# Al Gore Wins the Nobel Peace Prize!



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

The vice president won b/c of his leadership efforts to spread the word about global warming around the world.

He's a joint winner of the prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which does some of the heavy lifting re science.

Gore said he would donate his share of the $1.5 million that accompanies the prize to the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/?GT1=10450

See, this is what real leadership looks like. Gore is doing for global warming what he did for the Internet.

He's a born leader and ahead of his time.

Unlike this man:

???I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together."

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."

"The future will be better tomorrow." 

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." 

"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." 

- George W. Bush


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 12, 2007)

Congrats to him.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Whoopdie-fuckin'-do.

So did Yasser Arafat (1994) and Nelson Mandela (1993).  Both of which were in charge of organizations that routinely killed women and children. 

And Hitler was nominated for it in 1939, but took himself out of the running by starting World War 2.


----------



## A Black Guy (Oct 12, 2007)

ALGORE has to share with the U.N. which means a lot to all the dead kids in Darfur who never got their help.

I'd wipe my ass with the Nobel Prize, that's about it.


----------



## Jodi (Oct 12, 2007)

Congrats to Gore.  IMO he's one of the only US politicians that's trying to make a difference so I give him a lot of credit.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 12, 2007)

I think it is good, he would still make a horrible president, although by comparison he wouldn't be so bad.  Gore is all about the climate, something which is very important...One of about 700 things that are very important.  If he got crackin' on the other 699, I would consider him in the running.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Whoopdie-fuckin'-do.
> 
> So did Yasser Arafat (1994) and Nelson Mandela (1993). Both of which were in charge of organizations that routinely killed women and children.
> 
> And Hitler was nominated for it in 1939, but took himself out of the running by starting World War 2.


How many times have I spoken to you about your language!

Anyways, can't you be happy for a signal success? Is it always cynical doom and gloom with critics like you?

I believe the death of Irony was when Henry Kissinger won the peace prize.

Face it DOMS, Gore is and always has been a leader ahead of the curve.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

Jodi said:


> Congrats to Gore. IMO he's one of the only US politicians that's trying to make a difference so I give him a lot of credit.


Well stated!


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

A Black Guy said:


> ALGORE has to share with the U.N. which means a lot to all the dead kids in Darfur who never got their help.
> 
> I'd wipe my ass with the Nobel Prize, that's about it.


That's terrific.  

It's also unintelligible.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> How many times have I spoken to you about your language!



What the fuck?



Decker said:


> Anyways, can't you be happy for a signal success? Is it always cynical doom and gloom with critics like you?



I wasn't commenting on Al Gore, I was commenting on the Nobel Academy.  



Decker said:


> Face it DOMS, Gore is and always has been a leader ahead of the curve.



Notwithstanding his current misguided efforts, he really does have more vision than most politicians.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> That's terrific.
> 
> It's also unintelligible.



It makes perfect sense.  Not only is the Nobel Peace Prize a shit award, but he gets to share it with a corrupt, hypocritical, organization.


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 12, 2007)

He's a good guy.  The right has to be fuming


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> It makes perfect sense. Not only is the Nobel Peace Prize a shit award, but he gets to share it with a corrupt, hypocritical, organization.


Would you please name me one organization in the history of the world that is not corrupt or hypocritical at some point?

It's easy to go after an org devoted to human rights and peaceful solutions b/c those efforts will always fall short.

Did you have the same criticism--corrupt & hypocritical--about the Coalition of the Willing and its illegal run up to war with Iraq?

From where I'm sitting, criticism is fine and expected. I think the Nobel prize committee has a history of flawed decisions. I think the UN does make mistakes.

And just so we're not all blowing hot air about Darfur and the UN, here's some reading: http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/sudan/fact_sheet.pdf

Oh yes, CONGRATULATIONS AL GORE.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> I think it is good, he would still make a horrible president, although by comparison he wouldn't be so bad. Gore is all about the climate, something which is very important...One of about 700 things that are very important. If he got crackin' on the other 699, I would consider him in the running.


I respectfully disagree Mr. Mabry.

Gore was against the Iraq invasion and against the 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut.  With just those two judgments, almost 4 thousand americans would still be alive along with some 70,000 iraqis and the US's debt would not be tripling like it is under the current buffoon.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> Would you please name me one organization in the history of the world that is not corrupt or hypocritical at some point?
> 
> It's easy to go after an org devoted to human rights and peaceful solutions b/c that effort will always fall short.



Fall short?  That's like saying Bush isn't MIT material.

All of the fucking botched attempts, or completely ignoring, life and death events around the world; resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.  China on the Human Rights council.  The billion dollar oil for food scandal run by the leader's son, who then tried to cover it up.  And that's just some of the shit they are/do.

The U.N. is a joke and, hopefully, will go the way of the League of Nations soon.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> I respectfully disagree Mr. Mabry.
> 
> Gore was against the Iraq invasion and against the 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut.  With just those two judgments, almost 4 thousand americans would still be alive along with some 70,000 iraqis and the US's debt would not be tripling like it is under the current buffoon.



How do you know that he wouldn't have been a weak-willed, ineffectual, president that resulted in more attacks on American soil resulting in thousand of more dead Americans?


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Fall short? That's like saying Bush isn't MIT material.
> 
> All of the fucking botched attempts, or completely ignoring, life and death events around the world; resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. China on the Human Rights council. The billion dollar oil for food scandal run by the leader's son, who then tried to cover it up. And that's just some of the shit they are/do.
> 
> The U.N. is a joke and, hopefully, will go the way of the League of Nations soon.


The oil for food scandal. What happened with that again? Oh yes, here:
From the Independent Inquiry Committee:
???There is no evidence that the selection of Cotecna in 1998 was subject to any affirmative or improper influence of the Secretary-General in the bidding or selection process. Based on the record and lack of evidence of impropriety, it is the finding of the Committee that Cotecna was awarded the contract in 1998 on the ground that it was the lowest bidder. The Committee also notes that, in keeping with the normal United Nations policy and practice, the Secretary-General is not involved in procurement decisions.???

The Human Rights Council has many members. I suppose the best way to try and change things in China is to ignore them and hope the problem takes care of itself.

What about the good things the UN does?


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> How do you know that he wouldn't have been a weak-willed, ineffectual, president that resulted in more attacks on American soil resulting in thousand of more dead Americans?


We already have President Weak-willed and Ineffectual in office.

I know that Gore would not have invaded Iraq b/c he said so before the invasion.

I know that Gore would not have cut taxes by 1.6 trillion and cut taxes again during 2 wars b/c he said so before the tax cuts were introduced to Congress.

Please don't tell me that you think anything President Bush has done has made the US safe from terrorist attacks.  Terrorist activity has bloomed since Bush decided to invade Iraq illegally.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 12, 2007)

LMAO!!!!!

People are so deluded they try to compare Gore to Hitler when he wins the peace prize.  That's hilarious!  I didn't think it was possible, but yes, that reached a new low.

With that being said, Gore was nothing special until lately when I believe he actually cares about and believes in what he is doing.  That matters, and is alot more than I can say for Bush.

So Gore's winning peace prizes and Bush is starting wars.  

What's next for Bush?  Iran war maybe?  




What a tangled web we weave...


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> We already have President Weak-willed and Ineffectual in office.
> 
> I know that Gore would not have invaded Iraq b/c he said so before the invasion.
> 
> ...




You're completely wrong, because Bush is torturing alot of random people to get information about "the terrorist wearabouts." 



We go from attacking Iraq because it's an imminent threat, to attacking iraq beause we're bring democracy to the country, to occupying the country because civil war, then we can't leave because it's choas.  What a fucked up muderous blunder.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 12, 2007)

"This is how Al Gore???s resumé reads as of this morning:

Son of a great senator.

Harvard graduate, with honors.

Vietnam veteran.

Award-winning investigative journalist.

Congressman.

Senator.

Vice President.

Winner of the popular vote for President of the United States.

Best-selling author.

Environmental activist.

Academy Award winner.

And, now, Nobel Peace Prize winner"





Your rebuttle?


"YEAH BUT HE SAID HE INVENTED THE INTERNET!!!"


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> LMAO!!!!!
> 
> People are so deluded they try to compare Gore to Hitler when he wins the peace prize.  That's hilarious!  I didn't think it was possible, but yes, that reached a new low.



No, it's that you're a _fucking moron_.

