tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom how all this talk is effecting morale. His remarkable answer follows:

It should be noted that the Marines on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan are the true embodiment of what America and Democracy are about. They are the 19-year-old young men and women that are making a sacrifice. They are not enjoying rush week at a university or going to the beach for the summer, but rather offering their lives in the defense of each other, their families and their homes. These 19-year-olds are the true tip of America's spear and bear more responsibility each day than most Americans do in lifetimes.

It seems that in this day and age there is more support and misdirected justice for prison inmates than these dedicated young Marines. For any American -- most especially the media -- to condemn or judge them is absurd. They will be investigated and judged by fellow warriors who understand the circumstances and the enemy involved. Rest assured, no one holds their people more accountable than the military, most especially the Marine Corps. "Keep our Honor Clean" isn't just a catch phrase.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 20, 2006)

True Story, everytime we kill the #2 guy whoever it is this week  there will always be another one to step up.  How do we even know it's the number 2 guy and not the number 47th guy?  I know we haven't gotten the #1 guy.


----------



## Decker (Jun 20, 2006)

Osama Bin Laden arranged the attack on 9/11, not Zarqawi. Remember GW Bush promised to get him "dead or alive!"? 

The attack on Iraq from the outset was/is a mistake...an illegal mistake. Al Qaeda is an organization and not a country. Using military techniques in Iraq to subdue Al Qaeda is wrong headed. "Staying the course" in Iraq perpetuates the mistaken notion that Iraq is THE base for Al Qaeda. We are in the middle of a civil war there. 

Fighting them (Al Qaeda) over there (Iraq) instead of here (US) is just as misguided. Tell that to Spain and England.

Iraq was never a player in the 9/11 attack and not a supporter of Al Qaeda. End of story.

Bringing democracy to the middle east, relieving the world of a murderous dictator, losing 9 billion dollars in thin air in Iraq reconstruction are all irrelevant in the US's response to the 9/11 attacks.

It sickens me that soldiers and civilians are dying in Iraq. But it goes without saying that I do not support the troops efforts in Iraq. I don't wish harm upon them--I feel ridiculous having to point that out. In fact I support the armed forces. But legitimizing the US's attack/occupation on/of Iraq is to legitimize the legal rationale for attacking Iraq in the first place and that is something I just cannot do.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 20, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Al Qaeda is an organization and not a country. Using military techniques in Iraq to subdue Al Qaeda is wrong headed.


Was Zarqawi not OBL's second in command? Was he not in Iraq? It doesn't matter who or where they hide. The fight needs to be where they are. Most of the countries where they hide support them. Do you think that the US, Canada, Britian, Australia or any others would let them take refuge in their country? Absolutely not, because they don't support terrorism. We (the world) cannot let terrorism take a stronghold. 
True story!


----------



## Decker (Jun 20, 2006)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Was Zarqawi not OBL's second in command? Was he not in Iraq? It doesn't matter who or where they hide. The fight needs to be where they are. Most of the countries where they hide support them. Do you think that the US, Canada, Britian, Australia or any others would let them take refuge in their country? Absolutely not, because they don't support terrorism. We (the world) cannot let terrorism take a stronghold.
> True story!


There was no significant Al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Some Al Qaeda showed up there to pick off US troops after the invasion. 

Hussein and Bin Laden were secular v. religious--more enemy than ally. The 9/11 Commission found that Hussein had no credible ties to Al Qaeda. Terrorism is a tactic. Al Qaeda is an organization that utilizes terrorism. Don't confuse the two. Hussein may reward suicide bombers but that's a far cry from any conceivable connection to the 9/11 terrorists.

It's not a matter of which country would let Al Qaeda in. The 9/11 terrorists trained on US soil, so it's a matter of tracking these people down (like detectives would) and arresting them. Conflating Hussein and his despotic rule w/ the workings of Al Qaeda was a purposeful lie perpetrated by GW Bush and Co. to facilitate an invasion.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 20, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> legitimizing the US's attack/occupation on/of Iraq is to legitimize the legal rationale for attacking Iraq in the first place and that is something I just cannot do.



Your entire post boils down to this and this is where I disagree.  Maybe, just maybe we shouldn't have occupied Iraq.  That's still up for debate, but is irrelevant to what I'm about to ask.  The fact is, we DID invade.  What would you have us do now?

My opinion?  We're there.  Al Qaeda is there.  Let's get it on.  Are innocent Iraqi civilians going to get caught in the crossfire.  Yep, probably.  Cold hearted ALBOB here, better innocent Iraqi's get caught in the crossfire while we're fighting THERE than innocent Americans while we're fighting HERE.


----------



## Decker (Jun 20, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Your entire post boils down to this and this is where I disagree. Maybe, just maybe we shouldn't have occupied Iraq. That's still up for debate, but is irrelevant to what I'm about to ask. The fact is, we DID invade. What would you have us do now?
> 
> My opinion? We're there. Al Qaeda is there. Let's get it on. Are innocent Iraqi civilians going to get caught in the crossfire. Yep, probably. Cold hearted ALBOB here, better innocent Iraqi's get caught in the crossfire while we're fighting THERE than innocent Americans while we're fighting HERE.


Hi Al. I would have the US start to withdraw troops immediately. 

Here's why:

The longer the US is there, the more dependent the Iraqis will be on our presence. It's the anti-welfare rationale. We provide the Iraqis no incentive to take the reigns of their own country. 

Solution: we leave and force them to be responsible.

I mean the US and other foreign 'investors' have already locked up substantial ownership of Iraqi assets through legal wrangling. Why should the Iraqis take on the burdens of police and administrative order of their own country?

Damn Al, you are cold-hearted. Just take a dip in your hot-tub/pool/waterfall--that'll thaw you out. hahahaha


----------



## maniclion (Jun 20, 2006)

I bet I know what would warm Albob's heart, I nice tequilar, say Sauza Tres Generaciones?


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 20, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Hi Al. I would have the US start to withdraw troops immediately.
> 
> Here's why:
> 
> ...



Absolutely 100% agree.  But here's the difference between you and I; I trust our government to know when that time is right.  We pull out too soon and they don't have the ability to take the reigns.  The country is up for grabs and Al Qaeda takes over.  Then the $9 Billion really was wasted.  



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Damn Al, you are cold-hearted. Just take a dip in your hot-tub/pool/waterfall--that'll thaw you out. hahahaha



Yep, when it comes to us vs. them I don't even hesitate.  Don't count on the hot tub changing anything.  I'm a capitalist through and through.  The hot just reinforces how far I've come thanks to our system.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 20, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

> I bet I know what would warm Albob's heart, I nice tequilar, say Sauza Tres Generaciones?



Oh man.  You know me WAY too well.


----------



## GFR (Jun 20, 2006)

"I trust our government"


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 20, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> I trust our government


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 20, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> "I trust our government"



I trust them not to kidnap you from your home and kill you for making slanderous remarks about them in a public arena unlike I dunno the old Iraq.


----------



## GFR (Jun 20, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> I trust them not to kidnap you from your home and kill you for making slanderous remarks about them in a public arena unlike I dunno the old Iraq.


Spoken like a true slave;  out of 189+ Nations it is not hard to find one that sucks worse. And I'm sure our Gov. has taken people from their homes and killed them for  slanderous remarks.....or just destroyed their lives like they did in the Macarthy hearings.


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 20, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Spoken like a true slave;  out of 189+ Nations it is not hard to find one that sucks worse. And I'm sure our Gov. has taken people from their homes and killed them for  slanderous remarks.....or just destroyed their lives like they did in the Macarthy hearings.



I guess I am a slave to a country that allows me to speak my mind, will always provide protection, and has been the keystone country for over a hundred years now. The same country that around 10000 people risk life and limb to enter illegally for a better life.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 20, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Spoken like a true slave;  out of 189+ Nations it is not hard to find one that sucks worse. And I'm sure our Gov. has taken people from their homes and killed them for  slanderous remarks.....or just destroyed their lives like they did in the Macarthy hearings.




True Story, peoples lives get destroyed x 100000.   Oh, and didn't we kill protestors during vietnam?


----------



## maniclion (Jun 20, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> "I trust our government"


"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to believe." 
  - Laurence J. Peter


----------



## maniclion (Jun 20, 2006)

and 

It is wise to remember that you are one of those who can be fooled some of the time.
        Laurence J. Peter


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 20, 2006)

Hence why conservatism and christianity go hand in hand.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 20, 2006)

- 





			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Terrorism is a tactic. Al Qaeda is an organization that utilizes terrorism. Don't confuse the two. Hussein may reward suicide bombers but that's a far cry from any conceivable connection to the 9/11 terrorists.
> *Terroism is terroism. The Oklahoma City bombing was terroism(commited by US citizens on our soil). So I really don't think what form terroism is matters.*
> It's not a matter of which country would let Al Qaeda in. The 9/11 terrorists trained on US soil, so it's a matter of tracking these people down (like detectives would) and arresting them.
> * they did train here and I'm positive they are still here now. But we are doing our best to track them down and prosecute them before they can inflict any damage*


----------



## ZECH (Jun 20, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Damn Al, you are cold-hearted. Just take a dip in your hot-tub/pool/waterfall--that'll thaw you out. hahahaha


Don't let the hot tub fool you...............he just uses that to try to lure the big titty women!


----------



## GFR (Jun 20, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> *I guess I am a slave to a country that allows me to speak my mind*,.


Yes, just like at the Macarthy hearings.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Jun 20, 2006)

AnnaDTX said:
			
		

> story ive been follwing



 - Which doesn't pertain to you ??


(A glimmer of hope)

Good work Anna -


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 20, 2006)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Don't let the hot tub fool you...............he just uses that to try to lure the big titty women!



It's working too.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 20, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> And I'm sure our Gov. has taken people from their homes and killed them for  slanderous remarks.....or just destroyed their lives like they did in the Macarthy hearings.



You're sure of that, eh?  That makes it fact?  Wow, must be nice to be God. 

The McCarthy hearings?  That's is?  That's all you got?  You're going to try to define 200+ years of freedom by a single isolated incident?  Here's a thought, how many of your 189+ countries would let you get away with some of the bullshit you post on here?  Would Iraq under Saddam have let you get away with it?  How about Iran?  China?  Communist Russia?  No, we're not the best, but we're a Hell of a lot better than most.  And a Hell of a lot better than you deserve.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 20, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, while I'm making my point, I would like that say that this is sad and terrible, and I would destroy people that did this.  But I have to acknowledge the loss on both sides.



I don't believe you wrote this. BigDyl does not make post that make sense. I demand to know who is posting on your account.


----------



## GFR (Jun 20, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> You're sure of that, eh?  That makes it fact?  Wow, must be nice to be God.
> 
> The McCarthy hearings?  That's is?  That's all you got?  You're going to try to define 200+ years of freedom by a single isolated incident?  Here's a thought, how many of your 189+ countries would let you get away with some of the bullshit you post on here?  Would Iraq under Saddam have let you get away with it?  How about Iran?  China?  Communist Russia?  No, we're not the best, but we're a Hell of a lot better than most.  And a Hell of a lot better than you deserve.


I gave you a well known example....here is another " The patriot act"

Now if you want to learn more try reading a book son...Your mindless slavery to the Government is frightening.


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 20, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I gave you a well known example....here is another " The patriot act"
> 
> Now if you want to learn more try reading a book son...Your mindless slavery to the Government is frightening.



Geez the last person to call albob son was Plato. What books would free us from our mindless slavery to government?


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 20, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Hence why conservatism and christianity go hand in hand.



not for me.

I know plenty of agnostic neocons.  Mostly businessmen.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 20, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> Geez the last person to call albob son was Plato. What books would free us from our mindless slavery to government?



He can't name any that aren't in the fiction section.  As I said, one isolated incident does not constitute an epidemic.  The Patriot Act?  I'm as against it as any bleeding heart liberal on this site, but Dipshit up there can't name a single example of anyone who's been "violated" by it.  I'm a slave?  Every time that idiot posts he shows his slavery to ignorance.  And people wonder why nobody enjoys coming to this site anymore.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 20, 2006)

Naturally, it was 19 Republican senators who voted against a resolution rejecting an Iraqi government proposal to grant amnesty to those who kill our soldiers overseas. The proposal? 

_SEC. 1209. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE GRANTING OF AMNESTY TO PERSONS KNOWN TO HAVE KILLED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition military forces are serving heroically in Iraq to provide all the people of Iraq a better future.

(2) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition military forces have served bravely in Iraq since the beginning of military operations in March of 2003.

(3) More than 2,500 members of the Armed Forces of the United States and members of coalition military forces have been killed and more than 18,000 injured in operations to bring peace and stability to all the people of Iraq.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

(2) the President should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members of the Armed Forces of the United States._

Every senator who voted NAY was a Republican.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 20, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Naturally,* it was 19 Republican* senators who voted against a resolution rejecting an Iraqi government proposal to grant amnesty to those who kill our soldiers overseas. The proposal?
> 
> _SEC. 1209. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE GRANTING OF AMNESTY TO PERSONS KNOWN TO HAVE KILLED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.
> 
> ...




Thats not what I heard on CNN, FOX and MSNBC....it was both sides of the isle that voted against....care to back that up with a source?


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 20, 2006)

Killing terrorists doesn't solve anything.  You kill some, people get pissed at you for all the "collateral damage" (Innocent civilians killed) that go along with it coupled with the widely shared opinion that pre-emptive war is morally repugnant, and new terrorists are born.  You would have to commit genocide and practically conquer the world to theoretically stop terrorism, and even then it wouldn't end.  We would probably do a lot better to stop fucking attacking these people and use that money to support positive interactions with these countries.

Remember, a country consists of a lot of people.  Just because terrorists are located within that country doesn't make the whole fucking place a free for all for military intervention.  Don't give me bullshit about strategic attacks either.  Take Fallujah for example; we fucking carpet bombed the whole goddamned city.  

Countless civilians have died in Iraq.  Estimates range from 40K to 100K Iraqi civilians dead as a result of our invasion of Iraq.  Were all those people worth the relatively small number that were theoretically saved from terrorist attacks?  No, not in my opinion.  Are we going to suffer some backlash from this in the form of new terrorist cells and increased hatred toward the US from a whole slew of people?  I think it's highly likely.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 20, 2006)

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session 

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary 

Question: On the Amendment (Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 4265 )  
Vote Number:  178 Vote Date:  June 20, 2006, 03:27 PM 
Required For Majority:  1/2 Vote Result:  Amendment Agreed to 
Amendment Number:  S.Amdt. 4265 to S. 2766 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 )  
Statement of Purpose:  To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States. 
Vote Counts: YEAs 79 
 NAYs 19 
 Not Voting 2 


Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---79 
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
 Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
 Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)

*NAYs ---19 
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
 DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
 McCain (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 2 
Rockefeller (D-WV)
 Shelby (R-AL)*

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...fm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00178#position


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 20, 2006)

Ahh...those Republicans....tough on Mexicans - soft on terrorism. 

Oops...I guess that ain't quite the case either. . .the House killed any chance of an immigration bill getting passed this year.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 20, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Ahh...those Republicans....tough on Mexicans - soft on terrorism.
> 
> Oops...I guess that ain't quite the case either. . .the House killed any chance of an immigration bill getting passed this year.



ty for the link.

The bill still passed though...with the majority of repubs voting for it....whats your point?  Are you that partisan.  

Congress is the worse branch of the fed gov't IMO...I'm not playing them to be republican savoirs, but there aren't the part that is wrong either.  I sure don't think they are soft on terrorism.  I'm pretty sure that stigma lies with Murtha and Nancy Pelosi...not the whole left, but a portion of it.

I don't think they are all tough on mexicans either....remember the MCCAIN-kennedy bill?  Bush also supported that too


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 20, 2006)

Over one third of the Republican caucus voted NAY. That's the point. How can you be tough on terrorism if you want to grant amnesty to the terrorists who are killing our own soldiers?


----------



## GFR (Jun 20, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> He can't name any that aren't in the fiction section.  As I said, one isolated incident does not constitute an epidemic.  The Patriot Act?  I'm as against it as any bleeding heart liberal on this site, but Dipshit up there can't name a single example of anyone who's been "violated" by it.  I'm a slave?  Every time that idiot posts he shows his slavery to ignorance.  And people wonder why nobody enjoys coming to this site anymore.


I will make it simple:
#1. go to a book store 
#2. ask for the history section
#3. pick some books
#4. start reading

......as a rock


----------



## JordanMang (Jun 20, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Killing terrorists doesn't solve anything.  You kill some, people get pissed at you for all the "collateral damage" (Innocent civilians killed) that go along with it coupled with the widely shared opinion that pre-emptive war is morally repugnant, and new terrorists are born.  You would have to commit genocide and practically conquer the world to theoretically stop terrorism, and even then it wouldn't end.  We would probably do a lot better to stop fucking attacking these people and use that money to support positive interactions with these countries.
> 
> Remember, a country consists of a lot of people.  Just because terrorists are located within that country doesn't make the whole fucking place a free for all for military intervention.  Don't give me bullshit about strategic attacks either.  Take Fallujah for example; we fucking carpet bombed the whole goddamned city.
> 
> Countless civilians have died in Iraq.  Estimates range from 40K to 100K Iraqi civilians dead as a result of our invasion of Iraq.  Were all those people worth the relatively small number that were theoretically saved from terrorist attacks?  No, not in my opinion.  Are we going to suffer some backlash from this in the form of new terrorist cells and increased hatred toward the US from a whole slew of people?  I think it's highly likely.




I was under the impression that we went into Iraq upon Saddams refusals and diversionary tactics in the UN's investigation of weapons of mass destruction. Also, as a means of finding the connections that Saddams regime had with terrorist organizations related to the bomb of 9/11 and other terroristic attacks.  I'm sure they used the "we're saving more people then we're killing" idea, but in the long run it didn't really pan out did it.  Oh well, we have all the failsafes in place - "We thoted that they had weapons that go duh boom!"


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 20, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Snafu, your attitude is absolutely horrible. I feel sorry for you.



Don't fee sorry for me Pepper.

Feel sorry for the Napalm, suicide bombings, IEDs, and beheadings.


I think thats....just a little bit....worse than my displeasure towards this invasions.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 21, 2006)

JordanMang said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that we went into Iraq upon Saddams refusals and diversionary tactics in the UN's investigation of weapons of mass destruction. Also, as a means of finding the connections that Saddams regime had with terrorist organizations related to the bomb of 9/11 and other terroristic attacks.  I'm sure they used the "we're saving more people then we're killing" idea, but in the long run it didn't really pan out did it.  Oh well, we have all the failsafes in place - "We thoted that they had weapons that go duh boom!"



We were performing regular weapons inspections and apparently they were working, because we didn't find shit and we've been there over 3 years now.  Also, there were no connections between Iraq and Al Queda, but they wanted it to be so bad that claims were made.  It was fabricated bullshit though, because there really was no damned good reason to go to war besides the fact that Hussein was an oppressive dictator.  Of course, so are a lot of world leaders.  We just ignore them, are the ones who put them in power, or make too much money from them to do anything about it.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 21, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> We were performing regular weapons inspections and apparently they were working, because we didn't find shit and we've been there over 3 years now.  Also, there were no connections between Iraq and Al Queda, but they wanted it to be so bad that claims were made.  It was fabricated bullshit though....



I don't like to cut-and-paste,

but did anyone read my article about the new documentary about the _fabrications_ to get the U.S. public to back the attack on Iraq in the first place.

Page 3, this thread.

7/10 Americans though Hussein was involved in September 11th - 6 months after the attack.

But days after nine-eleven, less than 1/10 thought Hussein was involved.


Look at the media - who controls it - and what the media prints and reports.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I will make it simple:
> #1. go to a book store
> #2. ask for the history section
> #3. pick some books
> ...



Ah, typical Foreman.  You don't have a clue what you're talking about, can't back up a single word your say so you just try and sluff off your responsibility on everyone else.  Learned that by sucking on daddy's tit, eh?  You haven't had a single relevant thought in your brain in your entire life except for the few your daddy planted there.  Go get a life dipshit, you're just wasting oxygen here.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Ah, typical Foreman. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, can't back up a single word your say so you just try and sluff off your responsibility on everyone else. Learned that by sucking on daddy's tit, eh? You haven't had a single relevant thought in your brain in your entire life except for the few your daddy planted there. Go get a life dipshit, you're just wasting oxygen here.


 
That's how he debates things. Next he will tell you that he already answered you but will curiously never produce the post.

I have a $100 offer still on the table to anyone who can link me to the post where he answered my tax question that he repeatedly claimed to have answered.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 21, 2006)

Albob and Pepper are illiterate typical, Yank, retards.


Respond to my post above...if you can.


Twat.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Albob and Pepper are illiterate typical, Yank, retards.
> 
> 
> Respond to my post above...if you can.
> ...


 
 Sorry if me thinking that mourning the loss of two kids doesn't have to involve the entire anti-war agenda. That is really the only arguement I made. If that makes me a yank retard, so be it. I don't like kids getting totured.

Must really suck to have nothing but hate to offer.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Albob and Pepper are illiterate typical, Yank, retards.
> 
> 
> Respond to my post above...if you can.
> ...


 
Oh, and this is a typical example of where debates with Snafu go. He simply can't help it.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 21, 2006)

^ I am challenging you fat azz to a debate fight now.

You can't.

You contribute nothing.

Because you're a fat piece of sh*t.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 21, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I don't like kids getting totured.
> 
> Must really suck to have nothing but hate to offer.



I don't like kids getting tortured either.

In Vietnam, Abu Gahib, and in Central America for banana companies.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> I don't like kids getting tortured either.
> 
> In Vietnam, Abu Gahib, and in Central America for banana companies.


 
Sorry, my illiterate, fat ass has no use for you rude arrogant ass.

You'd never cut it it the work place, you should stay hidden in academics.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 21, 2006)

^ another non-sequitur.

You can't even debate.

Stick to the facts, mate.

I'll listen and respond if you do.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2006)

Listen, fuck head, I have not tried to debate ANYTHING in the thread. I just thought you turning this thread into a war debate was inappropriate. Little did I know, you'd take it even lower.

What is your problem?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 21, 2006)

^ Let's try to get it back to the original OP, then.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2006)

What is it you want me to debate? The war? I can't do that. I don't know what to think of the war. I have my issues with the war too. I didn't at first, but I do now. Which side would you have me argue? I can argue both.

I personally find very few war opinions reasonable. The are either like you or Decker or blind Bush supports. I think both groups are nuts.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 21, 2006)

^ I agree.

Time ot move on.


But I don't want to hear any sympaythy for the dorks who cut their throats cut.

They went.

They statistically knew they were gonna live.

But they didn't.

Tuff stuff.


Bury the deadbeats.  Move on.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Ah, typical Foreman.  You don't have a clue what you're talking about, can't back up a single word your say so you just try and sluff off your responsibility on everyone else.  Learned that by sucking on daddy's tit, eh?  You haven't had a single relevant thought in your brain in your entire life except for the few your daddy planted there.  Go get a life dipshit, you're just wasting oxygen here.


 Typical ALBOB, need's me to recite every history book to him. You act as if a history book is something you have never read, I feel sorry for you. A good education might have given you a better life and a clear view of the world you lived in. I hope the day comes when you can do more than ignore simple and basic facts, and your arguments are more than childish insults.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

Pepper I know you are a mod here but I must say you offer almost nothing to this site. Every thread I see you on you just babble about something irrevelant or you are arguing with someone, almost never do I read anything from you that shows me why you mod here. You can quote old threads is some vauge way all day, and claim some false victory that not one single member can remember ( sad that is all you have to be proud of)  . Try to act like a man and not a little boy, also when you are wrong ( as you often are) try to admit it or at least learn from it.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Pepper I know you are a mod here but I must say you offer almost nothing to this site. Every thread I see you on you just babble about something irrevelant or you are arguing with someone, almost never do I read anything from you that shows me why you mod here. You can quote old threads is some vauge way all day, and claim some false victory that not one single member can remember ( sad that is all you have to be proud of) . Try to act like a man and not a little boy, also when you are wrong ( as you often are) try to admit it or at least learn from it.


 
If I work really hard, maybe one day I can contributed as much as you do.

Listen, as far as being a mod goes, I am not *really* a real mod. I moderate Sports (which is something I do know something about) and Open Chat (b/c they needed some held during times of the day that I am typically online.) I don't consider it a big deal b/c it isn't. 

I am wrong all time and I admit it all the time. I was wrong about the war, for example. I was at least wrong to blindly support it. I was wrong about the Mavericks, I thought they had it won. I was wrong about the Oilers, I thought they were heading for a sweep. I lost my ass on the super bowl b/c I was wrong about the Seahawks.

I think part of the problem here at IM is that no one REALLY listens. The debate about the tax issue was a perfect example. I was agreeing with you but trying to point out that is was not as simple as some were making it, but you kept attacking. So I called you out. Big deal. Grow up.


----------



## Decker (Jun 21, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> What is it you want me to debate? The war? I can't do that. I don't know what to think of the war. I have my issues with the war too. I didn't at first, but I do now. Which side would you have me argue? I can argue both.
> 
> I personally find very few war opinions reasonable. The are either like you or Decker or blind Bush supports. I think both groups are nuts.


I hope you mean that in the best sense in referring to me. I think rather highly of you Pepper and I don't think you're nuts.

I am not nuts. But I do like to point out the illegal war-mongering of the Bush Administration. http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=53043&highlight=iraq+illegal

I have the facts and law on my side with this topic and I don't lose debates when it's all in my favor.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2006)

My point is that I don't think your opinion is reasonable on anything having to do with the Bush administration. It sounds odd, but I don't mean it as a slam.

I should have used the word "extreme" instead of nuts.


----------



## Decker (Jun 21, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> My point is that I don't think your opinion is reasonable on anything having to do with the Bush administration. It sounds odd, but I don't mean it as a slam.
> 
> I should have used the word "extreme" instead of nuts.


It seems like you think I'm being hyper-critical of Bush which results in hyperbolic or manufactured arguments devoid of merit. 

I think that I use fact-based arguments that illuminate the shady incompetence of the Bush Administration. If you don't like what I'm saying then please prove me wrong. I am reasonable.

I purposely tailor my arguments to narrow topics such as the legality of the Iraq invasion or particular constitutional violations (4th & 6th & 8th amendments) to facilitate fact-based debates instead of dogmatic assertions.

I know you're busy, but what would a non-extreme criticism of GWB's implementation/execution of the Iraq war look like? "Good job Mr. President" instead of "Great Job Mr. President!"


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

That is an old thread and I'm glad you dug it up for your flame, as I remember you did the taxes for a co that used illegal aliens.....you were wrong to be involved with criminals. How you see that as acting as a professional is beyond me. Also I poisted many of links and facts how illegal aliens eat up tax dollars and use the welfare and medicaid system.....as did some other members. You can continue to avoid those simpple facts if you wish.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Also I poisted many of links and facts how illegal aliens eat up tax dollars and use the welfare and medicaid system.....as did some other members. You can continue to avoid those simpple facts if you wish.


 
Avoid them? How the hell am I avoiding them? I agree with you. Do you actually read my posts? As I recall, I even ADDED to your list of how illegals drain the system. This is why I get so frustrated with you, it is like you just don't read the posts. You spot one thing that you have a problem with and start bashing. 

Whether I should or should not have been doing the payroll for that company is a reasonable issue. What is not is you claiming that I was denying the drain illegals have on our economy.

I have been on this site for a long time and have never been attacked like that by someone with whom I basically agreed.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Typical ALBOB, need's me to recite every history book to him. You act as if a history book is something you have never read, I feel sorry for you. A good education might have given you a better life and a clear view of the world you lived in. I hope the day comes when you can do more than ignore simple and basic facts, and your arguments are more than childish insults.



Proving once again what a fucking idiot you are.  If you post something as though it's a fact, you are obligated to back it up and PROVE it's a fact.  If you don't, you make yourself look like a fucking idiot.  Something you're obviously quite practiced at since you do it here every day.  Again, you're just wasting oxygen here.  Why don't you go do the world you love so much a favor and stop living in it?


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Proving once again what a *fucking* idiot you are.  If you post something as though it's a fact, you are obligated to back it up and PROVE it's a fact.  If you don't, you make yourself look like a *fucking* idiot.  Something you're obviously quite practiced at since you do it here every day.  Again, you're just wasting oxygen here.  Why don't you go do the world you love so much a favor and stop living in it?


 Spoken like a true genius 


The curse words and personal attacks really make you look smart


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Avoid them? How the hell am I avoiding them? I agree with you. Do you actually read my posts? As I recall, I even ADDED to your list of how illegals drain the system. This is why I get so frustrated with you, it is like you just don't read the posts. You spot one thing that you have a problem with and start bashing.
> 
> Whether I should or should not have been doing the payroll for that company is a reasonable issue. What is not is you claiming that I was denying the drain illegals have on our economy.
> 
> I have been on this site for a long time and have never been attacked like that by someone with whom I basically agreed.


I know you agreed about one part of it, but the point was you have to look at the big picture.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jun 21, 2006)

Listen guys, foreman is just the type of person that only HE wants to be right. He just loves to be the last man standing when everyone else is below him because they are wrong. He's just trying to prove how intelligent he is. Everything he says, whether it's about the war, taxes, women, sports, etc.. he always has to be 100% right. No questions asked. This is the reason i don't argue with him anymore.

Without further ado, i conclude with this


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> Listen guys, *foreman is* *100% right*. No questions asked. *This is the reason i don't argue with him anymore.*
> 
> Without further ado, i conclude with this


Smart Kid


----------



## brogers (Jun 21, 2006)

It's pretty disgusting to see what this thread turned into.


----------



## largepkg (Jun 21, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> It's pretty disgusting to see what this thread turned into.


----------



## the nut (Jun 21, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> ^ I agree.
> 
> Time ot move on.
> 
> ...



You are a fucking tool! How can you live in this country and say that about these kids. Most of the kids, up until the last few years, were joining to get college educations and jobs. And even more joined thinking they would be fighting the war against al-queda and real terrorism. Yeh, there are glory hounds and muslim haters that joined up. But so what. We live under the protection these men and women provide. It just so happens that we have a president who is cleaning up his father's leftovers. But, our soldiers dont question authority, even if this a questionable invasion. The fact of the matter is this is sad a for all the countries involved. It a shame that people like you are allowed to have the freedoms provided by this country, but thats the way it works. 

Deadbeats? I'd like to hear you say that to the family and friends of these men, but you sound like a pussy to me and its time you went France and joined the rest of them. Or I hear they have cheap land in Iraq, if you want to cry for their citizens. Either way I hope the flight you get on is flown into the Sears' Tower after take off, by some towelheads! 

You make me sick!


----------



## MyK (Jun 21, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> You are a fucking tool! How can you live in this country and say that about these kids. Most of the kids, up until the last few years, were joining to get college educations and jobs. And even more joined thinking they would be fighting the war against al-queda and real terrorism. Yeh, there are glory hounds and muslim haters that joined up. But so what. We live under the protection these men and women provide. It just so happens that we have a president who is cleaning up his father's leftovers. But, our soldiers dont question authority, even if this a questionable invasion. The fact of the matter is this is sad a for all the countries involved. It a shame that people like you are allowed to have the freedoms provided by this country, but thats the way it works.
> 
> Deadbeats? I'd like to hear you say that to the family and friends of these men, but you sound like a pussy to me and its time you went France and joined the rest of them. Or I hear they have cheap land in Iraq, if you want to cry for their citizens. Either way *I hope the flight you get on is flown into the Sears' Tower after take off, by some towelheads! *You make me sick!



BAN THIS TERRORIST IMMEDIATELY!!!!!


----------



## largepkg (Jun 21, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> You are a fucking tool! How can you live in this country and say that about these kids. Most of the kids, up until the last few years, were joining to get college educations and jobs. And even more joined thinking they would be fighting the war against al-queda and real terrorism. Yeh, there are glory hounds and muslim haters that joined up. But so what. We live under the protection these men and women provide. It just so happens that we have a president who is cleaning up his father's leftovers. But, our soldiers dont question authority, even if this a questionable invasion. The fact of the matter is this is sad a for all the countries involved. It a shame that people like you are allowed to have the freedoms provided by this country, but thats the way it works.
> 
> Deadbeats? I'd like to hear you say that to the family and friends of these men, but you sound like a pussy to me and its time you went France and joined the rest of them. Or I hear they have cheap land in Iraq, if you want to cry for their citizens. Either way I hope the flight you get on is flown into the Sears' Tower after take off, by some towelheads!
> 
> You make me sick!


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 21, 2006)

yes their is! put somebody in a dark room by themselves for two weeks, alone with a gun and no way out!


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> You are a fucking tool! How can you live in this country and say that about these kids. Most of the kids, up until the last few years, were joining to get college educations and jobs. And even more joined thinking they would be fighting the war against al-queda and real terrorism. Yeh, there are glory hounds and muslim haters that joined up. But so what. We live under the protection these men and women provide. It just so happens that we have a president who is cleaning up his father's leftovers. But, our soldiers dont question authority, even if this a questionable invasion. The fact of the matter is this is sad a for all the countries involved. It a shame that people like you are allowed to have the freedoms provided by this country, but thats the way it works.
> 
> Deadbeats? I'd like to hear you say that to the family and friends of these men, but you sound like a pussy to me and its time you went France and joined the rest of them. Or I hear they have cheap land in Iraq, if you want to cry for their citizens. *Either way I hope the flight you get on is flown into the Sears' Tower after take off, by some towelheads!
> *
> You make me sick!


Why would you wish thousands more innocent Americans killed by terroism ....you are a disguisting pig


----------



## largepkg (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Why would you wish thousands more innocent Americans killed by terroism ....you are a disguisting pig



I'm sure this wasn't meant to be taken literally.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 21, 2006)

want a real mans truth? It is what it is. As far as the ages from his guy that doesn't mean a thing. They probably had NCO who were no older than they were and who knew just as little. But from the way you are all talking none of you come from the streets. Anybody with a gun can kill you even a 9 year old and that's without thinking about it. So it war there is only on rule; *



			Take No Prisoners
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## largepkg (Jun 21, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> want a real mans truth? It is what it is. As far as the ages from his guy that doesn't mean a thing. They probably had NCO who were no older than they were and who knew just as little. *But from the way you are all talking none of you come from the streets.* Anybody with a gun can kill you even a 9 year old and that's without thinking about it. So it war there is only on rule;




Clearly, the way you're talking you come from the streets.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 21, 2006)

if you don't know don't ask, it's better that way


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> I'm sure this wasn't meant to be taken literally.


After 911 I would think even the biggest idiot whould know  joking about that is unacceptable and disgusting.


----------



## largepkg (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> After 911 I would think even the biggest idiot whould know  joking about that is unacceptable and disgusting.




Apparently on these boards nothing is unacceptable and everything is disgusting.


----------



## MyK (Jun 21, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> Apparently on these boards nothing is unacceptable and everything is disgusting.



you are 100% wrong! boobs are unacceptable and disgusting!!


----------



## largepkg (Jun 21, 2006)

MyK said:
			
		

> you are 100% wrong! boobs are unacceptable and disgusting!!




   But me likey da boobies...


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 21, 2006)

I can tell you know nothing about the military or the streets. you a wanna be know it all who always has his mouth open and still hasn't learned to listen. Your pimped into the miliary, you can get pimped in the streets. You become gangsters in the military; you become gangsters in the streets. in the streets gangs recruit members starting at the ages of 9-10 maybe younger. The military recuit members starting at the age of 18. Streets illegal; Military legal. Even though they went into the army for college or a job, they also raised their hand and swore to protect their country, and that comes first! Now, if your in the streets and someone was wearing colors with a gun piont at you what do you do? answer: shoot first ask question later! Now, lets say you in the army where there are rules of engagement. Your enemy has a gun point at you, what do you do? answer: shoot only when shot at or when you have orders to do so! What does that mean if your lucky you will live. If not, off with you head. Now that's fucked up, yes. But that's the art of war. there are no winners only survivors; and only the fitted wise will survive. With me your out of your league so don't try. not even a jedi could deny that. ok foreman


----------



## largepkg (Jun 21, 2006)

assphinctersaswhat


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 21, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> assphinctersaswhat


cat got your toun ge


----------



## the nut (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Why would you wish thousands more innocent Americans killed by terroism ....you are a disguisting pig



I wasn't talking to you!


----------



## largepkg (Jun 21, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> cat got your toun ge




I'm allergic to kitties.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> I wasn't talking to you!


A fool talks to all and none care to listen son.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> A fool talks to all and none care to listen son.



don't talk like you from the streets bubba it takes one to know one son.  and no it don't sound good


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 21, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> I wasn't talking to you!



You weren't talking to Foreman?  Damn, I was getting ready to applaud you.  (Well, except for that little part about the Sears tower.  How about we fly his ass into some cave in Afghanistan? )


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 21, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> I wasn't talking to you!





Nice user name son.  I guess you had to leave "right wing" off the front of the name because it's already taken?


----------



## the nut (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> A fool talks to all and none care to listen son.



I guess you would know that after 35,379 posts in a year. Go gets some friends and a life, it'll be good for you!


----------



## the nut (Jun 21, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Nice user name son.  I guess you had to leave "right wing" off the front of the name because it's already taken?



You obviously didnt get the hint from my earlier post, so do some research and come back. And Matt Hughes is god!


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 21, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Nice user name son.  I guess you had to leave "right wing" off the front of the name because it's already taken?



Hey the right wing nut is my name


----------



## ZECH (Jun 21, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> You are a fucking tool! How can you live in this country and say that about these kids. Most of the kids, up until the last few years, were joining to get college educations and jobs. And even more joined thinking they would be fighting the war against al-queda and real terrorism. Yeh, there are glory hounds and muslim haters that joined up. But so what. We live under the protection these men and women provide. It just so happens that we have a president who is cleaning up his father's leftovers. But, our soldiers dont question authority, even if this a questionable invasion. The fact of the matter is this is sad a for all the countries involved. It a shame that people like you are allowed to have the freedoms provided by this country, but thats the way it works.
> 
> Deadbeats? I'd like to hear you say that to the family and friends of these men, but you sound like a pussy to me and its time you went France and joined the rest of them. Or I hear they have cheap land in Iraq, if you want to cry for their citizens. Either way I hope the flight you get on is flown into the Sears' Tower after take off, by some towelheads!
> 
> You make me sick!


Hey, are we related???


----------



## Skate67 (Jun 21, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Killing terrorists doesn't solve anything.  You kill some, people get pissed at you for all the "collateral damage" (Innocent civilians killed) that go along with it coupled with the widely shared opinion that pre-emptive war is morally repugnant, and new terrorists are born.  You would have to commit genocide and practically conquer the world to theoretically stop terrorism, and even then it wouldn't end.  We would probably do a lot better to stop fucking attacking these people and use that money to support positive interactions with these countries.



Best post in this entire thread.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 21, 2006)

ST240 said:
			
		

> Best post in this entire thread.




True Story


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> don't talk like you from the streets bubba it takes one to know one son.  and no it don't sound good


I live on the street bra, can you spare a dime?


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> I guess you would know that after 35,379 posts in a year. Go gets some friends and a life, it'll be good for you!


Will you be my friend


----------



## DOMS (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Will you be my friend



Even your dog hates you.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Even your dog hates you.


My dog is dead


----------



## DOMS (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> My dog is dead



And he still hates you.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I live on the street *bra*, can you spare a dime?




*RACIST!!! BANNED!!! *


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> And he still hates you.


My dog loved me, I got attacked by some "dark" things once and he bit the sh-t out of them.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> My dog loved me, I got attacked by some "dark" things once and he bit the sh*i*t out of them.



Something's wrong with your keyboard.