No one has compared Gore to Hitler.  No one.  What actually happened is that your shitting reading comprehension has served you poorly.

The _point _of mentioning Hitler was to illustrate the pathetic nature of the people who issue the Nobel Peace Prize and not to make a comparison between Hitler and Gore.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> The oil for food scandal. What happened with that again? Oh yes, here:
> From the Independent Inquiry Committee:
> ???There is no evidence that the selection of Cotecna in 1998 was subject to any affirmative or improper influence of the Secretary-General in the bidding or selection process. Based on the record and lack of evidence of impropriety, it is the finding of the Committee that Cotecna was awarded the contract in 1998 on the ground that it was the lowest bidder. The Committee also notes that, in keeping with the normal United Nations policy and practice, the Secretary-General is not involved in procurement decisions.???



You've got to be kidding me...  A "independent" panel setup to investigate the U.N.'s corruption was headed by the _U.N.'s Secretary-General_.  Of course he didn't find much.  



Decker said:


> The Human Rights Council has many members. I suppose the best way to try and change things in China is to ignore them and hope the problem takes care of itself.



Fine then.  Here's hoping that the Boy Scouts of America sees the light and puts a pedophile on the payroll, lest the pedophiles feel ignored.



Decker said:


> What about the good things the UN does?



Like what?  What did they do?  Keep in mind that most of what gets done is actually done by member countries as they see fit.

They're little more than a place for politicians to bitch and abuse power, but on an international scale.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> We already have President Weak-willed and Ineffectual in office.



See, you're ignoring reality right here.

Bush is neither weak-willed or ineffectual.  He's clearly knows *what *he wants to fuck up and *how *to fuck it up.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> We already have President Weak-willed and Ineffectual in office.
> 
> I know that Gore would not have invaded Iraq b/c he said so before the invasion.
> 
> ...



ineffectual? yea i can see an arguement for that. weak-willed? is just ridiculous in reference to bush. despite growing resistence to any decision he has made, he has held to his course of action unflinchingly. its hard to say this president is weak-willed. he is many other negative characteristics, but that doesnt seem to be the problem.  the changing winds have done little to this presidents decision making compass.

has terrorist activity bloomed here in the US? here on our soil?  in one day on US soil we lost how many thousand US civilian citizens? and in the 6 years since that time we have invaded 2 countries, toppled 2 evil regimes, and have lost not a single civilian on US soil due to foreign terrorism.  they are killing more of their own people now than they are of US soldiers.

i dont like, or agree with the Iraq war, but instead of bitching about it maybe the brilliant minds of our generation should figure out how to help Christians and Muslims live together? instead of just bitching that what other people are doing is wrong.

on a side note, what the hell does global warming have to do with peace?  are wars being fought over global warming that im not aware about?


----------



## Jodi (Oct 12, 2007)

> i dont like, or agree with the Iraq war, but instead of bitching about it maybe the brilliant minds of our generation should figure out how to help Christians and Muslims live together? instead of just bitching that what other people are doing is wrong.


I would hardly call this war a religious one.


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 12, 2007)

Gore getting the Peace prize is about the best present I could imagine getting you for your birthday Doms.

Happy Birthday


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> I respectfully disagree Mr. Mabry.
> 
> Gore was against the Iraq invasion and against the 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut.  With just those two judgments, almost 4 thousand americans would still be alive along with some 70,000 iraqis and the US's debt would not be tripling like it is under the current buffoon.



its hard to say how many of those iraqis would still be alive. we dont know what the present iraqi situation would be if we had never gone in there.  sadam wasnt a great guy after all. not all of those 70,000 iraqi deaths have been by americans. many of those are iraqi deaths caused by their own people.  they are on the brink of civil war. with the good guys loosing except for us being there


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by *DOMS* 

 
_You've got to be kidding me... A "independent" panel setup to investigate the U.N.'s corruption was headed by the U.N.'s Secretary-General. Of course he didn't find much. _

Gee whilikers DOMS, do you know what you're talking about? The "INDEPENDENT" committee was headed by Paul Volcker.

You know that name right? Paul Volcker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 	Quote:
 	 	 		 Fine then. Here's hoping that the Boy Scouts of America sees the light and puts a pedophile on the payroll, lest the pedophiles feel ignored.  	 	 
*Six Men Sue Boy Scouts, Mormon Church for Homosexual Crimes*
Abominations: Six Men Sue Boy Scouts, Mormon Church for Homosexual Crimes

 	Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				Like what? What did they do? Keep in mind that most of what gets done is actually done by member countries as they see fit. 			 		 	 	 
DOMS the UN is its members...no members, no UN. Here's a small list of some achievements:
1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.

2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts

3. The UN has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections

4. Development - The system's annual disbursements, including loans and grants, amount to more than $10 billion.

5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.

6. UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure.

7. UN Conference eon Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, resulted in treaties on bio-diversity and climate change.

8. Has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90.

9. Over 300 international treaties, on topics as varied as human rights conventions to agreements on the use of outer space and seabed.

10. The International Court of Justice has helped settle international disputes involving territorial issues, diplomatic relations, hostage-taking, and economic rights.
United Nations Accomplishments & Achievements
 	Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				They're little more than a place for politicians to bitch and abuse power, but on an international scale. 			 		 	 	 
That's diplomacy and judging by some of its successes there's hope for the future.


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> its hard to say how many of those iraqis would still be alive. we dont know what the present iraqi situation would be if we had never gone in there.  sadam wasnt a great guy after all. not all of those 70,000 iraqi deaths have been by americans. many of those are iraqi deaths caused by their own people.  they are on the brink of civil war. with the good guys loosing except for us being there



Do you work for the Bush Administration?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

Jodi said:


> I would hardly call this war a religious one.



really? every time a terrorist attacks a statement is issued claiming the rightousness of the jihad (a religious holy war).  Christianity has been declared war upon by a faction of the Islamic religion. people here need to remember that. this is very much a religious war. one that has been going off and on for hundreds of years. this is just the present chapter of it.  here in America we dont consider it a religious war because we dont think about it in those terms, but they do.  our reasons are convoluted at best for this war, theirs are pretty strait forward.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> ineffectual? yea i can see an arguement for that. weak-willed? is just ridiculous in reference to bush. despite growing resistence to any decision he has made, he has held to his course of action unflinchingly. its hard to say this president is weak-willed. he is many other negative characteristics, but that doesnt seem to be the problem. the changing winds have done little to this presidents decision making compass.
> 
> has terrorist activity bloomed here in the US? here on our soil? in one day on US soil we lost how many thousand US civilian citizens? and in the 6 years since that time we have invaded 2 countries, toppled 2 evil regimes, and have lost not a single civilian on US soil due to foreign terrorism. they are killing more of their own people now than they are of US soldiers.
> 
> ...


I don't equate unengaged, head-in-the-sand ignorant behavior with the exercise of true will. But that's small potatoes.

If some terrorists wanted to infiltrate or attack the US, they could. Or is that 700 mile fence for a 2100 mile border keeping the terrorists at bay? The idea that Al Qaeda is a well oiled juggernaut headed for the US is one more piece of frightware the Bush Adm uses on the public.

The war in Iraq was never about Al Qaeda. The US and Coalition of Willing have been butchering Iraqis since they got there.

Let's get this straight:

The US attacks Iraq to force WMD inspections in 2003 even though Iraq was in compliance

The iraqis fight back

The US continues to kill them calling them Insurgents and Al Qaeda.

Now we are supposed "come together"?

Maybe. But Iran is on the table for attack.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


> Do you work for the Bush Administration?



so your just kind of glossing over my posts then is that it?  ive admitted bush is largely ineffective, and that i have problems with the war in iraq. yet i must work with the bush administration because i havent swung so far in the other direction that hillary clinton and al gore look like the next coming of ghandi?    

come back and enter this discussion when you have something worthwhile to write about


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Gee whilikers DOMS, do you know what you're talking about? The "INDEPENDENT" committee was headed by Paul Volcker.



I haven't read Volcker's report.  But I will.  I'm sure it's 100% independent. 




DOMS said:


> ]Six Men Sue Boy Scouts, Mormon Church for Homosexual Crimes



Thanks for making my point.  




DOMS said:


> 1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.
> 
> 2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts
> 
> ...



What a funny list.  How much of this was done by a member country and simply claimed by the U.N. 