----------



## the nut (Jun 21, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> want a real mans truth? It is what it is. As far as the ages from his guy that doesn't mean a thing. They probably had NCO who were no older than they were and who knew just as little. But from the way you are all talking none of you come from the streets. Anybody with a gun can kill you even a 9 year old and that's without thinking about it. So it war there is only on rule;



Do gangsters carry laptops now?


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 21, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> ^ I agree.
> 
> Time ot move on.
> 
> ...


You piece of shit.  Not sure how you arrived in this country, but I PRAY it wasn't due to thousands of American GI's giving their lives in Vietnam for your freedom.

So you moved to Chicago, huh?  Hmmm, well that is a chance you took.  I hope the next time you walk out on the street, you are confronted by a gang of thugs who cut off your dick and stuff it in your mouth.  Then SLOWLY cut off your fucking head.  It was your choice dude.  You moved to America, and settled in Chicago.  You knew the risk, let's bury your ass and piss on your grave.

If you said to my face, what you said on this board, I would kick your fucking ass and beat you to a bloody pulp.  Isn't hate a wonderful thing?


----------



## the nut (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Will you be my friend



Absolutely! Your the only reason I keep coming back here!


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 21, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> You Vietnamese piece of shit.





MOST RACIST THING EVER POSTED ON IM.  WHERE'S JODI WHEN YOU NEED HER?!  NEVERMIND, YOU ARE OFFICIALLY BANNED FROM IM FOR 2-3 BUSSINESS DAYS!!!!!


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 21, 2006)

Darn it.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> *You Vietnamese piece of shit*.  Not sure how you arrived in this country, but I PRAY it wasn't due to thousands of American GI's giving their lives in Vietnam for your freedom.
> 
> So you moved to Chicago, huh?  Hmmm, well that is a chance you took.  I hope the next time you walk out on the street, you are confronted by a gang of thugs who cut off your dick and stuff it in your mouth.  *Then SLOWLY cut off your fucking head.*  It was your choice dude.  You moved to America, and settled in Chicago.  You knew the risk, *let's bury your ass and piss on your grave.
> *
> If you said to my face, what you said on this board, *I would kick your fucking ass and beat you to a bloody pulp.*  Isn't hate a wonderful thing?




 








**** Rules On This Board - Read Me! **** 
*We will be enforcing the following new rules:*

1. This is not a porn site, so please refrain from posting porn pics here.

* 2. No racist or sexist remarks. *

3. No overly vulgar posts or pics. If you do not posess the judgement to decide what is overly vulgar, then don't post it. 

* 4. NO FLAMING! If there is a disagreement, discuss it like adults, otherwise go somewhere else. *

5. No commercial promotion of any kind on the forum (unless you have received prior consent).

6. No banners and/or links to other bodybuilding/fitness boards or supplement sites in your signatures (unless they link back to IronMagazine).

7. No spamming or recruiting via email or Private Messages.

8. If you are here to promote & advertise your website, company or anything else (without prior consent) please don't as your threads/posts will be deleted.

9. Anyone who owns, works for or is sponsored by a supplement company may put that as their "user title", i.e. XYZ Supps Rep, but no URL's or email addys, and nothing in signatures, to let other members know your affiliation.

Any member that violates a rule will be given one warning via PM, there will be no second warnings, the next action will be a *1-3 day ban.*


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> **** Rules On This Board - Read Me! ****
> *We will be enforcing the following new rules:*
> 
> 1. This is not a porn site, so please refrain from posting porn pics here.
> ...


*


.*


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 21, 2006)

Fuck you Foreman. I refuse to sit back and let "Mr Snafu" insult our troops, especially those who were brutally tortured.

Ok.  I'll change "Vietnamese" piece of shit, to plain "piece of shit".

If you want to ban me, then so be it.  This board has gone so far down hill it's not funny.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 21, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> Fuck You.






* 4. NO FLAMING! If there is a disagreement, discuss it like adults, otherwise go somewhere else *


*Any member that violates a rule will be given one warning via PM, there will be no second warnings, the next action will be a 1000 day ban*


.


----------



## fufu (Jun 21, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> Fuck You.






			
				BigDyl said:
			
		

> * 4. NO FLAMING! If there is a disagreement, discuss it like adults, otherwise go somewhere else *
> 
> 
> *Any member that violates a rule will be given one warning via PM, there will be no second warnings, the next action will be a 1000 day ban*
> ...



...


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 21, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> * 4. NO FLAMING! If there is a disagreement, discuss it like adults, otherwise go somewhere else *
> 
> 
> *Any member that violates a rule will be given one warning via PM, there will be no second warnings, the next action will be a 1000 day ban*
> ...


Get a life.  You really live up to your name


----------



## Little Wing (Jun 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I live on the street bra, can you spare a dime?


 why do you say bra n not bro? is it on purpose or a freudian slip


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> *Fuck you Foreman.* I refuse to sit back and let "Mr Snafu" insult our troops, especially those who were brutally tortured.
> 
> Ok.  I'll change "Vietnamese" piece of shit, to plain "piece of shit".
> 
> If you want to ban me, then so be it.  This board has gone so far down hill it's not funny.


How dare you Sir!
How dare you


----------



## the nut (Jun 21, 2006)




----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2006)

Little Wing said:
			
		

> why do you say bra n not bro? is it on purpose or a freudian slip


Sorry I was thinking about your luscious breasts when I posted that.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 21, 2006)




----------



## skaterdude (Jun 21, 2006)

Man that sucks.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 21, 2006)

It's a shame what happened to those 2 young kids but war is hell, either finish the job or just get the fuck out.

By the way one of those kids was actually a Mexican, just saying.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 21, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> You piece of shit.  Not sure how you arrived in this country, but I PRAY it wasn't due to thousands of American GI's giving their lives in Vietnam for your freedom.
> 
> *I'm not sure why you are pretending to call yourself a patriotic American. We did not send anyone to Vietnam to give their lives for OUR freedom - we were over there to honor a treaty commitment, break another agreement, and establish what we called "freedom" for PART of Vietnam.*
> 
> ...



And if you did that, your ass would find itself in a jail cell, where you could explain to the judge and the police department that you were "defending freedom."


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 21, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> ... Streets illegal; Military legal. ...


 
Whats illegal about streets?  I am pretty sure the government paves the streets, why would they make them illegal?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 21, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> Fuck you Foreman. I refuse to sit back and let "Mr Snafu" insult our troops, especially those who were brutally tortured.
> 
> 
> Ok.  I'll change "Vietnamese" piece of shit, to plain "piece of shit".
> ...



*And who says you are entitled to "insult our troops" by running around threatening to beat the freedom out of people who don't agree with you? Who the he*l ever told you that you were appointed the prosecuter, judge and jury for America? You really think the "freedom" people fight and die for is your freedom to beat and bully people? *


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 21, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> It's a shame what happened to those 2 young kids but war is hell, either finish the job or just get the fuck out.
> 
> By the way one of those kids was actually a Mexican, just saying.




Exactly. Either we send enough troops to get the job done or get out. This "stay the course" crap without any clue about what that really means isn't doing anything for anyone.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 21, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> It's a shame what happened to those 2 young kids but war is hell, either finish the job or just get the fuck out.



That's what I've been saying!  Just kill everything that seems like a threat, and then go home.



			
				min0 lee said:
			
		

> By the way one of those kids was actually a Mexican, just saying.



What was an illegal doing fighting in our war?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 21, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *And who says you are entitled to "insult our troops" by running around threatening to beat the freedom out of people who don't agree with you? Who the he*l ever told you that you were appointed the prosecuter, judge and jury for America? You really think the "freedom" people fight and die for is your freedom to beat and bully people? *



It's also his right to say what he wants.  Go figure...


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 21, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It's also his right to say what he wants.  Go figure...




It was a statement promising a physical attack if Snafu exercised his right to state what he wanted. Go figure.


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 21, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Here is the explanation why the invasion of Iraq is illegal.  These excerpts are from a statement from a collection of law professors.  This is not flaming Bush.  Bush deserves to be roundly criticized b/c he is accountable to the entire country for attacking Iraq.  Don???t think so?  Try to recall that every breath Clinton took was dissected _ad nauseum_ by his critics???I was one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would'nt this mean on the same token that the Vietnam War started by JFK be illegal? Also the U.S. fighting against the Nazis illegal as well?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 21, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> It was a statement promising a physical attack if Snafu exercised his right to state what he wanted. Go figure.



On the Internet!  Anonymously!

Watch:

Hey kbm, I'm going to force you to go down on a girl.

...


So, was I able to force you to go down on a girl?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 21, 2006)

The United Nations didn't exist in December, 1941 as a world organization. The name came from the alliances which fought in World War II. 

Despite the fact that we broke our agreement about free elections in all of Vietnam, South Vietnam was included under the umbrella of the SEATO alliance in which the United States was a signatory.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 21, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Exactly. Either we send enough troops to get the job done or get out. This "stay the course" crap without any clue about what that really means isn't doing anything for anyone.






			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> That's what I've been saying! Just kill everything that seems like a threat, and then go home.


 
I think the vast majority would prefer to see this so called War end, and for those for it.....get your fucking ass over there and fight, enlist yourself, take a plane over there but if your really so gun-ho about the war take your freaking weapons to that damn desert and fight...but please no fighting on the keyboard.  




			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> What was an illegal doing fighting in our war?



There is no discrimination in war.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 21, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> On the Internet!  Anonymously!
> 
> *The statement included the creation of an in-person scenario in which Snafu's practice of free speech would be answered by direct violence. *
> 
> ...



We'll assume this statement fed your ongoing fantasy.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 21, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> and for those for it.....get your fucking ass over there and fight,



And if you're so against it, go over there and try and stop it.  Oh, I should warn you that the Muslims have a penchant for killing Americans that support their cause.


----------



## the nut (Jun 21, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Exactly. Either we send enough troops to get the job done or get out. This "stay the course" crap without any clue about what that really means isn't doing anything for anyone.



I agree. If you decide your gonna go to war, fight it the right way! We are only gonna get more and more of our troops killed if they keep fighting this way. They are trying to minimize civilian casualties and fight a somewhat politically correct war. They're gonna have to make a commitment to either pull out or start putting more soldiers over there, hopefully the former. You never know, it may not be long before North Korea or Iran become real threats.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 21, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> And if you're so against it, go over there and try and stop it.
> *Touche'*
> 
> Oh, I should warn you that the Muslims have a penchant for killing Americans that support their cause.
> ...


 
.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 21, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> . You never know, it may not be long before North Korea or Iran become real threats.


 
Become?? I think they both are  already bigger threats to us, North Korea basically gives us the finger and Iran has hated us since the Shan of Iran deal.

Do I dare say we are scared of N. Korea and we are just sending our guys in a worthless cause.


----------



## the nut (Jun 21, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Become?? I think they both are  already bigger threats to us, North Korea basically gives us the finger and Iran has hated us since the Shan of Iran deal.
> 
> Do I dare say we are scared of N. Korea and we are just sending our guys in a worthless cause.



I wouldn't say completely worthless, the world is a better placewith out Saddam over there. But, I'm just not sure if it was the right time to play world police. We are still searching caves in Afghanistan and we will always be hunting the Taliban down. We could have waited it out, and I'm sure Saddam would've given the U.N. a reason to back us. This all came about after an attack on our country which most of us, with the exception of people alive during Pearl Harbor, have never experienced! And wether the president lied or we just had bad intellegence, we are stuck in this mess. It's time this administration comes up with something, or start being held accountable.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 21, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> You piece of shit.  Not sure how you arrived in this country, but I PRAY it wasn't due to thousands of American GI's giving their lives in Vietnam for your freedom.



The GIs didn't fight for freedom in Vietnam.

They fought for natural resources.



> So you moved to Chicago, huh?  Hmmm, well that is a chance you took.  I hope the next time you walk out on the street, you are confronted by a gang of thugs who cut off your dick and stuff it in your mouth.  Then SLOWLY cut off your fucking head.  It was your choice dude.  You moved to America, and settled in Chicago.  You knew the risk, let's bury your ass and piss on your grave.



I think living in Chicago is a little different than living and working in Iraq right now, representing the U.S. governement.  



> If you said to my face, what you said on this board, I would kick your fucking ass and beat you to a bloody pulp.  Isn't hate a wonderful thing?



   

You could drop napalm on women and children?


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 21, 2006)

speaking of getting in trouble in Chicago...I had an attempted robbery

Yes that's right some one dirty looking mexican tried to rob me with his finger in his pocket saying he was going to shoot me if I didn't give him any money....it was by Cicero and Belmont (thats the northwest side).  I laughed in face an kept walking.  Anyone who lives in the city knows if he had a gun it would have been in MY FACE not his pocket 

He was also 5ft 120lbs  People call me a yuppie for staying in wrigleyville or lincoln park.....I wonder why


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 22, 2006)

Uh, if someone trys to rob you and you know they have a fake weapon, you pwn them.... not just walk away...


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 22, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say completely worthless, the world is a better placewith out Saddam over there. But, I'm just not sure if it was the right time to play world police. We are still searching caves in Afghanistan and we will always be hunting the Taliban down. We could have waited it out, and I'm sure Saddam would've given the U.N. a reason to back us. This all came about after an attack on our country which most of us, with the exception of people alive during Pearl Harbor, have never experienced! And wether the president lied or we just had bad intellegence, we are stuck in this mess. It's time this administration comes up with something, or start being held accountable.



Is the world a better place without Saddam?  Really?  Quantify that for me.  Seems to me like more people are dying, Iraq is still in turmoil, and the world is no safer than it was prior to him being in power (Maybe less).


----------



## Pepper (Jun 22, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Is the world a better place without Saddam? Really? Quantify that for me. Seems to me like more people are dying, Iraq is still in turmoil, and the world is no safer than it was prior to him being in power (Maybe less).


 
Ask the Kurds.

I just don't know how you guys can let your hatred of Bush cloud your judgement like this. How many people does he have to kill before it offends you?

Saddam was a brutal dictator. The world is clearly better off without him. Does this justify the war? I simply don't know.


----------



## largepkg (Jun 22, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Is the world a better place without Saddam?  Really?  Quantify that for me.  Seems to me like more people are dying, Iraq is still in turmoil, and the world is no safer than it was prior to him being in power (Maybe less).




I know I'm going off topic here but CP tell me this. If you repeatedly witnessed the same local bully harming and beating your friends/neighbors would you turn your cheek or help? 

I know it's a simplistic way to look at it but doing nothing is worse than attempting help.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 22, 2006)

..and this was just for losing a soccer game:


> Baghdad - Instruments of torture owned by Saddam Hussein's elder son Uday could go on public display in an exhibition set to honour athletes killed during his rule of the Iraqi Olympic Committee (IOC).
> "We want to put on a permanent exhibition," said Taleb Mutar, an official on the Iraqi committee, which has accumulated a terrifying array of torture paraphenalia stored at the Al-Shaab stadium in Baghdad.
> A sort of tomb opens up to reveal spikes. There is a contraption for cutting off fingers, a flail with a spiked ball at the end and steel masks.
> "We plan to display these things in a museum, but we still don't have a date," said Mark Clark, a British legal adviser to the IOC.
> "These objects were used by Saddam's Fedayeen, a militia set up and led by Uday," said Mutar. "This was a black time in Iraqi history. Instead of protecting the athletes, they were tortured if they lost championship match," he added.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 22, 2006)

> "The photographs and videos are in the hands of the new Arab-language Television network Alhurra."
> The following events ... light years beyond what you have seen from our troops in Abu Ghraib... are now in the hands of the new Arab-language Television network Alhurra. They are videotapes and, in one grisly case, photographs. ... I am not sure what Al Ahurra will broadcast, but they will be culled from among the following. I am told that when their people saw these tapes, they were unable to watch them. I can understand why. It is hard for me to type them. First, the photographs. They are of actual live castrations of Kurds.
> Now, the video tapes:
> Two beheadings, during one of which "Happy Birthday, Saddam" is being sung in Arabic.
> ...


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Ask the Kurds.
> 
> I just don't know how you guys can let your hatred of Bush cloud your judgement like this. How many people does he have to kill before it offends you?
> 
> Saddam was a brutal dictator. The world is clearly better off without him. Does this justify the war? I simply don't know.



It's estimated that he is responsible for the death of almost 2,000,000 people.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It's estimated that he is responsible for the death of almost 2,000,000 people.


 
Yep. I think people hate GWB so much they will simply say anything. 

I am sure next we will the good things that al-Zarqawi did for the world.


----------



## JordanMang (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It's estimated that he is responsible for the death of almost 2,000,000 people.



What baffles me is that he hasn't been assassinated or plane taken before a firing squad already.  If I had been their at his capture I'd doubt I could control myself.  My rifle might have "accidently discharged".


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It's estimated that he is responsible for the death of almost 2,000,000 people.




What about all the other brutal regimes?   


Sudan?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> What about all the other brutal regimes?
> 
> 
> Sudan?



Are they an active threat to the US?


----------



## ZECH (Jun 22, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *And who says you are entitled to "insult our troops" by running around threatening to beat the freedom out of people who don't agree with you? Who the he*l ever told you that you were appointed the prosecuter, judge and jury for America? You really think the "freedom" people fight and die for is your freedom to beat and bully people? *


I think you are in the vast minority here. Most people like JD and myself feel this way.


----------



## Decker (Jun 22, 2006)

Saddam was a bad man.  But the legal reasons for invading Iraq were in reference to WMDs and Al Qaeda associations.  Remember we were fresh off of 9/11 attacks. 

There was no legal grant of authority to remove Hussein from power for past crimes against his people.  That's a brute fact.

In 1980s, the US supported and bolstered Hussein's position as dictator.  That's another fact.  Hussein never attacked the US.  Fact.  (Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was done on the allegation that Kuwait was crossdrilling into Iraqi oil fields stealing Iraqi oil.)

Hussein's most brutal days were in the mid to late 1980s when he gassed the Kurds.  The US remained a staunch supporter of Hussein AFTER the gassing.  That's a fact.  Another fact is that Bush Sr. pulled support for a coup against Hussein resulting in the wholesale slaughter of those in the uprising.  Barely interrupted Bush Sr.'s golf game when he was notified of the murders.

Many of the people that initiated/supported this invasion of Iraq under GWB were players in the Reagan/Bush administrations that were friendly with the murderous dictator.

It was only when the Kuwaitis rattled Bush Sr.'s chain did the US attack Iraq.

Can everyone see valid reasons for questioning GWB and the invasion?


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 22, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Is the world a better place without Saddam?  Really?  Quantify that for me.  Seems to me like more people are dying, Iraq is still in turmoil, and the world is no safer than it was prior to him being in power (Maybe less).



More people are dying?  How many of his own people did Saddam kill vs. how many people have died since he was deposed.  

Iraq in turmoil?  No, not really.  That really depends on who you listen to, your local news media or people that are actually there.  Utilities that haven't been functioning for decades are back up and running.  Schools, hospitals, public works have been rebuilt and are functioning.  

The world is no safer?  Again, depends on your perspective.  I'm one of the few people here who will readily admit that oil played a huge part in our overthrowing Saddam.  By him being gone the oil reserves in that region are not in jeopardy.  That protects the world economy.  That keeps us safe.


----------



## the nut (Jun 22, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Is the world a better place without Saddam?  Really?  Quantify that for me.  Seems to me like more people are dying, Iraq is still in turmoil, and the world is no safer than it was prior to him being in power (Maybe less).



Listen, if you think the world is better with him in power, you are seriously mistaken. If he really didn't have weapons, he should have let the U.N. and U.S. check whereever the hell they wanted, and he would cared that this may result in war where his civilians would have lost their lives. The fact is he has used chemical weapons on some of his own people, and we have found mass graves over there. And to hear these people saying there are more countries reporting terror threats and finding terrorists in their countries than ever before. That's because they are looking for it now and we sharing information. Zarqawi was caught because of Iraqi intellegence! Look at the people they caught in Canada!  The world is more alert now. I have family members fighting and training police over there, and they weren't sure how these people would react to them. I've been told these police trainees and soldiers are starting to develop the brotherhood and pride in their new government that its gonna take.

  If your opinion is that we should just allow the smaller terror attacks or injustices by regimes so we dont have to go to war, then I disagree.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Are they an active threat to the US?




Iraq was?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Iraq was?



Yes.  They had terrorist training camps in their country.  Terrorists that were actively attacking the US.


----------



## the nut (Jun 22, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Saddam was a bad man.  But the legal reasons for invading Iraq were in reference to WMDs and Al Qaeda associations.  Remember we were fresh off of 9/11 attacks.
> 
> There was no legal grant of authority to remove Hussein from power for past crimes against his people.  That's a brute fact.
> 
> ...



Question it all you want, hether we went in for the right or wrong reasons, we are better off without him. That's all I'm saying!


----------



## the nut (Jun 22, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Ask the Kurds.
> 
> I just don't know how you guys can let your hatred of Bush cloud your judgement like this. How many people does he have to kill before it offends you?
> 
> Saddam was a brutal dictator. The world is clearly better off without him. Does this justify the war? I simply don't know.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 22, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> Do gangsters carry laptops now?



the answer to that ? is, it all depends on how much cash he has. you all have oppinions which is cool but no common since. Funny but did you know that I am in the Army!   Dumb asses


----------



## Decker (Jun 22, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> Question it all you want, hether we went in for the right or wrong reasons, we are better off without him. That's all I'm saying!


GWB broke the law by invading Iraq in the manner that he did. Either we are a country of laws or not. 

The ends do not justify the means. We are not hypocrites are we?

Also, it's not a question of whether the world is better off w/out Hussein--that's a foolish statement to begin with. No one disputes that Hussein was a monster.

The real issue is, "was the invasion of Iraq in the US's interests?"
Certainly no.

6-9 Billion dollars a month to pay for it

US violates law to implement invasion

Worldwide terrorism is up %400 since

2500 dead service men

20000-48000 wounded

god knows how many Iraqi casualties

and for what?

Oh yes, we removed a third rate, toothless dictator from power.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Yes.  They had terrorist training camps in their country.  Terrorists that were actively attacking the US.




Dosen't like every country do that?


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 22, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

>




Bigbricks here! I'm here in germany and my girlfriend is a Kurd so what do you think of that? there is so much that you don't know about what is going on that you're only speaking from what you see in TV or in newspapers.  People are leaving there countrys just to get away from what going on in Iraq. People love the soliders for what they are doing and some don't understand why we are doing it and are afraid because of their gov. tells them about us. It's hard, but when I here people like you I remember one thing, not everyone has the balls to fight for what they love!


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 22, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> Bigbricks here! I'm here in germany and my girlfriend is a Kurd so what do you think of that? there is so much that you don't know about what is going on that you're only speaking from what you see in TV or in newspapers.  People are leaving there countrys just to get away from what going on in Iraq. People love the soliders for what they are doing and some don't understand why we are doing it and are afraid because of their gov. tells them about us. It's hard, but when I here people like you I remember one thing, not everyone has the balls to fight for what they love!





NAZI!!! BANNED!!!!


----------



## largepkg (Jun 22, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> the answer to that ? is, it all depends on how much cash he has. you all have oppinions which is cool but no common since. Funny but did you know that I am in the Army!   Dumb asses




So you're a gangster in the army? I'm not big on grammatical correction but dear god my 9th grade English teacher (Mrs. Williams) would have a field day with you.


----------



## aceshigh (Jun 22, 2006)

more deaths on george bush's hands does he even have the mental capacity to feel guilty??  
heres his results thus far
    *

      Disbanding the Iraqi army and stiffing them on their pensions. RESULTS:      400,000 pissed-off well-armed & trained "I hate Americans!" unemployed soldiers.
    *

      Allowing unrestrained looting to go on for a month after our invasion. RESULTS:   All criminal records & government organization were destroyed.
    *

      Allowing Terrorists to empty out Saddam's arsenals and ammo dumps. RESULTS:   That ammunition is now used in over 700 attacks PER DAY in Iraq.
    *

      Not ever putting enough American troops in to get the job done. RESULTS:   Always having to go back and recapture the same areas: Fallujah- 4 times already.
    *

      Torture of prisoners, and desecration of the Koran. RESULTS:    Terrorists count this as their #1 recruiting tool to sign people up worldwide to fight against us.
    *

      Forcing American troops to drive around Iraq in under-armored Humvees and totally UN-armored trucks rather than using helicopters.  RESULTS:    Lots of target practice for the bad guys, and 15,000 fucked-up Americans.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Dosen't like every country do that?



No.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> No.




Every middle eastern country I mean.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 22, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> GWB broke the law by invading Iraq in the manner that he did.


What law?? Where does it say or where is it written that the US can't go to war? Congress voted and approved it, regardless of the reasons stated. Going to war is not about being legal IMO. And honestly, if they get a good guy to replace Hussein, I'll be surprised.


----------



## the nut (Jun 22, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> the answer to that ? is, it all depends on how much cash he has. you all have oppinions which is cool but no common since. Funny but did you know that I am in the Army!   Dumb asses



God help us!


----------



## Decker (Jun 22, 2006)

dg806 said:
			
		

> What law?? Where does it say or where is it written that the US can't go to war? Congress voted and approved it, regardless of the reasons stated. Going to war is not about being legal IMO. And honestly, if they get a good guy to replace Hussein, I'll be surprised.


Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the constitution). The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that???_except in response to an armed attack_???nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare _without the authorization_ _of the UN Security Council_. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.

Did Bush follow the guidelines set out in Resolution 1441? Absolutely not.

First of all, 1441 lays out the process to be followed. Any alleged Iraqi violations are to be reported to the Security Council, which will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation." Only the Council can then decide what to do next.

Secondly, 1441 does not authorize the use of "all necessary means"--the only language recognized as authorizing force. The U.S. and U.K. tried to get this phrase into the resolution, but other Security Council members rejected it. The replacement language, "serious consequences," is not, and was not intended to be, synonymous.

Third, after 1441 was adopted, every Security Council member--including the U.S. and U.K.--affirmed that it did not provide for "automaticity"--the automatic resort to force. It was this very issue over which the Council struggled for weeks. It's simply fraudulent to now claim that 1441 incorporated automaticity.

*As **U.S.** ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."*

Fourth, any Security Council authorization for the use of force must be unambiguous, to avoid exactly the present disagreement. Clearly, 1441 is not.

Fifth, only the Security Council itself can authorize the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. The Council cannot cede that decision to individual member states.

And sixth, an authorization for the use of force always specifies the intended objective of that force. U.N. resolutions do not empower nations to use force for whatever reasons they wish. *Even if 1441 did authorize the use of force to enter **Iraq and detect and destroy Iraq**'s alleged weapons of mass destruction, that would not authorize the stated--and quite different--purpose of this invasion: the removal of the present government from power.*



I hope the US makes the best of the situation b/c it sure started off on the wrong foot.


----------



## the nut (Jun 22, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Also, it's not a question of whether the world is better off w/out Hussein--that's a foolish statement to begin with. No one disputes that Hussein was a monster.



I don't care what your opinion is on us being in Iraq, I didnt make the comment to say it was right for us to be over there. You said no one disputes it, then keep your mouth shut about it! I've seen some of those stats you've put up before and they suck. I'm at the age were it's my friends and brothers fighting over there and wish we were'nt there. But I don't know enough of what's really going on in this administration to know why we went or if we should be there or not. All I know is this thread was started about two GIs getting cut up. I'm not gonna sit by and let someone who lives in this free country, criticize or badmouth the men and women who help provide our freedoms. 

But don't call my opinion foolish because your a Bush hater and have to take issue with because I think a couple of positives have come out of this . I certainly don't think the positives outweigh the negatives!


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 22, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the constitution). The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that???_except in response to an armed attack_???nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare _without the authorization_ _of the UN Security Council_. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.
> 
> Did Bush follow the guidelines set out in Resolution 1441? Absolutely not.
> 
> ...



When the vote to go to war against Iraq went before the U.S. Congress, what did they vote?  Let's say, just for argument's sake, I agree with your above post and say we went into this "illegally".  Was Bush alone?  Nope, he was right there, shoulder to shoulder, with some of your greatest heros; Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc., etc., etc.  Even if it was wrong, stop trying to lay it at a single person's feet.  It just doesn't work and the facts are there to prove it.


----------



## Decker (Jun 22, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> When the vote to go to war against Iraq went before the U.S. Congress, what did they vote? Let's say, just for argument's sake, I agree with your above post and say we went into this "illegally". Was Bush alone? Nope, he was right there, shoulder to shoulder, with some of your greatest heros; Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc., etc., etc. Even if it was wrong, stop trying to lay it at a single person's feet. It just doesn't work and the facts are there to prove it.


The vote was to authorize the president to use force Al.  Bush misused that authority when he attacked Iraq before the WMD inspectors could finish their jobs.

That's pretty much the crux of it.  

For what it's worth, I agree with you that all the US senators should have been more thoughtful on the matter.

Only Russ Feingold stood alone.


----------



## Decker (Jun 22, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> I don't care what your opinion is on us being in Iraq, I didnt make the comment to say it was right for us to be over there. You said no one disputes it, then keep your mouth shut about it! I've seen some of those stats you've put up before and they suck. I'm at the age were it's my friends and brothers fighting over there and wish we were'nt there. But I don't know enough of what's really going on in this administration to know why we went or if we should be there or not. All I know is this thread was started about two GIs getting cut up. I'm not gonna sit by and let someone who lives in this free country, criticize or badmouth the men and women who help provide our freedoms.
> 
> But don't call my opinion foolish because your a Bush hater and have to take issue with because I think a couple of positives have come out of this . I certainly don't think the positives outweigh the negatives!


Think positively young man. I was asked by others why the invasion was illegal so I answered. But your emotional comments have all the earmarks of impetuous youth. Bark without bite. 

Ok Capt. America, please point out where I badmouthed the 2 slain soldiers.

Your opinion is not only foolish, you are foolish. But I won't hold that against you. You have some intelligence and I believe in second chances for potential to blossom.

Oh yes, if you do not care what my opinion is then don't write a paragraph telling me why. Ok?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> The vote was to authorize the president to use force Al.  Bush misused that authority when he attacked Iraq before the WMD inspectors could finish their jobs.



They had over a decade to do their job.  They were played for fools.  Saddam didn't really give the full access until the US committed to finishing the war, and then it was too late.


----------



## JordanMang (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> They had over a decade to do their job.  They were played for fools.  Saddam didn't really give the full access until the US committed to finishing the war, and then it was too late.



Everything I've read has told me the same thing.  Saddam was completely evading the search tactics and playing the UN officials for fools.  How long should we have waited? 2 years? 5? 10? And by then who knows what could have happened.  Better safe then sorry is my motto.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2006)

JordanMang said:
			
		

> Everything I've read has told me the same thing.  Saddam was completely evading the search tactics and playing the UN officials for fools.  How long should we have waited? 2 years? 5? 10? And by then who knows what could have happened.  Better safe then sorry is my motto.



The real problem was the UN.  They were coming up on a vote on whether or not to lift the sanctions, even though Saddam had not complied.  Several of the permanent UN members (China, Russia, and France) were going to vote to lift them.  It turns out they had ulterior motives.  France was Iraq's largest creditor and all had sweat heart oil deals.


----------



## JordanMang (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> The real problem was the UN.  They were coming up on a vote on whether or not to lift the sanctions, even though Saddam had not complied.  Several of the permanent UN members (China, Russia, and France) were going to vote to lift them.  It turns out they had ulterior motives.  France was Iraq's largest creditor and all had sweat heart oil deals.



But, in a way it's hard to blame them.  The gas prices in Europe and the middle east are out-rageous.  Americans are so used to the comfort of relatively low gas prices compared to the Eastern hemisphere that we'd rebel if they were suddenly bumped to the same price here.  Money is the root of all evil as they say.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 22, 2006)

you all need to read what you are writing and then try to have something to say to me. Being a gangster in the term I used it in was a metophor. Even you had to agree and you don't even now it. See war is war and all of us who joined the army knew what we where getting into. all who join a gang know what they are getting into. I don't really support any sides I have a job to do and I have to be 1000% focused if I don't want to lose my head, get it. As far as nazies we have more in america as they do here in germany, where do you think they do buisness?  What do you know about BMW's? funny that you still don't know what you're talking about, but ok, what can I expect from people who haven't been in more than to 5 cities from all of the United States. How can I explain it? If you where never there you can't say to much about it. The way I see it every land has it's problems. some poor and hungry, some rich and greedy, and others are being lied to. When I look at the two who died, well, lets put it this way they should not have been alone and because of the rules of engagement they where captured and killed. So why not be a gangster about my surroundings; mentaly speaking.
Plus, I have kids and to top it all off there are not that many job. So in order to come back I got to be on top of my game; "A" game that is! So if that means shoot first ask question later, so be it, I got to protect myself. If I don't, how can I protect my country no matter what they think of me? I guess you'll talk that shit to you're kids if they came home and said, "Mom, dad, I'm joining the army and their is nothing you can do to change it.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2006)

Hey, here's $5.  Go out and buy some grammar.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 22, 2006)

Oh yeah, Right wing is nazi 



Bigbricks


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 22, 2006)

JordanMang said:
			
		

> But, in a way it's hard to blame them.  The gas prices in Europe and the middle east are out-rageous.  Americans are so used to the comfort of relatively low gas prices compared to the Eastern hemisphere that we'd rebel if they were suddenly bumped to the same price here.  Money is the root of all evil as they say.




Iran wants there oil paid in euro do you know what that will do to US gas prices


----------



## Decker (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> They had over a decade to do their job. They were played for fools. Saddam didn't really give the full access until the US committed to finishing the war, and then it was too late.


Yes, I know Hussein was an asshole about compliance.  But the fact of the matter is, is that he ultimately did let the inspectors in the country to do their jobs.  It was never 'too late.'  Especially when it comes to the horrors of war.  GWB was legally compelled to permit the WMD inspectors to finish their jobs and he broke the law and invaded prematurely.


----------



## Decker (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Hey, here's $5. Go out and buy some grammar.


aaaaaaaahhhahaha


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Hey, here's $5.  Go out and buy some grammar.





give it here loose booty


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Hey, here's $5.  Go out and buy some grammar.




*GRAMMARNAZIOWNED!!!!!!!!*


----------



## god hand (Jun 22, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> ^ I agree.
> 
> Time ot move on.
> 
> ...



Somebody seriously needs to read an history book


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Yes, I know Hussein was an asshole about compliance.  But the fact of the matter is, is that he ultimately did let the inspectors in the country to do their jobs.  It was never 'too late.'  Especially when it comes to the horrors of war.  GWB was legally compelled to permit the WMD inspectors to finish their jobs and he broke the law and invaded prematurely.



He only let them in _*after *_the US committed to finishing the war.  If the US didn't commit, then he wouldn't have done it.  Do you see the conundrum?

The US and Iraq were the combatants in the Gulf war.  The UN didn't stipulate the terms under which the US could finish the war.  It was the US that stopped the fighting back in 1991, not the UN.  The US could have finished it them, but chose to give Saddam a chance.  People like to talk about two Gulf Wars, but in reality, it was only one, with a long cessation of hostilities.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 22, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> *GRAMMARNAZIOWNED!!!!!!!!*





I'm one person Nazis can't stand.... I'm half black and half "black paw" indian. all american


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> I'm one person Nazis can't stand.... I'm half black and half "black paw" indian. all american



Don't underestimate yourself, you're a person that no one can stand.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Don't underestimate yourself, you're a person that no one can stand.





I don't want to be, I have a life plus three kids and a woman who loves me


----------



## Decker (Jun 22, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> He only let them in _*after *_the US committed to finishing the war. If the US didn't commit, then he wouldn't have done it. Do you see the conundrum?
> 
> The US and Iraq were the combatants in the Gulf war. The UN didn't stipulate the terms under which the US could finish the war. It was the US that stopped the fighting back in 1991, not the UN. The US could have finished it them, but chose to give Saddam a chance. People like to talk about two Gulf Wars, but in reality, it was only one, with a long cessation of hostilities.


There is no doubt in my mind that Bush's sabre rattling pushed Hussein into a corner. No doubt.

But he went too far.  He attacked.  He could have waited for inspectors to finish and avoid a war but he didn't.  Hussein was a recalcitrant child but he did play ball.

What of the issue of why demand Iraqi compliance now with the threat of war?  We knew it was Bin Laden and not Hussein that attacked us.  Instead of finishing the job finding Bin Laden and his cohorts, we attacked 
Iraq.  Face it, Hussein was a butcher but he wasn't stupid.  That's why he let the inspectors in.  He knew that any agression toward the US would result in the glassification of all of Iraq.

It just doesn't add up.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 22, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *And who says you are entitled to "insult our troops" by running around threatening to beat the freedom out of people who don't agree with you? Who the he*l ever told you that you were appointed the prosecuter, judge and jury for America? You really think the "freedom" people fight and die for is your freedom to beat and bully people? *



You're just mad because I picked on Chicago  .

I never claimed to be a patriotic American.  I protested the Vietnam war in my youth, and I am against the war in Iraq now.  My furor was over Mr Snafu lack of compassion of how these two young men lost their lives, calling them "deadbeats" and "losers".

It also bothers me that he walks the streets of America, after so many other innocent Americans lost their live's doing what they thought was right (or didn't have a choice because they were drafted) in Vietnam, and he attacks those people with the same callousness.  It was Richard Nixon and his generals that made the decision to drop Napalm, not the 18 year old GI.  Just as it was GWB's decision to invade Iraq.

My only regret was threatening bodily harm to Mr Snafu, and I know that was inappropriate.  I was just so infuriated with his total lack of compassion.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 22, 2006)

dg806 said:
			
		

> I think you are in the vast minority here. Most people like JD and myself feel this way.



What a curious way to claim you support those who defend "freedom."


----------



## JordanMang (Jun 22, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> You're just mad because I picked on Chicago  .
> 
> I never claimed to be a patriotic American.  I protested the Vietnam war in my youth, and I am against the war in Iraq now.  My furor was over Mr Snafu lack of compassion of how these two young men lost their lives, calling them "deadbeats" and "losers".
> 
> ...



Don't worry I've had similar feelings about Snafu.  He's a ignorant piece of trash.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> There is no doubt in my mind that Bush's sabre rattling pushed Hussein into a corner. No doubt.
> 
> But he went too far.  He attacked.  He could have waited for inspectors to finish and avoid a war but he didn't.  Hussein was a recalcitrant child but he did play ball.
> 
> ...


Part of the problem was that three of the sitting members of the UN were going to vote to lift the sanctions.  Plus, where was the Al-Quida number two man found?


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 22, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> There is no doubt in my mind that Bush's sabre rattling pushed Hussein into a corner. No doubt.
> 
> But he went too far.  He attacked.  He could have waited for inspectors to finish and avoid a war but he didn't.  Hussein was a recalcitrant child but he did play ball.
> 
> ...






look it's politics not grammer. The world is on a scale thats not balanced. The euro messed everything up and the dollar is losing it's value. with the war going on, gas and oil prices are going though the roof. So, why not go to war so we can keep the comfurt that we as americans so love to have. Ok, I know it's fucked, but don't forget we are politicaly speaking, there is no such thing as morals in politics. If all the eastern countries that produce oil were to want to be paid in euro, america would not be able to keep its  low gas prices. Which would mean the cost of cooling and heating your home and driving your cars will be to much for even the middle class to afford


----------



## ZECH (Jun 22, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the constitution). The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that???_except in response to an armed attack_???nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare _without the authorization_ _of the UN Security Council_. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.
> 
> Did Bush follow the guidelines set out in Resolution 1441? Absolutely not.
> 
> ...


OK, that makes sense, and I might agree to some of it. 
But the US should never be held accountable to the United Nations for anything. I have never liked the UN (It has nothing to do with this war). I have always wanted us to pull out of the UN. It is useless!