Off the top of my head:

1. Got job in Rwanda.
4. This money is provided by member countries and how much is spent each year to staff the U.N.?
7.  And what?  What exactly have they done?
8.  God, what a joke.  Great job in Iraq.  They mean shit.  They aren't the people that find violators.  They simply show up and say "Yep, they're doing it."  If that!  They're a token organization.

I'm not saying that they don't do any good, I'm saying that don't do that much good.  Even better, go read up on the League of Nations, their dissolution, the goal of the U.N. and how it relates to the fall of the LoN (there are set points), and then tell me how they're doing.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> I don't equate unengaged, head-in-the-sand ignorant behavior with the exercise of true will. But that's small potatoes.
> 
> If some terrorists wanted to infiltrate or attack the US, they could. Or is that 700 mile fence for a 2100 mile border keeping the terrorists at bay? The idea that Al Qaeda is a well oiled juggernaut headed for the US is one more piece of frightware the Bush Adm uses on the public.
> 
> ...



oh yea, saddam was totally in compliance with inspections. it seemed almost weekly he was shooting at our pilots enforcing the no fly zone. and not allowing then allowing inspections at his whim is not in compliance with WMD inspections.  Iraqis fight back?  Iraq has hardly been a cohesive unit to fight back. we easily beat the last regime who did little really of fighting back. and now the iraqi people are fighting each other as much as they are fighting us.  i agree that our reasons for being in iraq are convoluted at best. i have strong reservations about this war, where it is going and its final outcome will be.  but at this point is pulling out and leaving these factions to themselves going to leave americans safer?  i really dont think so.  yea iran is on the table for war, only because taking it off the table weakens our position. i really dont see a congress or president going into iran unless they force our hand and directly attack.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> oh yea, saddam was totally in compliance with inspections. it seemed almost weekly he was shooting at our pilots enforcing the no fly zone. and not allowing then allowing inspections at his whim is not in compliance with WMD inspections. Iraqis fight back? Iraq has hardly been a cohesive unit to fight back. we easily beat the last regime who did little really of fighting back. and now the iraqi people are fighting each other as much as they are fighting us. i agree that our reasons for being in iraq are convoluted at best. i have strong reservations about this war, where it is going and its final outcome will be. but at this point is pulling out and leaving these factions to themselves going to leave americans safer? i really dont think so. yea iran is on the table for war, only because taking it off the table weakens our position. i really dont see a congress or president going into iran unless they force our hand and directly attack.


The No-fly zones were created by the US out of thin air--nothing to do with the terms of surrender from the first Gulf War therefore they had nothing to do with UN Resolution 1441.

Hussein let inspectors into Iraq in 2002.  Blix said that the Iraqis were forthcoming with information.  
*Iraq cooperating but needs to do more on substance - Blix *

Iraq cooperating but needs to do more on substance - Blix

*Blix Says Iraq Seems to Be Making Effort*
Blix Says Iraq Seems to Be Making Effort - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum

I'm not asserting that Iraq is attacking US troops as an army.  We invaded their country.  We killed them, destroyed their businesses, and humiliated them.  What do they do?  They attack us guerilla style.  

And you are very correct that there is in-fighting or a civil war going on--the Sunni Shia split at war.  Even subfactions of those 2 groups are going at it ie, Sunni on Sunni.

It is very confusing.

I don't think Iran will ever attack the US.  They are nuts but not stupid.


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

Gore is lying, deceptive scum.  The Nobel Appease prize is a joke, chalk Al Gore right up there with Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter.

He's geniune, he really believes that climate change is a serious problem, that's why his home is very energy efficient, and he is co-founder of an investment fund focusing on 'sustainable' (carbon credit, BS) firms.  He is a true believer indeed, that's why he never uses fuel guzzling private jets.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Gore is lying, deceptive scum. The Nobel Appease prize is a joke, chalk Al Gore right up there with Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter.
> 
> He's geniune, he really believes that climate change is a serious problem, that's why his home is very energy efficient, and he is co-founder of an investment fund focusing on 'sustainable' (carbon credit, BS) firms. He is a true believer indeed, that's why he never uses fuel guzzling private jets.


So you're saying do not address the problem of global warming b/c the face of the movement to combat GW, Al Gore, is operating w/in the current system of pollution control (advocated by the Bush Adm) and that he flies in jet planes?

So Al Gore is a big ol' hypocrite?

What's he supposed to do? Walk to all his nationwide appearances? Heat his home with flatulence? 

I believe Christ died over 2000 years ago so finding a perfect human being to run the global warming campaign is not reasonable.

Your objections are noted. But they are just not good enough to discredit the man.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 12, 2007)

I am not an Al Gore fan, but I did think that was a great movie and I applaud his efforts in trying to clean up the environment.  Congrats to him.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> It is very confusing.
> 
> I don't think Iran will ever attack the US.  They are nuts but not stupid.



agreed very confusing. so whats the answer? i personally dont believe it is to pull out now and let them fight it out on their own. i could be wrong, someone can feel free to convince me otherwise.  otherwise bitching about going in there in the first place doesnt seem to help anything. 

and i agree a war with iran personally doesnt seem to be benificial to either side at the moment. i dont see it happening. that doesnt mean each side isnt going to posture so that they can get the best for themselves at any one time.  it seems like a scare tactic to say this person wants to go to war with iran. thats not the case, to my knowlege none of the canditates on either side wants a war with iran. i just find it unhealthy to publicly say war with iran is not an option.  it gives them a lot of wiggle room to interfere with things. leaving the option there isnt taking the option.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

someone please tell me what global warming has to do with peace?


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> So you're saying do not address the problem of global warming b/c the face of the movement to combat GW, Al Gore, is operating w/in the current system of pollution control (advocated by the Bush Adm) and that he flies in jet planes?
> 
> So Al Gore is a big ol' hypocrite?
> 
> ...


 
What I said had ZERO relevance to the global warming scam.  Al Gore is the worst kind of hypocrite.  You change your lifestyle, you travel less, you reduce consumption, while he increases his consumption, increases his travel, etc.  Oh yeah, but he invests in "carbon credits" aka his own investment firm, you should too, you can save the world.

"Heat his home with flatulence?"

His home consumes 20 times more power than the average American home.  

"What's he supposed to do? Walk to all his nationwide appearances?"

He flies private jets which consume FAR FAR more fuel per passenger than a commercial airliner.  

Are you really that stupid to make such comments when it's crystal clear what my meaning was?  Wow.

The guy is a complete scam artist.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Gore is lying, deceptive scum.



I like to think that, in the case of global warming, he's just self-deluded but means well.



brogers said:


> The Nobel Appease prize is a joke, chalk Al Gore right up there with Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter.


 
Sorry, man, they're nothing alike.  Not even close.  You need to reign this shit in.



brogers said:


> He's geniune, he really believes that climate change is a serious problem, that's why his home is very energy efficient, and he is co-founder of an investment fund focusing on 'sustainable' (carbon credit, BS) firms.  He is a true believer indeed, that's why he never uses fuel guzzling private jets.



Yeah, he's only committed the way that most activists are committed.  They'll talk a mean fight, force others to live differently, but will never make the true sacrifice that they're talking about.


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

P-funk said:


> I am not an Al Gore fan, but I did think that was a great movie and I applaud his efforts in trying to clean up the environment. Congrats to him.


 
Yeah he's got some great ideas on how to destroy economies.


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I like to think that, in the case of global warming, he's just self-deluded but means well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Maybe I need to dumb it down..  They're all recepients of the Nobel Peace Prize.  The mention of their names is just further illustration of what a joke it has become, not a comparison of Al Gore to them.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Maybe I need to dumb it down..  They're all recepients of the Nobel Peace Prize.  The mention of their names is just further illustration of what a joke it has become, not a comparison of Al Gore to them.



Ah, got it.  There are certain names that you need to be very clear about when you do comparisons.  Hitler and Yasser, are two.


----------



## maniclion (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> The oil for food scandal. What happened with that again? Oh yes, here:
> From the Independent Inquiry Committee:
> ???There is no evidence that the selection of Cotecna in 1998 was subject to any affirmative or improper influence of the Secretary-General in the bidding or selection process. Based on the record and lack of evidence of impropriety, it is the finding of the Committee that Cotecna was awarded the contract in 1998 on the ground that it was the lowest bidder. The Committee also notes that, in keeping with the normal United Nations policy and practice, the Secretary-General is not involved in procurement decisions.???
> 
> ...


The UN is hardly to blame for _all_ of that mess, greedy oil tycoons were the ones screwing the whole thing up...