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 22, 2006)

who cares what UN says....they're more corrupt than the former king of Zaire


----------



## maniclion (Jun 22, 2006)

I just can't believe that our government gave Saddam those weapons and didn't put some kind of secret tracking device or beacon on them.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 22, 2006)

ask carter


----------



## the nut (Jun 22, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Think positively young man. I was asked by others why the invasion was illegal so I answered. But your emotional comments have all the earmarks of impetuous youth. Bark without bite.
> 
> Ok Capt. America, please point out where I badmouthed the 2 slain soldiers.
> 
> ...



I'll follow your advise this time, no paragraph!


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2006)

I like where this thread is going.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 22, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Ask the Kurds.
> 
> I just don't know how you guys can let your hatred of Bush cloud your judgement like this. How many people does he have to kill before it offends you?
> 
> Saddam was a brutal dictator. The world is clearly better off without him. Does this justify the war? I simply don't know.



This has nothing do with my hatred of Bush, though I strongly dislike him.  You brought up Bush, not me.

On that note, how many people have died as a result of this war, and how many more would he have killed compared to this number?  How many more will continue to die as a result of the horrible situation that is not really improving in Iraq?  Who's to say the government that replaces Saddam will be better?  I know that's what we're working for, but if we really leave them to their own devices eventually then there are no guarantee (Especially considering that they don't like us too much anymore).

I don't think it's so clear, not clear enough to justify the war anyway.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 22, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> I know I'm going off topic here but CP tell me this. If you repeatedly witnessed the same local bully harming and beating your friends/neighbors would you turn your cheek or help?
> 
> I know it's a simplistic way to look at it but doing nothing is worse than attempting help.



I would help, but this is not the same thing.  You can't make that analogy.  If you want to make that analogy fair, then you would have to say that when I helped them I blew up a bunch of shit around their house, killed people they knew, and made myself go into debt while doing so.  Then, on top of that, the situation in that household was still shitty after I did that, and now everyone else in the neighborhood thought I was a piece of shit because of the way I did things.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 22, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> More people are dying?  How many of his own people did Saddam kill vs. how many people have died since he was deposed.



40-100K Iraqi civilians have died in 3 years, and I don't even want to know how many were wounded.  How many do you think would've died with Saddam in power throughout the remainder of his life of power?




> Iraq in turmoil?  No, not really.  That really depends on who you listen to, your local news media or people that are actually there.  Utilities that haven't been functioning for decades are back up and running.  Schools, hospitals, public works have been rebuilt and are functioning.



There are still people dying and getting wounded on a daily basis there.  As we enter this 3rd year of occupation in Iraq, the civilian death count each day averages more than what occured in either of the first 2 years.  I don't know what you're defining as turmoil, but that fits my definition.

Let's not ignore the political squabbles (Beyond that of what normally occurs in politics) that are going on between the various Muslim sects over there right now.  That doesn't help.




> The world is no safer?  Again, depends on your perspective.  I'm one of the few people here who will readily admit that oil played a huge part in our overthrowing Saddam.  By him being gone the oil reserves in that region are not in jeopardy.  That protects the world economy.  That keeps us safe.



Okay, but I was referring to terrorism, which is one of the false pretenses on which we invaded in the first place.  That is what I meant when I was referring to safety.  Maybe the global economy is safer, but I could care less about that when it comes to tens of thousands of lives.


----------



## the nut (Jun 22, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> 40-100K Iraqi civilians have died in 3 years, and I don't even want to know how many were wounded.  How many do you think would've died with Saddam in power throughout the remainder of his life of power?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cowpimp the destroyer!


----------



## maniclion (Jun 22, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> ask carter


No Carter traded arms for hostages, Reagan gave arms to Iraq from 1980-1988 during the Iraq-Iran war, while Isreal gave Iran arms on the flip side, basically playing them against each other.  A failed attempt at trying to ruin both countries and now we're dealing with the backlash. Or should I say "blowback"?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 22, 2006)

*Albob:*

Saddam Hussein has murdered _less civilians_ then George W. Bush.

*Cowpimp:*

We are entering the _4th_ year of war in Iraq (starting last March).

--
I do agree, this shouldn't be based on political squabbling, but for many people it is.

The reality is: Iraq is a mess.  

In every way imaginable.

Many middle class and skilled, and educated Iraqis have left the country for Jordan.  Maybe they'll return in the future.

Electricity and infrastructure is screwed up.

Rivalries and Sectarian killings probably will not be solved by political solutions.

The U.S. is building permanent bases in Iraq now, and the new U.S. embassy being built in Baghdad is as big as Vatican City.

The Americans will be in Iraq for a long, long, time.


----------



## largepkg (Jun 23, 2006)

I say we take a cleanse the earth approach. I know it's been said many times before but I'm not sure these people were serious about it. 

If a large group of people can't be civilized in this day and age then there's no reason for their existence. They're not productive members of society and only degrade humanity. Will innocents die? Yes. They've had their opportunity to rise up and have yet to do so in a productive manner.

If the button were in front of me today I'd push it.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 23, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> I say we take a cleanse the earth approach. I know it's been said many times before but I'm not sure these people were serious about it.
> 
> If a large group of people can't be civilized in this day and age then there's no reason for their existence. They're not productive members of society and only degrade humanity. Will innocents die? Yes. They've had their opportunity to rise up and have yet to do so in a productive manner.
> 
> If the button were in front of me today I'd push it.





Are you implying we should attack countries that are uncivilized, like even our own?


----------



## MyK (Jun 23, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> I say we take a cleanse the earth approach. I know it's been said many times before but I'm not sure these people were serious about it.
> 
> If a large group of people can't be civilized in this day and age then there's no reason for their existence. They're not productive members of society and only degrade humanity. Will innocents die? Yes. They've had their opportunity to rise up and have yet to do so in a productive manner.
> 
> If the button were in front of me today I'd push it.


easy, hitler!


----------



## Decker (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Part of the problem was that three of the sitting members of the UN were going to vote to lift the sanctions. Plus, where was the Al-Quida number two man found?


That's interesting about the possible vote of those UN members. It's something I'd like to investigate.

As far finding the #2 man of Al Qaeda in Iraq, I'm glad he's dead but was he the #2 man? http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060710&s=alterman

Frankly that article is not in my style of criticism. Even assuming he was the #2 man it still does not justify the method--war, billions spent, thousands dead.

Look at how the FBI took down those terrorists planning to ice the Sears Tower in Chicago--first class detective work and arrests.

That's how you handle terrorism--with intelligence and deftness. It's still the best answer to the terrorism question.


----------



## largepkg (Jun 23, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Are you implying we should attack countries that are uncivilized, like even our own?




I'm implying that any society that can't police/control itself is of no use to the civilized world. They are only breeding grounds of hate and deceit. If their only contribution to society is to bring harm to the modern civilized world then yes, we should end them. I know it's easier said then done but that's how I feel.


----------



## largepkg (Jun 23, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> That's interesting about the possible vote of those UN members. It's something I'd like to investigate.
> 
> As far finding the #2 man of Al Qaeda in Iraq, I'm glad he's dead but was he the #2 man? http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060710&s=alterman
> 
> ...



Just to play devil's advocate. Don't you think the Patriot Act has given them (FBI, CIA, local detectives) the ability to do there job more effectively? I do agree this is how it should be handled in the US.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> That's interesting about the possible vote of those UN members. It's something I'd like to investigate.
> 
> As far finding the #2 man of Al Qaeda in Iraq, I'm glad he's dead but was he the #2 man? http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060710&s=alterman
> 
> ...



While you're investigating, also check out the Oil for Food scandal.

The billions (trillions long-term) isn't because we went to war, it's because we're doing this touchy-feely shit.  If we'd simply gone over there, killed everyone that we needed to, and then gone home, the price wouldn't be that high. 

Did you ever consider that the FBI was able to do their job so well because of the reforms after 9/11?


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> I'm implying that any society that can't police/control itself is of no use to the civilized world. They are only breeding grounds of hate and deceit. If their only contribution to society is to bring harm to the modern civilized world then yes, we should end them. I know it's easier said then done but that's how I feel.





So, trust is good but control is better. Who said they loved Big Brother?


----------



## Decker (Jun 23, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> Just to play devil's advocate. Don't you think the Patriot Act has given them (FBI, CIA, local detectives) the ability to do there job more effectively? I do agree this is how it should be handled in the US.


I don't know and no one but the FBI knows for sure. If I were to speculate I would say, 'no.' Here's why:
The World Trade Center was bombed a little over a month into Clinton's first administration. The terrorists were tracked down, arrested and jailed for life. There was no Patriot Act in effect at that time yet the arrests were executed.


----------



## Decker (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> While you're investigating, also check out the Oil for Food scandal.
> 
> The billions (trillions long-term) isn't because we went to war, it's because we're doing this touchy-feely shit. If we'd simply gone over there, killed everyone that we needed to, and then gone home, the price wouldn't be that high.
> 
> Did you ever consider that the FBI was able to do their job so well because of the reforms after 9/11?


Oil for Food scandals do not interest me. Any well-intentioned program can be allegedly scandalous and corrupt. That doesn't change the fact that Bush broke the law. The man cannot follow legal channels for doing almost anything. He just ignores it. That won't do for a man sworn to uphold the laws of the country.

I also find it rich that any supporter of this administration can point the finger of corruption at the UN when literally billions and billions of US tax dollars are 'disappearing' in Iraq.  Or for that matter, only Haliburton can handle many of these governmental duties with no-bid contracts of course.

Come on DOMS, kill everyone we needed too? Like whom? This goes to the heart of the matter that attacking iraq w/ a war is the wrong-headed approach to battling terrorism. Terrorism is police problem. Oh I forgot, we attacked to install a democracy in country w/ ethnic differences dating back centuries. Forget terrorism.

I don't know if the 'reforms' helped catch the terrorists or not. The terrorists that bombed the WTC in '93 were apprehended w/out use of the Patriot Act I & II. Still doesn't change the fact that our constitutional guarantees have been damaged by those pieces of legislation.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> So, trust is good but control is better. Who said they loved Big Brother?



So, I see you spent that $5 wisely.  Good for you.


----------



## the nut (Jun 23, 2006)

The snowballing thread!


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

hisory book, news papers, 60 min., and cnn will not give you the answers you looking for. You only repeat what they have told unto you. I know you want to be informed. But do you ever think about why things were not done the way you feel is correct? Stop looking at what is been done. Look at why it is being done the way it is? largepkg could be right about the Patriot Act. Though, we the true people of the United States can not control how the goverment works, as long as we keep trying to use the scraps they feed us. Now, if they (CIA and FBI) can get their hands on some of the worlds best tech equiptment how is it they haven't get Bin Laden. After all they captured Saddam, killed his sons, and killed the Al quidas #2 man. How is that?


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 23, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> I also find it rich that any supporter of this administration can point the finger of corruption at the UN when literally billions and billions of US tax dollars are 'disappearing' in Iraq.  Or for that matter, only Haliburton can handle many of these governmental duties with no-bid contracts of course.



Haliburton is one biggest companies that can handle government contracts.  You have Haliburton or Schumberger so don't have much choice


----------



## largepkg (Jun 23, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> hisory book, news papers, 60 min., and cnn will not give you the answers you looking for. You only repeat what they have told unto you. I know you want to be informed. But do you ever think about why things were not done the way you feel is correct? Stop looking at what is been done. Look at why it is being done the way it is? largepkg could be right about the Patriot Act. Though, we the true people of the United States can not control how the goverment works, as long as we keep trying to use the scraps they feed us. Now, if they (CIA and FBI) can get their hands on some of the worlds best tech equiptment how is it they haven't get Bin Laden. After all they captured Saddam, killed his sons, and killed the Al quidas #2 man. How is that?





You're an enigma, wrapped up in a riddle, surrounded by...


----------



## Pepper (Jun 23, 2006)

Haliburton oftens gets work that NO OTHER COMPANY can do. Of course the liberals then scream about how there was no bid.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> You're an enigma, wrapped up in a riddle, surrounded by...




I know that. Which also lets me know that what I'm saying has alot of truth to it


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Oil for Food scandals do not interest me. Any well-intentioned program can be allegedly scandalous and corrupt. That doesn't change the fact that Bush broke the law. The man cannot follow legal channels for doing almost anything. He just ignores it. That won't do for a man sworn to uphold the laws of the country.



Who's talking about Bush? I was just pointing out that the UN is a load of shit and that I couldn't care less what they think or want.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> I also find it rich that any supporter of this administration can point the finger of corruption at the UN when literally billions and billions of US tax dollars are 'disappearing' in Iraq.  Or for that matter, only Haliburton can handle many of these governmental duties with no-bid contracts of course.



So, if you're such an UN supporter, you can't point the finger a Bush.  As for Haliburton, it was that was before GWB.  It was that way under Clinton, but I doubt you complained about it then.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Come on DOMS, kill everyone we needed too? Like whom? This goes to the heart of the matter that attacking iraq w/ a war is the wrong-headed approach to battling terrorism. Terrorism is police problem. Oh I forgot, we attacked to install a democracy in country w/ ethnic differences dating back centuries. Forget terrorism.



No, we didn't attack with the intent to install of a democratic government.  That asshat Bush tossed that in.

As for who to kill?  Anyone that's an active threat or supports those who are.  This is a lot easier when were not having to do some dumb ass policing action.




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> I don't know if the 'reforms' helped catch the terrorists or not. The terrorists that bombed the WTC in '93 were apprehended w/out use of the Patriot Act I & II. Still doesn't change the fact that our constitutional guarantees have been damaged by those pieces of legislation.



Times have changed and the enemy has changed.  Those responsible for the '93 bombing were home grown terrorists and fairly easy to catch.  The Muslim breed of terrorist is not local and more organized.

The really hilarious thing is that if we dumped the Patriot Act and then were hit with another big attack,  you, and others like you, would wail about the various agencies aren't doing their jobs.  You'll notice that one important piece of the Patriot Act allows for search without a warrant if it's believed that it might stop an attack.  Note that any evidence found during such a search cannot be used to convict the offender.  It's a trade off.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Haliburton oftens gets work that NO OTHER COMPANY can do. Of course the liberals then scream about how there was no bid.



And, like I pointed out in my previous post, it was that way under Slick Willie as well. Where was their angst then?


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> So, I see you spent that $5 wisely.  Good for you.





It's hard to write when it's 3:00 in morning(germany).
But, I don't worry about grammatics when it comes to topic such as these. Only the facts


----------



## Decker (Jun 23, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> Haliburton is one biggest companies that can handle government contracts. You have Haliburton or Schumberger so don't have much choice


I would start by not privatizing governmental services in the first place.  It is not a choice btn two private companies but between federal gov. and private industry.  It just so happens that those kinds of contracts are historically corrupt.  Remember $700 hammers.


----------



## Decker (Jun 23, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Haliburton oftens gets work that NO OTHER COMPANY can do. Of course the liberals then scream about how there was no bid.


True, but historically the gov. used to handle those jobs until the privatizers got hold of our gov.  Army Corp of Engineers can do a hell of a job.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Who's talking about Bush? I was just pointing out that the UN is a load of shit and that I couldn't care less what they think or want.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> You're an enigma, wrapped up in a riddle, surrounded by...


 

surrounded by what, may I ask


----------



## Decker (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Who's talking about Bush? I was just pointing out that the UN is a load of shit and that I couldn't care less what they think or want.


The UN is the best org we have for its purpose at the moment. Not perfect but better than nothing.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> So, if you're such an UN supporter, you can't point the finger a Bush. As for Haliburton, it was that was before GWB. It was that way under Clinton, but I doubt you complained about it then.


The UN is the best org we have for its purpose at the moment. Not perfect but better than nothing. The origins of Halliburton are intimately tied to the Bush family dynasty so the Clinton comparison is not apt.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> As for who to kill? Anyone that's an active threat or supports those who are. This is a lot easier when were not having to do some dumb ass policing action.
> 
> Times have changed and the enemy has changed. Those responsible for the '93 bombing were home grown terrorists and fairly easy to catch. The Muslim breed of terrorist is not local and more organized.


Times haven't changed. Terrorism is the same tactic it has always been. The '93 bombers were militant islamists and were not 'easier' to catch. It took a very skillful investigation by the FBI. The terrorists were from palestine I believe.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> The really hilarious thing is that if we dumped the Patriot Act and then were hit with another big attack, you, and others like you, would wail about the various agencies aren't doing their jobs. You'll notice that one important piece of the Patriot Act allows for search without a warrant if it's believed that it might stop an attack. Note that any evidence found during such a search cannot be used to convict the offender. It's a trade off.


Yes, my entire ethical outlook is provisional on what's convenient at the moment and I'll change my stripes at the drop of a hat. 
The police and FBI have long long histories of following constitutional procedures to catch crooks/terrorists/bad guys. We shitcan that for what again?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> The UN is the best org we have for its purpose at the moment. Not perfect but better than nothing.



Not only do they not help, but they add to problems.  They give the appearance of being productive, which they are anything but!  It's a place for kickbacks and back room deals that affect countries.  Hell, China is sitting on the human rights council!



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> The origins of Halliburton are intimately tied to the Bush family dynasty so the Clinton comparison is not apt.



Yes it is apt.  The government, not Clinton and not Bush, have been using their services for decades.  Bush didn't strong arm that company in, it was there when he got there.  And Cheney divulged himself of any ties he had because they were direct ties, unlike Bush's ties which were indirect.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Times haven't changed. Terrorism is the same tactic it has always been. The '93 bombers were militant islamists and were not 'easier' to catch. It took a very skillful investigation by the FBI. The terrorists were from palestine I believe.



Who said anything about tactics?  The tactics for terrorist have been, and always will be, fear.  So then, by that logic, an army is an army, right? So the Israeli Defense Force is exactly the same as the Norwegian army?



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Yes, my entire ethical outlook is provisional on what's convenient at the moment and I'll change my stripes at the drop of a hat.
> The police and FBI have long long histories of following constitutional procedures to catch crooks/terrorists/bad guys. We shitcan that for what again?



Uh...the FBI and CIA have been accused of violating all sorts of laws (domestic and foreign) and the Constitution for decades.  J. Edgar Hoover ring a bell?


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> The UN is the best org we have for its purpose at the moment. Not perfect but better than nothing.
> 
> The UN is the best org we have for its purpose at the moment. Not perfect but better than nothing. The origins of Halliburton are intimately tied to the Bush family dynasty so the Clinton comparison is not apt.
> Times haven't changed. Terrorism is the same tactic it has always been. The '93 bombers were militant islamists and were not 'easier' to catch. It took a very skillful investigation by the FBI. The terrorists were from palestine I believe.
> ...





And again, we talk about the job being done, but not how it's being done!
please/please/please; this is the reason why other counrties think we have no values or morals! We have to take control over our gov. and stop giving excuses. Not one thing they do is constitutional. If it was they would not may new laws to cover the mistakes that they made.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Not only do they not help, but they add to problems.  They give the appearance of being productive, which they are anything but!  It's a place for kickbacks and back room deals that affect countries.  Hell, China is sitting on the human rights council!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  thank you DOM, nice.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

Did you  know that we could be considered terrorist just for how we are talking.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> thank you DOM, nice.



NP, man.  You'll find that this is the norm for Decker and myself.  Decker is one of the few people who has bested me.  Actually, he's gotten me to change my view on a few things.  Most notably Bush.  I now see him for the asshat that he is.  That still doesn't change the fact that the US is the best country or that the UN is full of shit.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> Did you  know that we could be considered terrorist just for how we are talking.


Unless they invented a new network protocol entitled "Suicide Bombing Over TCP/IP", I doubt it.


----------



## Decker (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Not only do they not help, but they add to problems. They give the appearance of being productive, which they are anything but! It's a place for kickbacks and back room deals that affect countries. Hell, China is sitting on the human rights council!


UN peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, strategic summits, human rights support and such is all one big scam that should be done away with. I disagree. 

Granted the some of the countries that sit on certain councils give one pause, but look at the people actually occupying the slot--many are top notch individuals.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Yes it is apt. The government, not Clinton and not Bush, have been using their services for decades. Bush didn't strong arm that company in, it was there when he got there. And Cheney divulged himself of any ties he had because they were direct ties, unlike Bush's ties which were indirect.