CNN.com - Texas businessman indicted in U.N. oil-for-food probe - Apr 15, 2005

Texas oilman, two Swiss businessmen charged in U.N. scandal


----------



## maniclion (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> someone please tell me what global warming has to do with peace?


As the temperature rises so do peoples tempers, they don't have the terms hot-headed and cool-headed for non...


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

maniclion said:


> As the temperature rises so do peoples tempers, they don't have the terms hot-headed and cool-headed for non...



now i see. he totally dererves the prize. onward global soldiers. vote al gore for world prime minister. he will lead us to peace


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Proof of global warming:


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Proof of global warming:



whats wrong with global warming again? i forgot


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> What I said had ZERO relevance to the global warming scam. Al Gore is the worst kind of hypocrite. You change your lifestyle, you travel less, you reduce consumption, while he increases his consumption, increases his travel, etc. Oh yeah, but he invests in "carbon credits" aka his own investment firm, you should too, you can save the world.
> 
> "Heat his home with flatulence?"
> 
> ...


I'll address your ham-handed analysis.

Do you know how presidents/vice-presidents--present and past--fly? No you don't but you sure shoot your mouth off like you do.

Gore's house uses 20 times the energy of a normal house? Are Gore's house and living arrangements normal? No. Where does his energy come from? Is it coal, oil or green sources? See, green enery costs more but it is better for the environment and that's what Mr. Gore uses.

Again, you don't know but you sure shoot your mouth off like you do. 

Petty right wing ideologues like yourself care only about hurting your opponents. Fine. Attack the messenger.

Job well done.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> whats wrong with global warming again? i forgot



Not a damn thing.  I'm going out to cut the muffler off my car.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> agreed very confusing. so whats the answer? i personally dont believe it is to pull out now and let them fight it out on their own. i could be wrong, someone can feel free to convince me otherwise. otherwise bitching about going in there in the first place doesnt seem to help anything.
> 
> and i agree a war with iran personally doesnt seem to be benificial to either side at the moment. i dont see it happening. that doesnt mean each side isnt going to posture so that they can get the best for themselves at any one time. it seems like a scare tactic to say this person wants to go to war with iran. thats not the case, to my knowlege none of the canditates on either side wants a war with iran. i just find it unhealthy to publicly say war with iran is not an option. it gives them a lot of wiggle room to interfere with things. leaving the option there isnt taking the option.


The problem is is that the US overthrew Iraq without legitimacy in spite of Iraq's compliance with demands.

That's a dangerous precedent.

What is Iran to do? Does it matter? 

The Bush Adm and Congress already designated an Iranian military outfit as a terrorist organization. Considering the flawed doctrine of Preemption and the Bush Directive of 'your with us or against us' re terrorism, I'd say Iran has every right to be scared that the US will flatten it too.

If the president decides to strike Iran with nuclear weapons, I think the US will suffer a great deal. The world will turn against us. Terrorism will really get out of hand and the utter destabilization of the Middle East will be complete.

Nothing good can come out of attacking Iran.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

maniclion said:


> The UN is hardly to blame for _all_ of that mess, greedy oil tycoons were the ones screwing the whole thing up...
> 
> CNN.com - Texas*businessman indicted in U.N. oil-for-food probe - Apr 15, 2005
> 
> Texas oilman, two Swiss businessmen charged in U.N. scandal


The issue is a right wing favorite and really much ado about nothing.  Compared to the billions and billions of dollars (US tax dollars) lost in Iraq with no trace, it is nothing.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> The problem is is that the US overthrew Iraq without legitimacy and in spite of *Iraq's compliance with demands*.



I just need to say .


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I just need to say .


*Weapons inspectors meet with Iraq*
CNN.com - Weapons inspectors meet with Iraq - September 17, 2002

See the date? 2002. When was the attack? May of 2003.

Iraq was complying with inspections and was forthright with information and President Bush ordered the attack.

Attacking a prone opponent is the height of cowardice.

*Iraq agrees to weapons inspections*
CNN.com - Iraq agrees to weapons inspections - September 17, 2002


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> *Weapons inspectors meet with Iraq*
> CNN.com - Weapons inspectors meet with Iraq - September 17, 2002
> 
> See the date? 2002. When was the attack? May of 2003.
> ...



From the first paragraph (emphasis mine):

"Tuesday in what a Baghdad official called 'useful and fruitful' *discussions *on the *return* of weapons inspectors."

They were _talking _about going back.  There's nothing there about total compliance.  Besides, they had over 10 years to get it done and never did.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 12, 2007)

Do we really need to go over the whole weapons inspector story for the 1 billionth time?


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> From the first paragraph (emphasis mine):
> 
> "Tuesday in what a Baghdad official called 'useful and fruitful' *discussions *on the *return* of weapons inspectors."
> 
> They were _talking _about going back. There's nothing there about total compliance. Besides, they had over 10 years to get it done and never did.


Yes, that was when the inspections started up.  It took some time but the Iraqis were working in compliance.


I suggest you read the Blix UN reports.

*Cooperation on process*
It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.
*Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well* so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable. 

CAABU :: Resource Library :: UN Agency Reports on Iraq :: Hans Blix' Iraq Inspection Report January 2003


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Do we really need to go over the whole weapons inspector story for the 1 billionth time?


Yes


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> The problem is is that the US overthrew Iraq without legitimacy in spite of Iraq's compliance with demands.
> 
> That's a dangerous precedent.
> 
> ...



how did you in any way address my post? i think the legitimacy of going into iraq is a gray area that doesnt do much good now, because we are already there and we need to discuss and find an answer about what to do about it.

who is talking about a pre-emptive nuclear strike against iran? are you kidding me? no one has ever said anything remotely close to that.  have any of bushes actions led anyone here to believe he has a pre-emptive nuclear strike against iran on the agenda?  how about any of the presidential nominees? have any of them come out in favor of of it?  

i have read your posts and some have been mildly intelligent, but this is nowhere close to an aguement that in any way adds to or sheds light on the debate or issues at hand.  where is something so asinine as this even coming from. and by the way, i want iran afraid of the US coming in and flattening it.  they need to understand that there are repricusions for certain actions and that we are capable and willing to do this if the situation demands it.

now, how about in your next response you post something that relates to the topic of discussion without going arguing against ideas no body is proposing


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> Yes



We should discuss it in excruciating detail.  And we should do it in prose.

Actually, I'm with Iain on this one.  We discussed it at length and you never admitted to the truth that you're so anti-Bush, and so pro hippy, that you can't see the reality of it.   



But really, I'm not in the mood.


----------



## maniclion (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> or green sources? See, green enery costs more but it is better for the environment and that's what Mr. Gore uses.


I always tell my clients that buy PV for their home is like going to Sam's/Costco to buy toilet paper, you may be paying a lot  up front but when that day comes when you need it you will have that bulk stash that others may be paying twice the price for now...  Solar electric panels will continue working for more than 25 years, all it is is thin sliced layers of rock sandwiched behind tempered glass...It's probably one of the best investments for a homeowner especially in places where the electric rates are .20 cents per kWh or even .35cents like some of the islands here...

A lot of the installers have started leasing programs so that you don't have that huge shock to your wallet, and if you maximize the tax credits by buying the system piece by piece you can get the gov. to pay for nearly half of the whole thing...


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

maniclion said:


> I always tell my clients that buy PV for their home is like going to Sam's/Costco to buy toilet paper, you may be paying a lot  up front but when that day comes when you need it you will have that bulk stash that others may be paying twice the price for now...  Solar electric panels will continue working for more than 25 years, all it is is thin sliced layers of rock sandwiched behind tempered glass...It's probably one of the best investments for a homeowner especially in places where the electric rates are .20 cents per kWh or even .35cents like some of the islands here...
> 
> A lot of the installers have started leasing programs so that you don't have that huge shock to your wallet, and if you maximize the tax credits by buying the system piece by piece you can get the gov. to pay for nearly half of the whole thing...



Are solar panel efficient enough yet that you could cover your houses' roof with them and supply at least 50% of your power needs?


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 12, 2007)

It's nice see Decker back.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> It's nice see Decker back.



Me think so too.  Me glad Decker here make words.  Decker friend.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> Yes



no. from here on out it will be know throughout IM that on this issue you are wrong. let a proclamation go forth thoughout IM that decker is wrong in that "poor little iraq was doing nothing wrong and everything in their power to comply with weapons inspectors" is completly and utterly false. so let it be written so let it be done.  so saith ramses. or maybe just a sticky.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> how did you in any way address my post? i think the legitimacy of going into iraq is a gray area that doesnt do much good now, because we are already there and we need to discuss and find an answer about what to do about it.
> 
> who is talking about a pre-emptive nuclear strike against iran? are you kidding me? no one has ever said anything remotely close to that. have any of bushes actions led anyone here to believe he has a pre-emptive nuclear strike against iran on the agenda? how about any of the presidential nominees? have any of them come out in favor of of it?
> 
> ...


I don???t think the legitimacy is a gray area at all and considering we???ve killed almost 80,000 Iraq citizens, destroyed their county???s infrastructure, installed a puppet government and generally steamrolled the country, I???d say that your assertion that ???bitching about _going in there in the first place doesnt seem to help anything.??? _On the contrary, that is the true starting point in addressing what to do with Iran. 

*Bush refuses to rule out nuclear strike on Iran*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/19/wiran19.xml

Considering that our armed forces are currently at the breaking point, how would you handle attacking Iran for not complying with WMD inspections and support of insurgents in Iraq (both unsupported contentions, but that didn???t stop the US from attacking Iraq, why should it matter with Iran)?

But we can play your game. Nukes are off the table. The US forces are already at the breaking point serving on two separate fronts. Iran has over 70 million people and is nowhere near the pushover Iraq was. What do we do?

You claimed that _to my knowlege none of the canditates on either side wants a war with iran. i just find it unhealthy to publicly say war with iran is not an option._ That???s the same BS spoken before the Iraq fiasco. History is repeating itself and your buying the same nonsense. If the Bush Adm doesn???t want war with Iraq, why is it parking destroyers off the coast of Iran, why is it designating Iran???s military elite as terrorists, and why is it manufacturing evidence that Iran is arming the insurgents in Iraq? 

All of the republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, are agreeing with this Bullshit, yet a simple palliative statement of ???no one wants war with Iran??? turns you into a true believer.

Maybe this will help you sort out your own misgivings about the WMD/Aiding Terrorists rationale used in the Iraq war and now being trotted out again for Iran.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> no. from here on out it will be know throughout IM that on this issue you are wrong. let a proclamation go forth thoughout IM that decker is wrong in that "poor little iraq was doing nothing wrong and everything in their power to comply with weapons inspectors" is completly and utterly false. so let it be written so let it be done. so saith ramses. or maybe just a sticky.


Wrongo Mary Lou--Iraq was complying w/ the Team Blix.  Especially as inspections wore on.

That is historical fact.

You screwed up.  You believed Bush and you let fear get the better of you.  Oh Yeah, Iraq was the WMD/Al Qaeda meteor on a collision course with the US.

On its face that is preposterous.

But you wanted to believe.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> It's nice see Decker back.


Thanks Min0.

It's good to be back.


----------



## Decker (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Me think so too. Me glad Decker here make words. Decker friend.


You....you, you're no gentleman!
Oh wait, you are.

Thanks.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> I don???t think the legitimacy is a gray area at all and considering we???ve killed almost 80,000 Iraq citizens, destroyed their county???s infrastructure, installed a puppet government and generally steamrolled the country, I???d say that your assertion that ???bitching about _going in there in the first place doesnt seem to help anything.??? _On the contrary, that is the true starting point in addressing what to do with Iran.
> 
> *Bush refuses to rule out nuclear strike on Iran*
> 
> ...



so do you really believe this stuff you type or do you just get off typeing?  bush refuses to rule out nuclear strike with iran. good. doesnt mean its going to happen. we have left that option on the table with every country in the world for 60 years and yet havent used them so i think ill say that im not too worried that bush hasnt taken it off the table. why take your best player off the field? just having him there opens up other possibilities. 

so bitching about iraq is a starting point in dealing with iran? no need to go into detail with how wrong that it.

and with iran i believe the answer at the moment is to sit and wait.  we have occupying armies on both of irans borders. also europe seems to be ratcheting up the pressure on iran without us doing anything. hell even France is talking about taking care of the problems with iran. iran like you said isnt dumb enough to attack. so we sit on both borders and let them sweat it out. just my opinion from several thousand miles away. ill let policy be handled by the joint chiefs. those guys i feel can handle it.

WMD in iran and supporting terrorism in iraq are unsupported?  they admit to uranium enrichment.  thats not contested. enriched uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear weapons. not contested.  ive spoken to soldiers returned from iraq that say iran is supporting the insurgency over there. i wont contest that. not from several thousand miles away.

your points this day are without merrit. they are horrible in their inaccuracies and obviously coming from someone blinded from their own self image.  debating with you this day has been painful in its exercise.  remember how this started out as about al gore and the nobel peace prize.  does al have any way of bringing peace to the middle east? he might actually deserve a medal for that


----------



## busyLivin (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Gore is lying, deceptive scum.  The Nobel Appease prize is a joke, chalk Al Gore right up there with Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter.
> 
> He's geniune, he really believes that climate change is a serious problem, that's why his home is very energy efficient, and he is co-founder of an investment fund focusing on 'sustainable' (carbon credit, BS) firms.  He is a true believer indeed, that's why he never uses fuel guzzling private jets.




Amen.   

Al Gore is a tool. Global Warming is Bullshit: biggest moneymaking pile of garbage. 

But, by all means: congrats Al!  You've convinced the world you still matter.  (Excluding me)


----------



## busyLivin (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Me think so too.  Me glad Decker here make words.  Decker friend.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> ive spoken to soldiers returned from iraq that say iran is supporting the insurgency over there.



I have a nephew that gets stationed in Iraq for 6 months every year and a half.  He work in the military intelligence.  He said that it's no secret that Iran is supporting the insurgents.  As an example, he pointed out the new model IEDs that the insurgents have started using.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> Wrongo Mary Lou--Iraq was complying w/ the Team Blix.  Especially as inspections wore on.
> 
> That is historical fact.
> 
> ...



Doms just posted proof that weapons inspectors had been kicked out of iraq prior to us invading. or maybe it was you who posted proof and Doms pointed it out.  it had nothing to do with fear and a desire to believe for me. 

personally i consider sadam an evil individual and a good thing he is out of power regardless of the reasons for going in.  hey much of the reasons for going in turned out to be false. everyone saw the same information and everyone agreed it was needed.  it turned out to be wrong. we cant change that now. our information gatherers need to do a better job i agree. i dont consider evidence having been manufactured however and the point still stands we are there now and pointing fingers still doesnt solve the problem. 

but you keep doing your thing and complaining we shouldnt be there in the first place and the rest of the world will still move on in this convoluted mess looking for an answer while you complain about something you cant change


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

busyLivin said:


> Al Gore is a tool.



I don't think he's a tool.  I'd say that he misinformed and a hypocrite.



busyLivin said:


> Global Warming is Bullshit: biggest moneymaking pile of garbage.



Hell yes.  "Credits" my ass.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> Doms just posted proof that weapons inspectors had been kicked out of iraq prior to us invading. or maybe it was you who posted proof and Doms pointed it out.  it had nothing to do with fear and a desire to believe for me.



I think you're being too harsh.  After all, they'd _only _been stalled by Iraq for 10 years or so.  I'm sure they were about to get to the truth of it.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I think you're being too harsh.  After all, they'd _only _been stalled by Iraq for 10 years or so.  I'm sure they were about to get to the truth of it.



im sorry. please dont ban me.


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

Decker said:


> I'll address your ham-handed analysis.
> 
> Do you know how presidents/vice-presidents--present and past--fly? No you don't but you sure shoot your mouth off like you do.
> 
> ...


 
Oh right, so Al Gore can use 20x more power than the average American because he purchases 'green power' and 'offsets' his carbon footprint. So only the wealthy have can have access to electricity? Nice.

Let's hear some more about that Green Power Gore uses, ok, Mr. "Again, you don't know but you sure shoot your mouth off like you do?"  

From USA Today:


> according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.


 
 

You're clueless and blinded because you're a lib like Gore. You love to act informed, but you're not, sorry to break it to you. You're being played for a fool by Al Gore. Send him some money to off-set your evil carbon output while you're at it, oh enlightened one.

No I don't know how ex-Vice Presidents usually fly, but I'd expect someone who's warning us we're doomed if we don't do something in 10 years to take drastic steps himself, including the oh-so-degrading switch from private jets to first class commercial. After all, the world is at stake, remember.