No it is not apt. In 1991, it was Dick Cheney that brought in Halliburton for governmental contracts. The origins of the company itself is tied neatly w/ the development of the Bush dynasty.
No-bid contracts http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/costplus.html

When a government announces a new work project to be completed by one company, it generally requires a number of different companies to submit competing proposals (or bids). The company submitting the most efficient and lowest-cost bid usually wins the contract. But under a "no-bid" contract, there is no bidding. Instead, the government awards the contract to one preferred company without determining if other companies can complete the work for a lower cost to the government.

The Army awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract in March 2003 to rebuild Iraq's oil industry infrastructure. The no-bid contract created enough outrage in Congress that the Pentagon later cancelled it and opened-up the bidding process to companies other than Halliburton.

Most of Halliburton's government contracts were awarded through competitive bidding, but the no-bid Iraqi contract, and the secret way in which it was awarded to Halliburton, touched-off a firestorm of public suspicion that Dick Cheney and Halliburton are working together to increase the revenues of Halliburton. After the no-bid contract was cancelled, the company has been exposed for the repeated fraud and abuse in its government contracts. Allegations of corruption continue today.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Who said anything about tactics? The tactics for terrorist have been, and always will be, fear. So then, by that logic, an army is an army, right? So the Israeli Defense Force is exactly the same as the Norwegian army?


Terrorism is terrorism--what has changed? People have flown planes into buildings in other countries. Remember, it was 19 guys with box cutters that did this to us.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Uh...the FBI and CIA have been accused of violating all sorts of laws (domestic and foreign) and the Constitution for decades. J. Edgar Hoover ring a bell?


I did not mention the CIA. Yes Hoover rings a bell--45 years ago. Since those long past decades, the FBI has been fairly credible in its efforts to battle terrorists. They caught the terrorists in '93.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> NP, man.  You'll find that this is the norm for Decker and myself.  Decker is one of the few people who has bested me.  Actually, he's gotten me to change my view on a few things.  Most notably Bush.  I now see him for the asshat that he is.  That still doesn't change the fact that the US is the best country or that the UN is full of shit.




 America is the greatest country there is, people say that world wide, believe me, they just don't like our gov..  We have broken to many laws, even human rights to gain there respect and I find that very sad because we have more power than we can ever dream there is. The people over here want to be like the people in america, can you understand what that is like to see even though they talk shit about how we do things


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 23, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> I would start by not privatizing governmental services in the first place.  It is not a choice btn two private companies but between federal gov. and private industry.  It just so happens that those kinds of contracts are historically corrupt.  Remember $700 hammers.



Not privatizing  governmental services= more corruption than more kindling for the liberal firestorm on the current admistration.


----------



## Decker (Jun 23, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> Not privatizing governmental services= more corruption than more kindling for the liberal firestorm on the current admistration.


I don't follow you.

But seriously, could you picture Ronald Reagan sauntering across the deck of a destroyer in full flight gear to announce "Mission Accomplished!"

I know he did it in the movies, but really.  I mention this b/c I was looking at your avatar--I like shots like that.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 23, 2006)

Ok, let's start with the belief that America is the greatest country on earth.



Cool.



Who gives a fuck?  Why not be progressive/proactive to make it better.




How do you define "greatest" anyways?  I'm guessing we are talking about GDP, and not quality of living.   





Now stfu.


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 23, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Ok, let's start with the belief that America is the greatest country on earth.
> Cool.
> Who gives a fuck?  Why not be progressive/proactive to make it better.
> How do you define "greatest" anyways?  I'm guessing where talking about GDP, and not quality of living.
> Now stfu.



Reminds me of quote 

"Double, no triple, our troubles and we'd still be better off than any other people on earth. "
Ronald Reagan

I'm not going to argue the "greatest country" because too many factors come into play, but the ignorance to say we have a poor quality of life is just stupid. Even the concept of someone using a computer, connected to the internet, powered by electricity to say such a thing is comical.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Ok, let's start with the belief that America is the greatest country on earth.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> ...



Good Lord!  That was a reasonable argument and well articulated.

Who the fuck are you and what did you do with BigDyl?  More importantly, could you do it again with god hand?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> "Double, no triple, our troubles and we'd still be better off than any other people on earth. "
> Ronald Reagan



What a great quote!



			
				bigss75 said:
			
		

> I'm not going to argue the "greatest country" because too many factors come into play, but the ignorance to say we have a poor quality of life is just stupid. Even the concept of someone using a computer, connected to the internet, powered by electricity to say such a thing is comical.



No shit!  No food shortages / famine. No dictators (and if you think Bush is really a dictator, you're a fucking moron).  No ethnic cleansing or tribal warfare.  None of my friends or relatives have been spirited off in the night by some secret police.  Even the vast majority of the poor have decent clothing.  And on and on and on.  And those are just the negatives.  

This country has better opportunities than any other country on the planet.


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 23, 2006)

I just remember someone saying "When our homeless are hunrgy they have soup kitchens, when others are homeless are hungry, they starve."


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> What a great quote!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




how many countries have you been to in order to have that oppinion. I myself have been to four in all


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

Also, let me add as far as starving people, there are countries where everyone has an appartment, has medical insurance, and they recieve money every month all paid by the state gov.. As for the crime that goes on there is almost none. I have been in this country fo quite a while and I have seen what the true differences are.


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 23, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> Also, let me add as far as starving people, there are countries where everyone has an appartment, has medical insurance, and they recieve money every month all paid by the state gov.. As for the crime that goes on there is almost none. I have been in this country fo quite a while and I have seen what the true differences are.


A Prison where everyone is in Solitary?

So there's a country where people don't have jobs yet still recieve free shelter, health care, cash. Where does this magical freeloading country, with no GDP happen to be sir?


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> A Prison where everyone is in Solitary?
> 
> So there's a country where people don't have jobs yet still recieve free shelter, health care, cash. Where does this magical freeloading country, with no GDP happen to be sir?




Well, the answer to your "?" is germany. And yes this is how they take care of the people in this land. Sounds far fetched but what can I say, the people come first.


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 23, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> Well, the answer to your "?" is germany. And yes this is how they take care of the people in this land. Sounds far fetched but what can I say, the people come first.



Well, I guess it is nice to see a government that was economically crippled for many decades finally paying back its citizens


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 23, 2006)

They must be helping alot of people with a 10% unemployment rate of theirs


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 23, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> *Cowpimp:*
> 
> We are entering the _4th_ year of war in Iraq (starting last March).



You're right.  My mistake.  I meant to say that, but the 3rd year contained more civilian deaths than any other (Obviously the count's not in for the 4th year), just to clarify.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 23, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> I say we take a cleanse the earth approach. I know it's been said many times before but I'm not sure these people were serious about it.
> 
> If a large group of people can't be civilized in this day and age then there's no reason for their existence. They're not productive members of society and only degrade humanity. Will innocents die? Yes. They've had their opportunity to rise up and have yet to do so in a productive manner.
> 
> If the button were in front of me today I'd push it.



You call "cleansing the earth" (Sounds like what Hitler was saying 60 years ago) civilized?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You call "cleansing the earth" (Sounds like what Hitler was saying 60 years ago) civilized?



How about not feeding them or trying to protect them?  How about letting them kill themselves off?


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> How about not feeding them or trying to protect them?  How about letting them kill themselves off?



All I'm suggesting is genocide, especially with massive innocent casualties, is not the answer.  Whether or not that is civilized is another story.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I was just pointing out that the UN is a load of shit and that I couldn't care less what they think or want.


OK, who are you and what did you do with DOMS? I'm starting to get scared here.............I agreed with Decker and now DOMS. God help us!


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 23, 2006)

dg806 said:
			
		

> OK, who are you and what did you do with DOMS? I'm starting to get scared here.............I agreed with Decker and now DOMS. God help us!




Very Good, our plan has suceeded.  I will get on the phone will Bill right away.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

dg806 said:
			
		

> OK, who are you and what did you do with DOMS? I'm starting to get scared here.............I agreed with Decker and now DOMS. God help us!



I don't understand.  I've always said the UN was shit.  Always.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 23, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> All I'm suggesting is genocide, especially with massive innocent casualties, is not the answer.  Whether or not that is civilized is another story.



It's not genocide if you don't kill the last one.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 23, 2006)




----------



## CowPimp (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It's not genocide if you don't kill the last one.



Okay, well he was talking about a magical button, so it was genocide in this case.  Plus you're getting into semantics; you know exactly what I mean.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 23, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> How about not feeding them or trying to protect them?  How about letting them kill themselves off?




That's what America was doing when it created projects and ghettos, putting most of the minorites there adding drugs and weapons. I mean, how do most of the drugs come into the country anyway.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 24, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> Well, I guess it is nice to see a government that was economically crippled for many decades finally paying back its citizens




Well, that's another thing, it wasn't really crippled until WW2. Germany had more money then, than now. Now they have high taxes and low pay wages.
Remember, I asked if anyone knew about BMW earlier in this thread. Well, it was partly because of them we had to go to war with germany. BMW at that time did not build cars, they built jet engines. As a matter of fact they built the first and the fastest jet engine their was at that time. And get this, the Jews were the designers. Money issue solved


----------



## largepkg (Jun 24, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You call "cleansing the earth" (Sounds like what Hitler was saying 60 years ago) civilized?




The main difference between what I'm suggesting and what Hitler was implementing is Hitler was trying to build the perfect race. He didn't care about personal achievements and morals. If you were the greatest person on earth (morality speaking) but Jewish you were dead. 

What I'm suggesting is the polar opposite. I could care less about your race or skin color. If you're a bad person then you need to be eliminated. If as a society you can't police your own people what purpose do you serve the rest of the world? I say none, and thus my "cleanse the earth approach". Extreme? Yes


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 24, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> The main difference between what I'm suggesting and what Hitler was implementing is Hitler was trying to build the perfect race. He didn't care about personal achievements and morals. If you were the greatest person on earth (morality speaking) but Jewish you were dead.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is the polar opposite. I could care less about your race or skin color. If you're a bad person then you need to be eliminated. If as a society you can't police your own people what purpose do you serve the rest of the world? I say none, and thus my "cleanse the earth approach". Extreme? Yes



By virtue of the fact that you want to kill countless people with disregard for the insane number of innocent casualties that would go along with it, doesn't that make you one of those who deserves to die in your Earth cleansing scheme?

You must also consider that not all terrorists are that way for no reason.  We have fucked people over in the Middle East (And throughout the world for that matter) in the past, just as we are doing it now.  Not that we have never helped people either, but when you get fucked over you don't think to yourself what good deeds have been done by the guilty party that balance out what's being or been done to you.

Look at it from their point of view.  We give Israel massive military funding, and of course helped bring Israel as it exists today to fruition; their military murders innocent Palestinian civilians all the time.  I know it goes both ways, but that's not the point here.  I'm talking from their vantage point, and from their point of view we are terrorists.  

They are trying to do what you have suggested is a viable solution to the problem (Cleansing the Earth).  Guess what?  It caused a serious fucking backlash in the form of invasions of countries that have nothing to do with Islam extremeists and an ambigious war that could theoretically never end.  We are doing exactly what they are doing, and it doesn't work.

Am I justifying terrorism?  Certainly not.  My point is that you have to consider their point of view or a solution to the problem will never exist.  Killing them only fuels the fire, and you will never end terrorism that way.  More terrorists will be born or converted by what they are considering terrorist attacks from us.  It probably isn't even possible to fully end terrorism, but I can tell you right now that attempting genocide will not work.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 24, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I don't understand.  I've always said the UN was shit.  Always.


Me also. I just didn't know you did.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 24, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> The main difference between what I'm suggesting and what Hitler was implementing is Hitler was trying to build the perfect race. He didn't care about personal achievements and morals. If you were the greatest person on earth (morality speaking) but Jewish you were dead.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is the polar opposite. I could care less about your race or skin color. If you're a bad person then you need to be eliminated. If as a society you can't police your own people what purpose do you serve the rest of the world? I say none, and thus my "cleanse the earth approach". Extreme? Yes





You're going from one extreme to the other.  And you're classifying everyone just as Hitler did the Jews.  So you are one of the "bad people" that you so badly want to eliminate.


----------



## the nut (Jun 24, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

>



Disgusting!


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 24, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> Disgusting!




What's wrong with that?  We can classify anyone we want as an enemy combatant.


----------



## the nut (Jun 24, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> What's wrong with that?  We can classify anyone we want as an enemy combatant.



Not your post, the actions in the picture!


----------



## Nick+ (Jun 24, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You call "cleansing the earth" (Sounds like what Hitler was saying 60 years ago) civilized?



Well said and to the point.


----------



## Nick+ (Jun 24, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> How about not feeding them or trying to protect them?  How about letting them kill themselves off?


Yep ,you Americans only waded in there , and helped create the currently totally unstable conditions in Iraq. Good job,Well done!


----------



## Nick+ (Jun 24, 2006)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Me also. I just didn't know you did.



Yea the UN is shit, totally suppliant to the USA.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 24, 2006)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> Yep ,you Americans only waded in there , and helped create the currently totally unstable conditions in Iraq. Good job,Well done!



Like I've said before, the Middle East was shit before the US got there, it shit now, and will be shit after we've left.


----------



## Nick+ (Jun 24, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Like I've said before, the Middle East was shit before the US got there, it shit now, and will be shit after we've left.



It's been shit ever since the colonial powers Britain and France and whoever else have been pissing around there.The creation of Israel hasn't exactly helped matters either......And continued  US and Western interference .

Actually the area is not shit, it's a fascinating, beautiful area to visit, and most Arabs or Persians and  are people just trying to get on with life, and perfectly friendly to visitors.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 24, 2006)

I think you all need to come overseas and have a better look at things, for the most of you are blindly speaking. None of you seem to know what is really going on over here. People are getting out of the military because they see the truth about what is going on in iraq. It is not like you think it is, or like they say it is in the news. If you truely think about it this all started after the euro came into play, giving Europe an edge over America when it comes to money value. Now if the middle east wants to be paid in euro for there oil, what will happen to the dollar? You need to start thinking outside of the box.. (THE BOX) Your true Enigma


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 24, 2006)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> It's been shit ever since the colonial powers Britain and France and whoever else have been pissing around there.The creation of Israel hasn't exactly helped matters either......And continued  US and Western interference .
> 
> Actually the area is not shit, it's a fascinating, beautiful area to visit, and most Arabs or Persians and  are people just trying to get on with life, and perfectly friendly to visitors.




You must be a terrorist.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 24, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> You must be a terrorist.


No, he's from Europe.


----------



## MyK (Jun 24, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> No, he's from Europe.


no shit, terrorists come from florida these days!


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 24, 2006)

MyK said:
			
		

> no shit, terrorists come from florida these days!


Without a doubt .  

No matter where you live, every country has their fair share of political and religious zealots....


----------



## largepkg (Jun 24, 2006)

CP, thank you for your post. It helps me see the hypocrisy of my statement. I unfortunately still feel the same way. I understand it's an extreme solution but I see no other viable alternative. 

This will happen one way or the other. Either we will be eliminated (like they want) or we will eliminate them. I chose the later. I refuse to bury my head in the sand and hope things will get better. We tried diplomacy and we tried war. I think both have failed miserably. Pulling out and letting them control their own fate will only lead to more problems later on. So, what do you chose?

You have to align yourself with someone. We chose Isreal.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 24, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Haliburton oftens gets work that NO OTHER COMPANY can do. Of course the liberals then scream about how there was no bid.



Halliburton is just the tip of the iceberg, Pepper.

And liberals have nothing to do with crticism of Halliburton, Custerbattles, and Blackwater, and numerous other companies that got non-compeitive bids, and also have stolen _multi-millions_ of dollars from taxpayers with corruption.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 24, 2006)

you all still don't get it! First I'm a full Blooded American(I love and miss my country), two I'm overseas cause I'm in the army, and three, for all you dick monkeys who can not comprehend, your being brain washed to believe what they are doing is right. Don't get me wrong if I would have never left and came to Germany I would be thinking just like you, wanting to take out the trash. But, I share the same dream as Martin Luther King, and I want it by any means necessary like Malcom X. Though before one can have that he must see all things clearly. You must ask *yourself *the correct questions


----------



## bigss75 (Jun 24, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> you all still don't get it! First I'm a full Blooded American(I love and miss my country), two I'm overseas cause I'm in the army, and three, for all you dick monkeys who can not comprehend, your being brain washed to believe what they are doing is right. Don't get me wrong if I would have never left and came to Germany I would be thinking just like you, wanting to take out the trash. But, I share the same dream as Martin Luther King, and I want it by any means necessary like Malcom X. Though before one can have that he must see all things clearly. You must ask *yourself *the correct questions


----------



## Nick+ (Jun 24, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> I think you all need to come overseas and have a better look at things, for the most of you are blindly speaking. None of you seem to know what is really going on over here. People are getting out of the military because they see the truth about what is going on in iraq. It is not like you think it is, or like they say it is in the news. If you truely think about it this all started after the euro came into play, giving Europe an edge over America when it comes to money value. Now if the middle east wants to be paid in euro for there oil, what will happen to the dollar? You need to start thinking outside of the box.. (THE BOX) Your true Enigma



Quote:"[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] Oil-consuming countries have no choice but to use the American Dollar to purchase their oil, since the Dollar has so far been the global standard monetary fund for oil exchange. This necessitates these countries keeping the Dollar in their central banks as their reserve fund, thus strengthening the American economy. "[/FONT]

Quote"[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]In its economic war Iran is treading the same path Saddam Hussein started when he, in 2000, converted all his reserves from the Dollar to the Euro, and demanded payments in Euro for Iraqi oil. Many economists then mocked Saddam because he lost a lot of money in this conversion. Yet they were very surprised when he recouped his losses within less than a year due to the upward revaluation of the Euro. The American administration became aware of the threat when central banks of many countries started keeping Euros alongside of Dollars as their monetary reserve and as an exchange fund for oil (Russian and Chinese central banks in 2003). To avoid economic collapse the Bush administration hastened to invade and to destroy Iraq under false excuses to make it an example to any country who might contemplate dropping the Dollar, and to manipulate OPEC's decisions by controlling the second largest oil resource. Iraqi oil sale was reverted back to the petrodollar standard."

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/akleh.htm

[/FONT][FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif][/FONT][FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]$[/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]

[/FONT]


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 25, 2006)

good note, that's why the war will not end so easy this time. Do to that, gas and oil prices will continue to rise. So does it make any difference? maybe in the long run but then there will be other problems to deal with in the end. Meaning the gov. will not be paying for this but we the people. and I don't know about you but I like my money!


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 25, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> CP, thank you for your post. It helps me see the hypocrisy of my statement. I unfortunately still feel the same way. I understand it's an extreme solution but I see no other viable alternative.
> 
> This will happen one way or the other. Either we will be eliminated (like they want) or we will eliminate them. I chose the later. I refuse to bury my head in the sand and hope things will get better. We tried diplomacy and we tried war. I think both have failed miserably. Pulling out and letting them control their own fate will only lead to more problems later on. So, what do you chose?
> 
> You have to align yourself with someone. We chose Isreal.



I really don't think that either possibility you mentioned is actually a possibility.  I would like to see a 3rd possibility occur, which will also probably never happen.  It's called peace.

I seriously think we should just stop having anything to do with the Middle East (Israel included) or continue trying diplomacy.  I simply feel that invasions and killing is only going to backfire on us.  You simply can't foresee the reprecussions of massive global actions like that, for which there is massive potential of negative consequences.


----------



## god hand (Jun 25, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> What a great quote!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


         I really hate when people call him the anti christ. I mean seriously?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 25, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> I really hate when people call him the anti christ. I mean seriously?



No joke, god hand.  The guy is a dumb shit who likes to make wrong choices, but he's not the dictator that many make him out to be.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 25, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I really don't think that either possibility you mentioned is actually a possibility.  I would like to see a 3rd possibility occur, which will also probably never happen.  It's called peace.
> 
> I seriously think we should just stop having anything to do with the Middle East (Israel included) or continue trying diplomacy.  I simply feel that invasions and killing is only going to backfire on us.  You simply can't foresee the reprecussions of massive global actions like that, for which there is massive potential of negative consequences.