Yes, I'm attacking the "messenger" since this thread is about the "messenger" getting an award, not his message, genius.

You can start another thread about that if you so desire.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> im sorry. please dont ban me.



Too late!


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Oh right, so Al Gore can use 20x more power than the average American because he purchases 'green power' and 'offsets' his carbon footprint.  So only the wealthy have can have access to electricity?  Nice.
> 
> Let's hear some more about that Green Power Gore uses, ok, Mr. "Again, you don't know but you sure shoot your mouth off like you do?"
> 
> ...



   i hate it when real facts get in the way of rhetoric. Oh wait no i dont never mind


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Too late!



  i promise to play nice from now on


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 12, 2007)

Shazam! 

He's no rocket scientist but I think Al Gore is a better person at heart than the vast majority of politicians that we put in office. Too bad being sincere and well intentioned doesn't count for as much as your willingness to be a puppet for Texas oilmen does.


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> Shazam!
> 
> He's no rocket scientist but I think Al Gore is a better person at heart than the vast majority of politicians that we put in office. Too bad being sincere and well intentioned doesn't count for as much as your willingness to be a puppet for Texas oilmen does.


 
People in the coal, oil, and natural gas business provide us with power for our factories and homes, fuel for cars, trucks, and planes.  Our standard of living would PLUMMET without those evil "oilmen."  Al Gore made a movie.

Perspective.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> Too bad being sincere and well intentioned doesn't count for as much as your willingness to be a puppet for Texas oilmen does.



"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I'm sure that he's sincere when he says that _*we *_should change to stop global warming while he lives in a mansion and flies around in private jets.


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

I just realized, not surprisingly, Decker has gotten into Iraq War and George Bush.  What a case of BDS.

Here's a little tidbit about our friend, Sadaam Hussein, from Bill Clinton:

CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998

Some nuggets:

Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. 

Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton. 

Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in

Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said. 

If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> I just realized, not surprisingly, Decker has gotten into Iraq War and George Bush.  What a case of BDS.
> 
> Here's a little tidbit about our friend, Sadaam Hussein, from Bill Clinton:
> 
> ...



stop it with the facts already. do want him to cry?  wait....never mind again, go ahead


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 12, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> its hard to say how many of those iraqis would still be alive. we dont know what the present iraqi situation would be if we had never gone in there.  sadam wasnt a great guy after all. not all of those 70,000 iraqi deaths have been by americans. many of those are iraqi deaths caused by their own people.  they are on the brink of civil war. with the good guys loosing except for us being there



70 thousand?  Is that the number fox news is publishing these days?  Wow I thought they called all the deaths insurgent deaths.  A more acurate figure is closer to 1 million.  Reaganite Greenspan even admitted the war is about oil and that the civilian death toll is around 1.2 million.  He's one to argue with though... 


So we are fighting the righteous fight... why didn't we bring democracy to sudan or more currently burma?  They got oil or a strategic location for military bases?  No.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 12, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Do we really need to go over the whole weapons inspector story for the 1 billionth time?



"War on Iraq" is a Republican military expert's analysis and rejection of the American government's current justification for invading Iraq. All Americans, especially politicians, should pay close attention to this book for two reasons. First, the arguments contained in this book were made by the person who knows the status of Iraq's weapons program and the potential threat posed by Iraq better than anyone else. Scott Ritter is a former intelligence officer and Marine veteran of the Gulf War. When the war ended, Ritter played a critical and highly effective role in inspecting and destroying the Iraqi weapons program. Second, Ritter is a Republican who voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election, and who clearly harbors no liberal agenda. If this guy is telling us that the coming war with Iraq is unwarranted and extremely dangerous, we had better take him seriously. Ritter's arguments are summed up below.
IRAQ HAS NO SERIOUS WEAPONS CAPABLITY
Ritter demonstrates that Iraq's chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons were thoroughly dismantled. Rebuilding these programs is easily detectable, and if some chemical or biological agents evaded detection, they have probably exceeded their shelf life.

IRAQ DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTALIST GOVERNMENT
As evil and nasty as Saddam Hussein might be, he is a secular ruler who has gone to great and brutal lengths to repress religious fundamentalism in Iraq. He has no interest in perpetuating Islamic fundamentalism of the sort that Bin Laden espouses. 

SADAM HUSSEIN AND BIN LADEN ARE ENEMIES
Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are enemies. Saddam Hussein outlawed Wahabbism the fundamentalist sect of Islam to which Bin Laden belongs, and Bin Laden declared Saddam Hussein an apostate who should be killed. Even if these two were sympathetic to each other, Ritter proves that there isn't a shred of evidence of a cooperation between Iraq and Al Quaeda.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT BIN LADEN WANTS
An American invasion of Iraq has an excellent chance of infuriating other Islamic nations and creating a West vs. Islam polarization. 

MORE TERRORISM PLEASE
Even if America has a speedy victory in Iraq (Ritter, a twelve year Marine veteran and former intelligence officer states that this is highly unlikely this time around), extremism and resentment against the U.S. will only increase in the Middle East. More likely, this war will generate tremendous civilian casualties in Iraq and hundreds or thousands of U.S. casualties. If, in a worse case scenario, America resorts to tactical nuclear weapons to help it's pinned down military forces-something Bush has publicly stated as a possibility. Ritter argues that if this happens he can guarantee that Iran and Pakistan will hand over nuclear devices to terrorists and we will experience a nuclear bomb detonation in America within decades.

DEMOCRACY IS IMPOSSIBLE IN IRAQ
Iraq contains a Shiite majority, which shares powerful fundamentalist beliefs with Iran, and which the U.S. definitely does not want to come to power. The U.S. can't put the Kurdish minority in power because Turkey, which has its own issues with the Kurds, would never allow it, which just leaves the Sunni minority from whose ranks Saddam rose to power. The only realistic result, according to Ritter, is another Sunni dictator who is as repressive as Saddam.

IRAQIS WON'T RISE UP AGAINST SADAM
Even if Iraqi civilians ignore the fact that the U.S. bombed, starved and killed many of them during the past ten years, the state apparatus that Saddam built has had more than twenty years to seep into their lives and is too well entrenched.

WHAT ABOUT SADDAM'S BOMB MAKER
Ritter quickly proves that Saddam's alleged bomb maker Khidre Hamza is a fake who never headed Iraq's nuclear program (Jafar al Jafar did) and who did not possess adequate knowledge to develop nuclear weapons. When Hamza first defected in 1994, his intelligence was rejected by the CIA and the intelligence community at large. 

HITLER DID IT
Ritter correctly points out that while the justification for a first strike may resonate with many Americans still wounded by the memory of 9/11, it is the same excuse Hitler used for attacking Poland. The world may well see an American "first strike" in the same light.

HOW DO YOU SPELL "NEO-CONSERVATIVE" 
According to Ritter, you spell it, "Rumsfeld", "Wolfowitz", and "Perle". Donald Rumsfeld, is of course the Bush Administration's Secretary of Defense, while Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle are part of a conservative think tank that is convinced that Iraq is a threat to both Israel and the United States and that is ideologically committed to toppling Saddam Hussein regardless of the potential consequences. These ideologues, according to Ritter, are the key decision makers with respect to Gulf War II, The Vengeance and they have effectively terminated all government debate on the subject. Ritter, who is also a Republican, astutely argues that extremism is the most dangerous way to approach an already volatile Middle East.

FACTS ARE A STUBBORN THING
Unlike any of his critics including the Richard Butler, the careerist who ineptly headed UNSCOM after the Gulf War, Ritter can and does document every argument he makes. Journalists have never found a single error in any of Ritter's claims and his critics are unwilling to debate him in public. Ritter's stance on this issue made him the subject of at least one intense FBI investigation in which he was cleared. Ritter sums up his approach with John Adams's famous statement that "facts are a stubborn thing."


----------



## ZECH (Oct 12, 2007)

Means nothing to us that don't believe the global warming BS. I am all for protecting the environment though and that is good.
Where ya been Decker? Someone was asking about scotch and I figure you could help!


----------



## ZECH (Oct 12, 2007)

And why start this thread only to crack on Bush?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> 70 thousand?  Is that the number fox news is publishing these days?  Wow I thought they called all the deaths insurgent deaths.  A more acurate figure is closer to 1 million.  Reaganite Greenspan even admitted the war is about oil and that the civilian death toll is around 1.2 million.  He's one to argue with though...
> 
> 
> So we are fighting the righteous fight... why didn't we bring democracy to sudan or more currently burma?  They got oil or a strategic location for military bases?  No.



actually it was a figure used by decker that i was responding to. if you did more than sumarilly glance over things you would have been able to understand that.  im suprised it took you this long to respond to this post 3 pages ago. oh well now your here let the party of useless posts begin


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

On the Iraq War:  I honestly wouldn't have a problem with spending the 300 billion on nuclear power plants and an infrustructure to transport hydrogen (which can be made from excess nuclear capacity) and switch to electric engines running on hydrogen.  I think that might be a better long-term solution than engaging in wars while handcuffing our military.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> "War on Iraq" is a Republican military expert's analysis and rejection of the American government's current justification for invading Iraq. All Americans, especially politicians, should pay close attention to this book for two reasons. First, the arguments contained in this book were made by the person who knows the status of Iraq's weapons program and the potential threat posed by Iraq better than anyone else. Scott Ritter is a former intelligence officer and Marine veteran of the Gulf War. When the war ended, Ritter played a critical and highly effective role in inspecting and destroying the Iraqi weapons program. Second, Ritter is a Republican who voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election, and who clearly harbors no liberal agenda. If this guy is telling us that the coming war with Iraq is unwarranted and extremely dangerous, we had better take him seriously. Ritter's arguments are summed up below.
> IRAQ HAS NO SERIOUS WEAPONS CAPABLITY
> Ritter demonstrates that Iraq's chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons were thoroughly dismantled. Rebuilding these programs is easily detectable, and if some chemical or biological agents evaded detection, they have probably exceeded their shelf life.
> 
> ...



im sorry did you say something?  what does this have to do with any of the topics discussed at the moment?  sadam is dead and we are in iraq. fact. now what?  

al gore is an idiot, and preaches one thing yet acts differently. fact.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> People in the coal, oil, and natural gas business provide us with power for our factories and homes, fuel for cars, trucks, and planes.  Our standard of living would PLUMMET without those evil "oilmen."  Al Gore made a movie.
> 
> Perspective.



our "standard of living" is a fucking joke. an engagement ring should cost 3 months wages etc. if people were willing to acknowledge the laughable gulf in this country between want and need it might help. greed and gluttony are destroying the earth and his message is a good one even though the messenger is imperfect.


----------



## maniclion (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> On the Iraq War:  I honestly wouldn't have a problem with spending the 300 billion on nuclear power plants and an infrustructure to transport hydrogen (which can be made from excess nuclear capacity) and switch to electric engines running on hydrogen.  I think that might be a better long-term solution than engaging in wars while handcuffing our military.


Really, are you going to start feeding your kids small doses of radio-active vitamins so that when we have a surplus of waste we can't get rid of their grandchildren can use it as a food source?  Honestly, what would we do with all that leftover crap, shoot it to the moon, give it a nice neon glow? "Mommy did the moon always glow neon green?"  We are much better off just harnessing natural occurrences of energy like wind, solar and hydro than building highly volatile facilities that may last 20-30 years and have the potential to ruin any populated area for miles around be it accidental or an act of well placed extremist aggression...


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

maniclion said:


> Really, are you going to start feeding your kids small doses of radio-active vitamins so that when we have a surplus of waste we can't get rid of their grandchildren can use it as a food source? Honestly, what would we do with all that leftover crap, shoot it to the moon, give it a nice neon glow? "Mommy did the moon always glow neon green?" We are much better off just harnessing natural occurrences of energy like wind, solar and hydro than building highly volatile facilities that may last 20-30 years and have the potential to ruin any populated area for miles around be it accidental or an act of well placed extremist aggression...


 
Drop it over the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan.


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> our "standard of living" is a fucking joke. an engagement ring should cost 3 months wages etc. if people were willing to acknowledge the laughable gulf in this country between want and need it might help. greed and gluttony are destroying the earth and his message is a good one even though the messenger is imperfect.


 
Go tell someone in a developing country how much of a joke it is.  Tell them how our 'poor' have cable TV, air conditioning, and a car.  See how many laughs you get.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Go tell someone in a developing country how much of a joke it is.  Tell them how our 'poor' have cable TV, air conditioning, and a car.  See how many laughs you get.



no they don't. the real poor in this country are starving. 

Some 38 million people in America are considered "food insecure" -- they have trouble finding the money to keep food on the table.







YouTube Video


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 12, 2007)

maniclion said:


> Really, are you going to start feeding your kids small doses of radio-active vitamins so that when we have a surplus of waste we can't get rid of their grandchildren can use it as a food source?  Honestly, what would we do with all that leftover crap, shoot it to the moon, give it a nice neon glow? "Mommy did the moon always glow neon green?"  We are much better off just harnessing natural occurrences of energy like wind, solar and hydro than building highly volatile facilities that may last 20-30 years and have the potential to ruin any populated area for miles around be it accidental or an act of well placed extremist aggression...



wind, solar and hydro will never be able to produce the needed energy of this countries consumption. also nuclear plants last longer than 20-30 years especially the 3rd and 4th generation plants that should be built.  the only plant ever to ruin populated areas from accident was in russia which lacked the proper safety features, funding, and training of employees.  it cant happen here. i love the arguement of unsafe reactors due to extremist agression. its a falacy. educate yourself properly on nuclear power before you start bitching


----------



## KelJu (Oct 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Go tell someone in a developing country how much of a joke it is.  Tell them how our 'poor' have cable TV, air conditioning, and a car.  See how many laughs you get.



Do you want a hug buddy?


----------



## DOMS (Oct 12, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> no they don't. the real poor in this country are starving.



I've been rock-bottom poor in the US.  It's _nothing_ like being poor in the rest of the world.  Not even close.


----------



## brogers (Oct 12, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> no they don't. the real poor in this country are starving.
> 
> Some 38 million people in America are considered "food insecure" -- they have trouble finding the money to keep food on the table.
> 
> ...


 




> The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
> 
> Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
> Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
> ...


 
From Heritage Foundation, data comes from US Census.


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I've been rock-bottom poor in the US.  It's _nothing_ like being poor in the rest of the world.  Not even close.



i agree, a trip to mexico changes ones perspective very quickly


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I've been rock-bottom poor in the US.  It's _nothing_ like being poor in the rest of the world.  Not even close.



i'm not saying being poor here isn't easier but that it's a shame that kids go to bed hungry in a country with the wealth ours has. the failure to recognize the difference between want and need is reflected in the fact that you will see people at the food banks that do have two cars a dvd player etc cuz they think those are needs not wants. that's my point. we draw a line somewhere and define poor here differently than we would elsewhere but that doesn't mean there aren't people lined up at food banks because they have a true need, living in shelters and out of those cars that must mean they aren't poor. 

it's a shame too that we draw a line in our hearts where most of the rest of the world just doesn't matter. who gives a fuck if kids somewhere else are dying as long as we have the car we want n the size diamond all the fancy ads tell us we should have. when i lived in vegas a kid there killed himself cuz his friends had planes n his parents wouldn't get him one. what a joke. you think he ever thought once about anyone but himself? if the guy next door cut his daughter's vagina off and sewed her closed imagine how horrified we'd feel. but who gives a fuck if it's happening half way around the world? n who gives a fuck what this world is like in 500 years. "we" won't be here n aren't "we" all that matters?


what would happen if we all took a hard look at the difference between what we have and what we need and used the surplus to help those in need? most of our population seems to be fat. we overeat enough to feed a small country no denying that.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 13, 2007)

> HITLER DID IT
> Ritter correctly points out that while the justification for a first strike may resonate with many Americans still wounded by the memory of 9/11, it is the same excuse Hitler used for attacking Poland. The world may well see an American "first strike" in the same light.



This is a point rarely mentioned today.  

Hitler used the attack on _Russia_ (Operation Barbarossa) as a pre-emptive attack.  German radio stations consistently broadcast to the German public that the USSR was building weaponry, and amassing tanks at its border along Eastern Europe.  The Hitler Media (Goebels) constantly warned the public of the threat of "Bolshevist expansionism" into Eastern Europe, and of course the threat to Germany.  The fact is, Staling couldn't have done this if he wanted to.  He didn't have the resources, production (he was industrializing at the time) and Russia was recovering from the massive famines of the early 30s.  This was part of the reason for the non-agression treaty Stalin signed with Germany.  Russia was weak. 