"World Peace," means no world business,(No World Trade) which leads to no advancement of our money. The result of this also means that we will have to do what we have not done for a long time, rebuild our country from nothing. This is something that our Gov. is not willing to risk do to the lack of natural resources. Or maybe it's because we are so far with technology we've forgotten how to use a cotton gin Anyway, how can we give the World what it need; (PEACE) if we only try to get what we want, even if it does no belong to us. Our fourh possibility would be better negotiations. We need to give a little more to get a little more. Yes, this will lead to higher taxes and may cause a civil outbreak leading to a New Civil War.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 25, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> "World Peace," means no world business,(No World Trade) which leads to no advancement of our money. The result of this also means that we will have to do what we have not done for a long time, rebuild our country from nothing. This is something that our Gov. is not willing to risk do to the lack of natural resources. Or maybe it's because we are so far with technology we've forgotten how to use a cotton gin Anyway, how can we give the World what it need; (PEACE) if we only try to get what we want, even if it does no belong to us. Our fourh possibility would be better negotiations. We need to give a little more to get a little more. Yes, this will lead to higher taxes and may cause a civil outbreak leading to a New Civil War.



So why does world peace mean no international trade?  I don't understand.

Also, as I said, peace is not really a possibility.  It's just a pipe dream; but so is killing all the terrorists in the world.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 25, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> So why does world peace mean no international trade?  I don't understand.
> 
> Also, as I said, peace is not really a possibility.  It's just a pipe dream; but so is killing all the terrorists in the world.




It's the world business that the political powers of Iraq, Iran,and the terrorist powers Afgahnistan are not wanting, do to our ways of doing business with the outside world. See, the Republicans or should I say the rich people in America want the majority of all trades to be in there favor. In doing so, they make offers and then they don't hold their word or they take to long with their part of the bargain. I mean why was the trade centers attacked? What are they actually covering up? Their is more behide the story than what we see in the news or what they say in a speech. We have to look beyound words!


----------



## ge3k0 (Jun 25, 2006)

honestly, don't care. i hope they all die. every last one of them, and when it comes to a draft here in the states for a fucking war with iraq, iran and every other god willing country i will be proud to say , "Fuck you" . cause i'm not gonna go through that bullshit to watch some young kid die, and literally have to bear the pain and guilt because some dumbass chose to blow something up. i hate it. really. i want to say more but, god. these people are stupid. think guys join the navy or something. so young too it's kinda stupid for someone not to know of a better *buddy* system. and don't they have like gps on every ground unit out there? ha i blame society.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 25, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> So why does world peace mean no international trade?  I don't understand.
> 
> Also, as I said, peace is not really a possibility.  It's just a pipe dream; but so is killing all the terrorists in the world.





peace is not a dream it is something that we do not work on! We as a people only want to make work easier, and peace will not come easy. Everything has a price. We as people own the world but we don't take care of it, instead we rape it for its oil to have fancy car and bigger machines, We rape it for diamonds to put in our jewelry, and for any other bullshit just so we can show off. This, causing us to pollute our air, our water, and our livestock  but who care as long as we look good right. It's like the devil telling you God does not exist and when he sees that that does not work, he turns and says he does not not exist. In other words we know how to make it happen. We just let other people tell us how to do it.


----------



## ge3k0 (Jun 25, 2006)

amen


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 25, 2006)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> Quote"[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]In its economic war Iran is treading the same path Saddam Hussein started when he, in 2000, converted all his reserves from the Dollar to the Euro, and demanded payments in Euro for Iraqi oil. Many economists then mocked Saddam because he lost a lot of money in this conversion. Yet they were very surprised when he recouped his losses within less than a year due to the upward revaluation of the Euro. The American administration became aware of the threat when central banks of many countries started keeping Euros alongside of Dollars as their monetary reserve and as an exchange fund for oil (Russian and Chinese central banks in 2003). To avoid economic collapse the Bush administration hastened to invade and to destroy Iraq under false excuses to make it an example to any country who might contemplate dropping the Dollar, and to manipulate OPEC's decisions by controlling the second largest oil resource. Iraqi oil sale was reverted back to the petrodollar standard."
> 
> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/akleh.htm
> 
> ...



Ahmadinejad in Iran is switching from the U.S. dollar to the Euro, too.

google: oil bourse


----------



## ge3k0 (Jun 25, 2006)

skeet skeet motha f****er!


----------



## ge3k0 (Jun 25, 2006)

anyone catch that website that they found this "information" from?


----------



## Nick+ (Jun 25, 2006)

"Iraq???s Holocaust 

Montoya

The Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies has published many reports which outline the horrendous costs of Bush???s war and occupation in Iraq.  But there is a much larger issue, even larger than America's invasion and occupation of Iraq since 2003: the IPS reports fail to address long term systemic abuses and the intentional ???scourging' of Iraq over many years, ergo the West's willful destruction of Iraq and its people since 1969. This article examines the lethal long term effects of Western meddling in Iraq, and how Iraq's destruction  began in 1969, when the United States undermined any nascent democratic processes in the Qassim and al Bakr regimes, and moved to deny self-determination/self-government by the Iraqi people. While the United States acted as the central villain in Iraq???s long demise, other external powers actively participated, including the UN, which acted as a willing partner and legitimizing agent for Iraq???s ongoing horrors. "

http://sds2000.org/holocaust.htm

(Clinton is as big a piece of scum as Bush or Blair.)


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 26, 2006)

ge3k0 said:
			
		

> anyone catch that website that they found this "information" from?



Do you mean "Oil Bourse?"

Google: "oil bourse."


There are many articles about some countries switching the oil cash reserves from the Greenback to the Euro.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 26, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> It's the world business that the political powers of Iraq, Iran,and the terrorist powers Afgahnistan are not wanting, do to our ways of doing business with the outside world. See, the Republicans or should I say the rich people in America want the majority of all trades to be in there favor. In doing so, they make offers and then they don't hold their word or they take to long with their part of the bargain. I mean why was the trade centers attacked? What are they actually covering up? Their is more behide the story than what we see in the news or what they say in a speech. We have to look beyound words!



It is far more complex than our International business practices, though I find those morally reprehensible in certain areas.  However, we wouldn't have to abolish global business and trade to improve there.  Reformation could resolve this problem.

I think the real problem is our support of terrorism in the form of the Israeli military.  Also, unfortunately, the Khoran has many passages that condone killing of non-believers.  This only fuels the hatred toward us.




> peace is not a dream it is something that we do not work on! We as a people only want to make work easier, and peace will not come easy. Everything has a price. We as people own the world but we don't take care of it, instead we rape it for its oil to have fancy car and bigger machines, We rape it for diamonds to put in our jewelry, and for any other bullshit just so we can show off. This, causing us to pollute our air, our water, and our livestock but who care as long as we look good right. It's like the devil telling you God does not exist and when he sees that that does not work, he turns and says he does not not exist. In other words we know how to make it happen. We just let other people tell us how to do it.



I don't know that it's something we don't work on so much as something we don't know how to accomplish.  Our idea of peace is invading countries, dropping bombs all over the place, partially rebuilding the country and leaving while it's still lacking infrastructure, and attempting to assert dominance over any nations which don't have nuclear weapons technologies already.  However, even if we did everything right (Which is, of course, highly debatable), there are always going to be people who do crazy shit.  There always have been, and there always will be.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I think the real problem is our support of terrorism in the form of the Israeli military.



Heh, so the truth comes out...



			
				CowPimp said:
			
		

> Also, unfortunately, the Khoran has many passages that condone killing of non-believers.  This only fuels the hatred toward us.



Yeah, no doubt, their propensity for killing is our fault...


----------



## JordanMang (Jun 26, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Heh, so the truth comes out...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, no doubt, their propensity for killing is our fault...




The Old Testament also order the killings of non-believers.  It's not a reason or an excuse.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 26, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Heh, so the truth comes out...



Well, there are many reasons, but I think that is a biggie.




> Yeah, no doubt, their propensity for killing is our fault...



It has to be related to our actions to some degree, because we receive more flak than anyone else.  Why not do the same shit to Japan, China, Australia, Russia, etc?  Because of the other shit we do to take it up a notch.


----------



## ge3k0 (Jun 26, 2006)

nah i don't care about oil, that much just wondering about the other stuff...   good luck on this one though.


"oil bourse" hehe...horses.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Well, there are many reasons, but I think that is a biggie.



You miss my point: You're either an anti-Semitic or your uninformed.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 26, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You miss my point: You're either an anti-Semitic or your uninformed.



Neither one.  I can simply see how they would view this as supporting terrorism.  You have to look at things from other people's viewpints to understand where they are coming from sometimes.

I still think that the formation of Israel was wrong, and I'm actually part Jewish.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Neither one.  I can simply see how they would view this as supporting terrorism.  You have to look at things from other people's viewpints to understand where they are coming from sometimes.
> 
> I still think that the formation of Israel was wrong, and I'm actually part Jewish.



It wasn't clear that you were expressing another's viewpoint.

I just love how many people here deride me for my dislike of blacks, yet turn around and post anti-semitic statements.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 26, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You have to look at things from other people's viewpints to understand where they are coming from sometimes.





True Story, that must be the most radical idea any of these neo-con's ever came across.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, that must be the most radical idea any of these neo-con's ever came across.



Just like you and having sex with women.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 26, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It wasn't clear that you were expressing another's viewpoint.
> 
> I just love how many people here deride me for my dislike of blacks, yet turn around and post anti-semitic statements.



It's nothing against Jews on the whole.  Explain to me what's anti-semitic about saying that terrorists dislike us for out support of Israel and that Israeli military actions toward Palestinians have an air of terrorism about them.  I didn't say Jews are terrorists, or anything to that effect.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> It's nothing against Jews on the whole.  Explain to me what's anti-semitic about saying that terrorists dislike us for out support of Israel and that Israeli military actions toward Palestinians have an air of terrorism about them.  I didn't say Jews are terrorists, or anything to that effect.



You seemed to have singled out the Jews in the Jew/Palestinian conflict.  You'd previously stated you belief of sanctity of all life yet you seemed to condemning the Jews in that conflict without mentioning the Arabs who make it a point to kill woman and children.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 26, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You seemed to have singled out the Jews in the Jew/Palestinian conflict.  You'd previously stated you belief of sanctity of all life yet you seemed to condemning the Jews in that conflict without mentioning the Arabs who make it a point to kill woman and children.



You took things out of context though.  You would have had to follow my previous posts on the topic.  I said I can see how those in the middle east hate us for supporting Israel when they are killed by Israeli military daily.  I also said this doesn't make their actions acceptable, but that you have to take a different prespective to understand that these people simply aren't out to kill for no good reason.  Understanding motivation behind one's actions is key to diplomacy.

Furthermore, I think that the Palestinians have a right to be mad about being thrown out of their home for the past 2000 years.  This doesn't mean a license to kill, but my point stands nonetheless.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 26, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You took things out of context though. You would have had to follow my previous posts on the topic. I said I can see how those in the middle east hate us for supporting Israel when they are killed by Israeli military daily. I also said this doesn't make their actions acceptable, but that you have to take a different prespective to understand that these people simply aren't out to kill for no good reason. Understanding motivation behind one's actions is key to* diplomacy*.
> 
> Furthermore, I think that the Palestinians have a right to be mad about being thrown out of their home for the past 2000 years. This doesn't mean a license to kill, but my point stands nonetheless.



diplomacy is a lost cause in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  It may have a long shot in other countries in the ME though.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You took things out of context though.  You would have had to follow my previous posts on the topic.  I said I can see how those in the middle east hate us for supporting Israel when they are killed by Israeli military daily.  I also said this doesn't make their actions acceptable, but that you have to take a different prespective to understand that these people simply aren't out to kill for no good reason.  Understanding motivation behind one's actions is key to diplomacy.



Daily?  Bullshit.  The Arabs kill more, and more often.  Not only that, the vast majority of their targets are _*civilians*_.  The Jews primary targets are _*Hamas*_, who like to hide among civilians.



			
				CowPimp said:
			
		

> Furthermore, I think that the Palestinians have a right to be mad about being thrown out of their home for the past 2000 years.  This doesn't mean a license to kill, but my point stands nonetheless.



Yet you seem to condone the Palestinians killing of woman and children. "It doesn't mean" is not the same as condemning it.  Bravo.

Oh, and that land belonged to the Jews first.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> diplomacy is a lost cause in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.



I agree.  The internation community needs to leave those two alone to solve it one way or another.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 26, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Daily?  Bullshit.  The Arabs kill more, and more often.  Not only that, the vast majority of their targets are _*civilians*_.  The Jews primary targets are _*Hamas*_, who like to hide among civilians.



That's laughable.  Both sides target civilians.




> Yet you seem to condone the Palestinians killing of woman and children. "It doesn't mean" is not the same as condemning it.  Bravo.



I'm not condoning it.  You are misunderstanding me.  There is a difference between me understanding a viewpoint and condoning it.  I can understand it and condemn it at the same time.  

Let's take abortion for example.  I am against abortion, and I even condemn abortion, but I can still see the arguments posed by pro-choice pundits.

All I said is they have a right to be angry; again, this doesn't mean they are going about it the right way, but you would be pretty pissed if some other country came along and said, "Okay, since there is a growing Mexican population in the US and increasing animosity among the whites and Mexicans, let's give them over half of the land and split your country in two.  Their religious texts give them rightful ownership of this land anyway (A fictitious statement for the point of example)."  You would be even more pissed if a country started funding that new area's military and the military bulldozed your homes, exiled your people from that portion of the land, and killed civilians on a regular basis.




> Oh, and that land belonged to the Jews first.



That was 1500 years in the past.  Muslims took over the land in the 600s.  It's ridiculous to think it's okay to take an established nation and split it up because of some multi-century old religious claim.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> That's laughable.  Both sides target civilians.



Again, bullshit.  The Hamas target civilians nearly every time.  How about when they shot a rocket across the Gaza strip, missed their target, and hit a preschool.  They killed a three year old girl, her grand mothers, and two other adults.  Did they say, "Sorry, we hit the wrong target?"  Hell no, they gladly claimed the deaths.  Great job defending them.




			
				CowPimp said:
			
		

> I'm not condoning it.  You are misunderstanding me.  There is a difference between me understanding a viewpoint and condoning it.  I can understand it and condemn it at the same time.



You seem quick to "understand" the Palestinians, but quick to condemn the Jews.  You're not fooling anyone.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 26, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Again, bullshit.  The Hamas target civilians nearly every time.  How about when they shot a rocket across the Gaza strip, missed their target, and hit a preschool.  They killed a three year old girl, her grand mothers, and two other adults.  Did they say, "Sorry, we hit the wrong target?"  Hell no, they gladly claimed the deaths.  Great job defending them.



The same thing happens on both sides.  I'm not defending them.  Killing is wrong.  You are thinking too black and white; you have trouble understanding this concept I see.




> You seem quick to "understand" the Palestinians, but quick to condemn the Jews.  You're not fooling anyone.



What I have a problem with is how Israel came to be what it is today.  Hey, if I was a Jew and someone said,  "here is your new homeland," I would be thrilled.  What was wrong was the mass expulsion and extermination of Palestinians that still lived in this area shortly thereafter.  Does that mean that Palestinians should be killing Israelis because of this.  No.  Their anger is understandable, but killing is not the solution.

Again, both are wrong for their killings.  The reason I am mentioning looking at it from the Palestinian point of view is because no one does that.  Everyone thinks that Israel is all hunky dory because the US funds them and they are Jewish as opposed to Muslim (Which is far more accepted over here).  Both of these nations commit acts of terrorism in my opinion, but the US provides funds to the military of one of them.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 26, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> That's laughable.  Both sides target civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



whatever....Palestine wasn't even a country....and besides, that was over 50 years ago.

wait a minute....when is it okay?...multi century...single century...a millenia.

With that logic, should we give the native americans North America back?  How about Poland and Prussia? Coratia back to the Serbs?  
 See where I'm going.


I'm not a supporter of the palestinian cause, nor am I a zionist...they'll be at each others throats till the end of man kind.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 26, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> whatever....Palestine wasn't even a country....and besides, that was over 50 years ago.
> 
> wait a minute....when is it okay?...multi century...single century...a millenia.
> 
> ...



I never said we should return Palestine to the way it was.  I suggested what was done 60 years ago was wrong, but never said it should be reversed.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 26, 2006)

you feel the creation of Israel by the UN was unjust?


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 26, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> you feel the creation of Israel by the UN was unjust?



Yes.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 26, 2006)

what do you think would have been an appropriate action after WWII?


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 27, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> what do you think would have been an appropriate action after WWII?




Everything we have done is right and just.  I don't think we have ever made any mistakes...


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 27, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> what do you think would have been an appropriate action after WWII?



I don't know.  I'm not going to pretend I know what would've worked, but this obviously hasn't worked.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 27, 2006)

True Story, the first step to solving a problem is aknowledging that there IS a problem.


Just because you don't have an elaborate solution based on years of studying the geo-political landscape and complicated relations between different nations, dosen't mean you can't have an opinion that suggests we made a wrong decision.



There are more than two sides.  Either you agree, or if you disagree you have to have a solution crafted that could have solved the issue.  No, you simply disagree with what happened.


----------



## Decker (Jun 27, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> you feel the creation of Israel by the UN was unjust?


Why was it just?

From the US's point of view, the creation of a new country in the heart of the middle east was a terrific strategic move for US interests--political and business. It's no mistake that Israel receives the bulk of US foreign aid. http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

*Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid*
*Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)*

*Foreign Aid Grants and Loans*
$74,157,600,000

*Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)*
$9,047,227,200

*Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments*
$1,650,000,000

*Grand Total*
$84,854,827,200

*Total Benefits per Israeli*
$14,630

*Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.*
*Aid to Israel*

*Grand Total*
$84,854,827,200

*Interest Costs Borne by U.S.*
$49,936,680,000

*Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers*
$134,791,507,200

*Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli*
$23,240

Those numbers do not happen by accident or by the simple munificence of the US.


----------



## GFR (Jun 27, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, the first step to solving a problem is aknowledging that there IS a problem.
> 
> 
> Just because you don't have an elaborate solution based on years of studying the geo-political landscape and complicated relations between different nations, dosen't mean you can't have an opinion that suggests we made a wrong decision.
> ...


----------



## Nick+ (Jun 27, 2006)

DOMS stop banging the 'anti semetic' drum, everytime someone doesn't support Israel.  It's so tiring.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 27, 2006)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> DOMS stop banging the 'anti semetic' drum, everytime someone doesn't support Israel.  It's so tiring.



When you're bitching about murderers and the killing of innocents and you only point out that the Jews are doing this and you neglect to mention that Palestininans, your motives become suspect.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 27, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Why was it just?
> 
> From the US's point of view, the creation of a new country in the heart of the middle east was a terrific strategic move for US interests--political and business. It's no mistake that Israel receives the bulk of US foreign aid. http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
> 
> ...



all that support is for a reason:

1. a lot of our tech. comes from Israel
2. face it Jews hold a lot of clout in many US industries....the motion picture industry is great example
3. Israel was also used as a US outpost for military and intelligence logistics before we set up permanent camp in Saudia Arabia and Qatar...and now Iraq.
4. people also thought oil actually existed in that sandlot dump too.


----------



## Decker (Jun 27, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> all that support is for a reason:
> 
> 1. a lot of our tech. comes from Israel
> 2. face it Jews hold a lot of clout in many US industries....the motion picture industry is great example
> ...


That's my point. I agree with your posting. Those statements are not anti-semitic, the fact is that the US has vested interests in the success and prosperity of Israel. Now saying "why is money green?....b/c Jews always pick it before it's ripe", now that could be construed as anti-semitic. One's fact-based and the other is a Howard Stern joke.


----------



## ge3k0 (Jun 27, 2006)

dude does it really matter? anyone here an america? really does racism scar this bad. I mean I've seen some dirty people and never for once in my life said something anti-semtic or anti-anything...There are some things like accent's and junk like that ...but those are trivial...for someone to stare @ it in the face and poke it out...then that is different. Like I almost socked a guy for saying the "N" word while asking for a job interview. I swear I hate people that play out the words from their mouth about someone who is different because they cannot get along with themselves or something. Really, think about it...everytime something stupid happends it's always american culture that takes it into yadda yadda and helps out....first it was europeans, then it's like jews and stuff, now it's arabs / isrealies? I mean what's the worst that can happen? we are all human right?


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 27, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> When you're bitching about murderers and the killing of innocents and you only point out that the Jews are doing this and you neglect to mention that Palestininans, your motives become suspect.



The opposite is so very true as well, which is what most people do (Ignoring the actions of the Israelis while condemnding the Palestinians).

Of course, I stated multiple times, while condemning the actions of Israel, that the Palestinians were not in the right, but you still accused me of being suspect.  I think both are wrong, but I still think that the Palestinians got totally fucked in the ass.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 27, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> The opposite is so very true as well, which is what most people do (Ignoring the actions of the Israelis while condemnding the Palestinians).



I never have absolved the Israelis of killing.  I also didn't spout off about the (apparently selective) sanctity of life.



			
				CowPimp said:
			
		

> Of course, I stated multiple times, *while condemning the actions of Israel, that the Palestinians were not in the right,* but you still accused me of being suspect.  I think both are wrong, but I still think that the Palestinians got totally fucked in the ass.



Interestingly enough, the rest of your posts belie this.  Saying that it's "not in the right" is not the same as condemning.  Why wasn't your post worded, "The Israelis are not in the right" then?


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 27, 2006)

right now as we speak Israel is moving tank battalions at the west bank....the have blown up the cities power supply via air strike.

They are demanding the release of the their kidnapped serviceman.  Something tells me is a dead man...and there is going to be many more in the 48hrs most of which who will be Palestinian.

Its ironic b/c today Fatah and Hamas formulated a document that recongnizes the state of Israel.....so much for that monumental effort


----------



## DOMS (Jun 27, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Its ironic b/c today Fatah and Hamas formulated a document that recongnizes the state of Israel.....so much for that monumental effort



I'm sure it'll work just as well as all the cease-fires have over the years.

I don't believe that conflict will ever work itself out peacefully.  Neither side will willing back down enough.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 27, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I'm sure it'll work just as well as all the cease-fires have over the years.
> 
> I don't believe that conflict will ever work itself out peacefully.  Neither side will willing back down enough.



agreed.
Sometimes I think its in their blood.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 27, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> agreed.
> Sometimes I think its in their blood.



If not their culture.  They still cut off the hands of thieves.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 27, 2006)

Jews practice that?

I have jewish family...I've never heard of that before.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 27, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Jews practice that?
> 
> I have jewish family...I've never heard of that before.



The Arabs do.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 27, 2006)

clearly


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 28, 2006)

look, people, you are talking about a cultural way of life that has been there for thousands of years. Plus their political life inforces their culture. How can anyone expect any change in the near future? That alone would take to long to overturn no matter how you go about doing it. They still believe in "An Eye for an Eye," where as some people would take your life for stealing and not have any remorse for doing it. Note, Palestinians and Israelis are the same people. Only the land and the religon was divided. As far as the Arabs the are still fighting among themselves because their are many how don't agree with whats going on. The most of them want a change in their way of life.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 28, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I never have absolved the Israelis of killing.  I also didn't spout off about the (apparently selective) sanctity of life.



You don't get it.  All I did was try to shed some light on their reasons for doing what they are doing.  Now, just because a motive is there doesn't make murder okay.  However, you have to admit it is different than someone who simply kills for no other reason than bloodthirst.  Again, it is still wrong, but there is a clear distinction here: one means that the people can be reasoned/negotiated with, while the other means the people are insane.  Do you see the distinction?




> Interestingly enough, the rest of your posts belie this.  Saying that it's "not in the right" is not the same as condemning.  Why wasn't your post worded, "The Israelis are not in the right" then?



They are both wrong.  I'm not taking sides.  I think that the creation of Israel was wrong in the first place, but that is 60 years in the past.  The killing has to stop on both sides at this point.  You can't reverse the past; murder isn't going to solve anything.

The other issue is that the US supports Israel.  As mentioned previously, not only do I feel this supports terrorism (As would supporting the Palestinians), but many Muslims feel the same way, and they constitute a huge portion of the global population.  This is a large reason for so much hatred toward the US.  However, I don't feel either nation deserves our support.  Both are involved in totally monstrous behaviors that don't deserve to be funded by the US.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> The other issue is that the US supports Israel.  As mentioned previously, not only do I feel this supports terrorism (As would supporting the Palestinians)


This is what I was looking for.

On a side note: the US still supports Israel, but they aren't defending them, they're holding them back.



			
				CowPimp said:
			
		

> but many Muslims feel the same way, and they constitute a huge portion of the global population.  This is a large reason for so much hatred toward the US.  However, I don't feel either nation deserves our support.  Both are involved in totally monstrous behaviors that don't deserve to be funded by the US.



I should point out that Israeli's crime was stealing land.  The Palestinians response was to kill civilians, to which the Israeli's responded in kind (though they tend to target Hamas more than the Palestinians target IDF).

On a personal note, I absolutely detest Muslim Arabs.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 28, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> This is what I was looking for.
> 
> On a side note: the US still supports Israel, but they aren't defending them, they're holding them back.



Fair enough, but I still feel that funding their military is wrong regardless.




> I should point out that Israeli's crime was stealing land.  The Palestinians response was to kill civilians, to which the Israeli's responded in kind (though they tend to target Hamas more than the Palestinians target IDF).



I still think you're being misled.  I have seen European newspapers (Greek and British) that paint a different picture.  In reality, the situation probably stands somewhere in the middle.  

Also, I think a bigger crime was committed than stealing land, seeing as how the UN pretty much did that for them (Largely backed by the US and Brits).  Their crime was the forced exile/murder of Arabs from Israel after the split, and not allowing the Arabs to visit the mosques still standing in Israel.

Once again, this is no excuse for killing.  Although I disagree with the policies carried out by Israel after it was declared a nation, and the esablishment of the state at all, killing in response is not a good solution.  It has done nothing but fuel the fires and lead to more killing in both directions.

In the end, turning this into a chicken/egg story is stupid.  Both of them are acting like fucking children; violence solves nothing.




> On a personal note, I absolutely detest Muslim Arabs.



I don't blame you.  I feel that they are getting shit upon for all the shitting upon others that they did in the past, and they're lashing out.  However, I still have trouble hating an entire race of people for the actions of a mere fraction of that popultion.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> In the end, turning this into a chicken/egg story is stupid.  Both of them are acting like fucking children; violence solves nothing.



If the International community (including the US) would just leave both sides to their own devices, violence would have solved the problem a long time ago.  Of course, there would be any Palestinians anymore, but I'm okay with that idea.




			
				CowPimp said:
			
		

> I don't blame you.  I feel that they are getting shit upon for all the shitting upon others that they did in the past, and they're lashing out.  However, I still have trouble hating an entire race of people for the actions of a mere fraction of that popultion.



The problems that I have with Arabs stems from the endemic over-reaction of their entire culture, not just a few.  Plus, it didn't help that after 9/11, Muslims from nations all around the globe went out and celebrated.

The only problem that I have with the hate I see for Muslims in this country is that maybe 1 out of 10,000 people can tell a Sikh (who I like) from a Muslim.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 28, 2006)

you know what, I just don't care anymore who started what, why it started, or how long it's going to take to stop. Bottom line is, they are all lost and don't know where they're going. How could they, they're only fighting cause there father, grandfather, and great grandfather were fighting, it's all they see. Plus their gov. doesn't help to change anything.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 28, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> look, people, you are talking about a cultural way of life that has been there for thousands of years. Plus their political life inforces their culture. How can anyone expect any change in the near future? That alone would take to long to overturn no matter how you go about doing it. They still believe in "An Eye for an Eye," where as some people would take your life for stealing and not have any remorse for doing it. Note, Palestinians and Israelis are the same people. *Only the land and the religon was divided*. As far as the Arabs the are still fighting among themselves because their are many how don't agree with whats going on. The most of them want a change in their way of life.






just like how all Koreans are the same, b/c they have different land and govt's.

just like how Serbia and Croatia are the same b/c they have different lands and religions


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 28, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> If the International community (including the US) would just leave both sides to their own devices, violence would have solved the problem a long time ago.  Of course, there would be any Palestinians anymore, but I'm okay with that idea.



Seeing as how there is needless violence either way, I think we should just step aside.  We're not helping anything really, only hurting ourselves.




> The problems that I have with Arabs stems from the endemic over-reaction of their entire culture, not just a few.  Plus, it didn't help that after 9/11, Muslims from nations all around the globe went out and celebrated.



Again, that's a fraction of the people.  Just because you saw some clips on the news doesn't mean and significant portion of the population took place in these events.  The same half dozen clips of people in the streets cheering means nothing when vouching for a billion people.




> The only problem that I have with the hate I see for Muslims in this country is that maybe 1 out of 10,000 people can tell a Sikh (who I like) from a Muslim.



Yeah, the whole towel-head thing is ridiculous.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 28, 2006)

_Finally, some good news, out of Iraq._
-------------------------

*Marine in ???Fahrenheit 9/11??? movie killed in Iraq*
One-time recruiter died after roadside bombing in Anbar province
NBC NEWS EXCLUSIVE 

Updated: 8:42 a.m. PT June 28, 2006
DETROIT - A Marine and one-time recruiter who appeared in Michael Moore???s documentary film ???Fahrenheit 9/11??? has died in a roadside bombing in Iraq.

Staff Sgt. Raymond J. Plouhar, 30, died Monday of wounds suffered while conducting combat operations in Iraq???s volatile Anbar province, the Defense Department said Tuesday.

Enitre article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13594449/


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 29, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> just like how all Koreans are the same, b/c _they have different land _and govt's.
> 
> just like how Serbia and Croatia are the same b/c _they have different lands _and religions




 They don't have different lands, it is was divided. The gov. is different based on polictical ways of looking at things. but yes just like them, do you know why?


----------



## SuperFlex (Jun 29, 2006)

40 post max if anyone else had started this thread...


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 29, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> _Finally, some good news, out of Iraq._
> -------------------------
> 
> *Marine in ???Fahrenheit 9/11??? movie killed in Iraq*
> ...



Oh God what I'd give to have you alone for just ten minutes.


----------



## largepkg (Jun 29, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Oh God what I'd give to have you alone for just ten minutes.




I wouldn't need 10 minutes...


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 29, 2006)

True Story, you guys would have skeeted in 10 seconds if you got ahold of him.


----------



## JordanMang (Jun 29, 2006)

Can we please let the this thread and Mr.Snafu just die.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 29, 2006)

I wish death upon all those i disagree with.  


Wait, now I sound like a terrorist.


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 29, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I wish death upon all those i disagree with.
> 
> 
> Wait, now I sound like a terrorist.




skeet skeet and a little bit of jizz


----------



## Pepper (Jun 29, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> _Finally, some good news, out of Iraq._
> -------------------------
> 
> *Marine in ???Fahrenheit 9/11??? movie killed in Iraq*
> ...


 
You are so sick.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 29, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> _*Finally, some good news, out of Iraq*._
> -------------------------
> 
> *Marine in ???Fahrenheit 9/11??? movie killed in Iraq*
> ...



this might have been the one small little battle snafu feels he has "won"

the sad part is the neo-conservative foreign policy is going to be here to stay.  If are upset at the war on terror and iraq....snafu is going to be flaming mad in the next 10 years

sux to be you


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 29, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> You are so sick.



Folks,

Recruiting teenagers in mall parking lots to kill and be killed is....sick.


----------



## brogers (Jun 29, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Folks,
> 
> Recruiting teenagers in mall parking lots to kill and be killed is....sick.


 
Rejoicing at the deaths of those teenagers, who are fighting on your behalf, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is sick.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 29, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Folks,
> 
> Recruiting teenagers in mall parking lots to kill and be killed is....sick.



no its not...its volunteer jackass.  You might have a small arguement if there was a draft.

you are sick...and I'll bet eveyone on this forum will agree no matter how much they oppose the war.

anyone who posts this:

*"Finally, some good news, out of Iraq.
 -------------------------*

*Marine in ???Fahrenheit 9/11??? movie killed in Iraq"
-Snafu

*is an embarressment to country and to anyone who has served in the military.  In fact you're an embarressment to IM

no joke


----------



## bigbricks (Jun 30, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> no its not...its volunteer jackass.  You might have a small arguement if there was a draft.
> 
> you are sick...and I'll bet eveyone on this forum will agree no matter how much they oppose the war.
> 
> ...




Snafu you know what, I never wanted to join the army. And now that I did when I here people like you I can only tink of one thing. You being a pussy and how much I want to f*ck you. A fellow solider went down fighting not just recruiting. Meaning he fought for what he believed in, "freedom." Don'T ever let me see you in real life. *From a Third Generation solider*!


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 30, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> Snafu you know what, [/U][/I][/B][/COLOR]!




For some reason that annoys the fuck out of me.


"U no whut"


----------



## Pepper (Jun 30, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Folks,
> 
> Recruiting teenagers in mall parking lots to kill and be killed is....sick.


 
The great thing is that they risk their lives to protect scum like you.

You are far too old to be that immature. You post nothing but hate and personal attacks, I cannot imagine what life must be like for someone as hateful as you.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 30, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> The great thing is that they risk their lives to protect scum like you.
> 
> You are far too old to be that immature. You post nothing but hate and personal attacks, I cannot imagine what life must be like for someone as hateful as you.



He's about 49 years old and alone (or at least with only a short relationship).  That sort of person tends to be quite bitter.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 30, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> He's about 49 years old and alone (or at least with only a short relationship). That sort of person tends to be quite bitter.


 
He will be here shortly to make fun of my weight again.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 30, 2006)

_Posters above say they are fighting for my freedom.

Sharia Law.  Is that Freedom?  

Oil._

-----------
U.S. troops accused of killing Iraq family By RYAN LENZ, Associated Press Writer 

BEIJI, Iraq - Five U.S. Army soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman, then killing her and three members of her family in        Iraq, a U.S. military official told The Associated Press on Friday. 


The soldiers also allegedly burned the body of the woman they are accused of raping.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldiers_investigated


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 30, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> _Posters above say they are fighting for my freedom.
> 
> Sharia Law.  Is that Freedom?
> 
> ...



<JUSTIFICATION>


It's all a lie created by Iraqi/terrorist sympathizers.   


In the event that it turns out to be true, you can't blame everyone for the actions of a few.  

</JUSTIFICATION>


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 30, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> _Posters above say they are fighting for my freedom.
> 
> Sharia Law.  Is that Freedom?
> 
> ...



Post anything and everything you want.  Nothing will ever change the fact that you're a worthless fucking piece of shit who deserves to have done to you what those soldiers are ACCUSED of doing to that woman.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 30, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> <JUSTIFICATION>
> 
> 
> It's all a lie created by Iraqi/terrorist sympathizers.
> ...




So you've already found them guilty?  And, if they ARE guilty that means every soldier over there is guilty too?  Get off Foreman's dick and think for yourself for a change.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 30, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> So you've already found them guilty?  And, if they ARE guilty that means every soldier over there is guilty too?  Get off Foreman's dick and think for yourself for a change.




Did you read what I posted?  It is essentially what you or DOMS would have posted without the justification tags...


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 30, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Did you read what I posted?  It is essentially what you or DOMS would have posted without the justification tags...



I read exactly what you posted and responded.  What part of my response didn't YOU understand?

#1 I'm not a conspiracy theorist so I would not have blamed some propaganda machine.

#2 To say 100,000 good soldiers are bad just because five were assholes is just plain stupid.  (*IF* those five turn out to be guilty.  Which they haven't yet.)


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 30, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> I read exactly what you posted and responded.  What part of my response didn't YOU understand?
> 
> #1 I'm not a conspiracy theorist so I would not have blamed some propaganda machine.




Who else would have made it up?  (assuming it's not true)



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> #2 To say 100,000 good soldiers are bad just because five were assholes is just plain stupid.  (*IF* those five turn out to be guilty.  Which they haven't yet.)



In the event that it turns out to be true, you can't blame everyone for the actions of a few.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 30, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> In the event that it turns out to be true, you can't blame everyone for the actions of a few.


 
No more than you can blame all liberals for Snafu's "issues."


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 30, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> No more than you can blame all liberals for Snafu's "issues."




Snafu's harmless, he just knows how to push peoples buttons...


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 30, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Who else would have made it up?  (assuming it's not true)



Don't know.  Don't care.  I think that's an area where you and I are on the same page.  Some jackass gets his rocks off making shit like that up, not my concern......................unless somebody gets hurt by it.




			
				BigDyl said:
			
		

> In the event that it turns out to be true, you can't blame everyone for the actions of a few.



I think this statement is 100% correct.  So, are we agreeing or disagreeing on this?


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 30, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Snafu's harmless, he just knows how to push peoples buttons...



not mine....he's a joke


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 30, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Snafu's harmless, he just knows how to push peoples buttons...


And that makes him such a wonderful immigrant.  

Still trying to figure out why everyone jumped on my shit earlier, and for the most part, got no support from people who seemed to echo my stance.  

I reinterate.  Snafu is a worthless piece of fucking shit.  I am exercising MY first amendment right to voice MY opinion.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 30, 2006)

Snafu is no better to me than George W. Bush, they both have profound beliefs that any one nation can be inherently evil and anyone associated is part of an axis of evil.


----------



## lnvanry (Jun 30, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> And that makes him such a wonderful immigrant.
> 
> Still trying to figure out why everyone jumped on my shit earlier, and for the most part, got no support from people who seemed to echo my stance.
> 
> I reinterate.  *Snafu is a worthless piece of fucking shit.*  I am exercising MY first amendment right to voice MY opinion.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 30, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> No more than you can blame all liberals for Snafu's "issues."



The Iraq conflict is not about "liberalism," or other false labels.   

Issues?  I think lying and killing people are issues.


----------



## largepkg (Jul 1, 2006)

JerseyDevil said:
			
		

> And that makes him such a wonderful immigrant.
> 
> Still trying to figure out why everyone jumped on my shit earlier, and for the most part, got no support from people who seemed to echo my stance.
> 
> I reinterate.  Snafu is a worthless piece of fucking shit.  I am exercising MY first amendment right to voice MY opinion.





I clapped proudly when you posted your response. 

As far as I'm concerned he's just an ASSBAG that deserves zero attention. He likes to see and hear himself and as others have stated, to push peoples buttons.


----------



## lnvanry (Jul 1, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> I clapped proudly when you posted your response.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned he's just an ASSBAG that *deserves zero attention*. He likes to see and hear himself and as others have stated, to push peoples buttons.





I will follow that advice from now on


----------



## BigDyl (Jul 1, 2006)

Alright, alright, enough conservative circle jerks for one day.


----------



## DOMS (Jul 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Alright, alright, enough conservative circle jerks for one day.



Apparently, it's time for a liberal jerk.  Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## BigDyl (Jul 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Apparently, it's time for a liberal jerk.  Thanks for stopping by.




Want to join?


----------



## DOMS (Jul 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Want to join?



No thanks.  You're jerk enough, all by yourself.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jul 1, 2006)

Most of the comments on the last 2 pages are insults, etc.

But no facts.


----------



## BigDyl (Jul 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> No thanks.  You're jerk enough, all by yourself.


----------



## lnvanry (Jul 2, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Most of the comments on the last 2 pages are insults, etc.
> 
> But no facts.



haha


----------



## JordanMang (Jul 2, 2006)

Please God Let This Thread Die.


----------



## BigDyl (Jul 2, 2006)

JordanMang said:
			
		

> Please God Let This Thread Die.





bump


----------



## topolo (Jul 2, 2006)

bump


----------



## lnvanry (Jul 2, 2006)

JordanMang said:
			
		

> Please God Let This Thread Die.



never show weakness, son.....never show weakness


----------