Operation Barbarossa was an act _not_ an act of pre-emption - but the German public was consistently told that it was.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


> i agree, a trip to mexico changes ones perspective very quickly



No joke.  Your posts reminds me of a quote:  "It is my belief that foreign travel narrows the mind wonderfully".


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> i'm not saying being poor here isn't easier but that it's a shame that kids go to bed hungry in a country with the wealth ours has.



You need to understand that if, in this country, you're starving, it's because you _choose,_ even if it's through inaction, to be that way.  You're correct, no one should starve in this country.  And no one has too.  There are countless organizations that will give a homeless person food, clothing, and a place to stay the night.  Plus there are plenty of organizations that will try to help you get a job and get off the streets (try to find that in Mexico or South Africa!).

As a child, there were times when I didn't have food for a day or two.  That wasn't because I couldn't get access to food or other assistance, it was because of my mother.  She was far too proud to take a handout.  She grew up rich and, as a poor person, refused to accept charity.  She wouldn't even use food stamps.  She insisted that we make it, or break it, on our own.



Little Wing said:


> what would happen if we all took a hard look at the difference between what we have and what we need and used the surplus to help those in need? most of our population seems to be fat. we overeat enough to feed a small country no denying that.



No, there's no denying that obesity is a problem (though I think the media plays it up).  However, like I said before, plenty of food (and other products and services) does go the poor.  I hope you don't mean that we should give our food to other countries, do you?


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

I'd just like to take this moment to say, "Go fuck yourself".

You should be so very fucking lucky that there are rules for mods that prevent me from banning you right now.



Big Smoothy said:


> I like to take it in the ass from a donkey.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 13, 2007)

Why is this such a shitfest? The guy is trying to do good things. Is intentions are probably not a 100% pure, but he is trying to do good things. You can't say that about many politicians, and I think it is admirable. Maybe everyone could try ot get away from the partisan bullshit long enough to give a round of applause to a man that is trying to do good things...or you can keep bashing him because he doesn't play for the team you root for.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 13, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Why is this such a shitfest? The guy is trying to do good things. Is intentions are probably not a 100% pure, but he is trying to do good things. You can't say that about many politicians, and I think it is admirable. Maybe everyone could try ot get away from the partisan bullshit long enough to give a round of applause to a man that is trying to do good things...or you can keep bashing him because he doesn't play for the team you root for.



the guy may be trying to do good things. im not entirely sold on that yet.  the point is its hard to get behind a guy when his intentions are in questions. the guy seems fake to me. that very well could be my false perception, but its hard to shake that this guy is using global warming not for any altruistic beliefs but for personal benifit on the national and world stage. he comes off as an actor.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> This is a point rarely mentioned today.
> 
> Hitler used the attack on _Russia_ (Operation Barbarossa) as a pre-emptive attack.  German radio stations consistently broadcast to the German public that the USSR was building weaponry, and amassing tanks at its border along Eastern Europe.  The Hitler Media (Goebels) constantly warned the public of the threat of "Bolshevist expansionism" into Eastern Europe, and of course the threat to Germany.  The fact is, Staling couldn't have done this if he wanted to.  He didn't have the resources, production (he was industrializing at the time) and Russia was recovering from the massive famines of the early 30s.  This was part of the reason for the non-agression treaty Stalin signed with Germany.  Russia was weak.
> 
> Operation Barbarossa was an act _not_ an act of pre-emption - but the German public was consistently told that it was.



didnt bolshevist expansionism eventually take over eastern europe?  and id just like to say screw your picture of not supporting our troops.


----------



## brogers (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> This is a point rarely mentioned today.
> 
> Hitler used the attack on _Russia_ (Operation Barbarossa) as a pre-emptive attack. German radio stations consistently broadcast to the German public that the USSR was building weaponry, and amassing tanks at its border along Eastern Europe. The Hitler Media (Goebels) constantly warned the public of the threat of "Bolshevist expansionism" into Eastern Europe, and of course the threat to Germany. The fact is, Staling couldn't have done this if he wanted to. He didn't have the resources, production (he was industrializing at the time) and Russia was recovering from the massive famines of the early 30s. This was part of the reason for the non-agression treaty Stalin signed with Germany. Russia was weak.
> 
> Operation Barbarossa was an act _not_ an act of pre-emption - but the German public was consistently told that it was.


 
Mutually Assured Destruction worked against the Soviets, because they were atheists, and wanted to live.  Our current enemies are members of a death cult, which glorify martyrdom and think they will be rewarded in paradise with 72 virgins if they die.  MAD does not work, pre-emption is the only way.  Don't bother saying "saddam wouldn't give them to terrorists" or "saddam said he didn't have any weapons" yadda yadda, because that's a chance that the American people were unwilling to take after 9/11.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

brogers said:


> Mutually Assured Destruction worked against the Soviets, because they were atheists, and wanted to live.  Our current enemies are members of a death cult, which glorify martyrdom and think they will be rewarded in paradise with 72 virgins if they die.  MAD does not work, pre-emption is the only way.  Don't bother saying "saddam wouldn't give them to terrorists" or "saddam said he didn't have any weapons" yadda yadda, because that's a chance that the American people were unwilling to take after 9/11.



A solid piece of logic.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I'd just like to take this moment to say, "Go fuck yourself".
> 
> You should be so very fucking lucky that there are rules for mods that prevent me from banning you right now.





> I'd just like to take this moment to say, "Go fuck yourself".
> 
> You should be so very fucking lucky that there are rules for mods that prevent me from banning you right now.



*DOMS:*

What did I say?

What did I do?

You are one of my favorite posters.

I do NOT understand what you are talking about.

As a mod you should have rules, but why do you say what you say?

Please respond in public and send me a PM.




Why?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 13, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> didnt bolshevist expansionism eventually take over eastern europe?



No, it didn't.

It was STALINISM.

Because the Germans invaded the USSR.

If Hitler didn't invade, Stalin you never have gone west into Europe.

Napolean made the same mistake in 1812.  Read your history books. 

Napolean and Hitler were like two peas in a pod.




> and id just like to say screw your picture of not supporting our troops.



You are welcome to have your opinion.

You support Al-hakim, I do not.


----------



## danny81 (Oct 13, 2007)

o god. little wing being poor in america isnt bad at all. im poor in america and have internet connection lol.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 13, 2007)

but you make 65K a year.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 13, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> the guy may be trying to do good things. im not entirely sold on that yet.  the point is its hard to get behind a guy when his intentions are in questions. the guy seems fake to me. that very well could be my false perception, but its hard to shake that this guy is using global warming not for any altruistic beliefs but for personal benifit on the national and world stage. he comes off as an actor.




You can thank Al Gore for having this nice thing we call the Internet. No he did not invent it, but he had a vision for how important data communication was and pushed for funding when nobody else gave a shit. It would have come eventually, but Gore got it off the ground at least 15 years earlier for us. 

You can also thank him for many other good pieces of legislation that he pushed because he had a vision. Is the guy sound fake and a terribly uncharismatic? Hell yes! He has the leadership skills of a gerbil. But he has had good ideas, and he has done good things. 

Give the man a little bit of credit for his efforts.


By the way, and I am sure most of you already know I am nonpartisan. I didn't vote for Gore, but I wish I had in hindsight. I voted republican and boy am I kicking myself in the ass now.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> If Hitler didn't invade, Stalin you never have gone west into Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i find that a very difficult opinion to back up. both opinons


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> You need to understand that if, in this country, you're starving, it's because you _choose,_ even if it's through inaction, to be that way.  You're correct, no one should starve in this country.  And no one has too.  There are countless organizations that will give a homeless person food, clothing, and a place to stay the night.  Plus there are plenty of organizations that will try to help you get a job and get off the streets (try to find that in Mexico or South Africa!).
> 
> As a child, there were times when I didn't have food for a day or two.  That wasn't because I couldn't get access to food or other assistance, it was because of my mother.  She was far too proud to take a handout.  She grew up rich and, as a poor person, refused to accept charity.  She wouldn't even use food stamps.  She insisted that we make it, or break it, on our own.
> 
> ...




i'm saying if our "standard of living" wasn't such a joke because so many americans are greedy pigs, or just plain stupid enough to think they need a mansion, private jet, etc or a dvd player more than food we would see also in this lesson that we have enough to share with those less fortunate and yes i do mean give away our food. i think it takes a pretty much worthless human being to covet 10 pairs of nikes and never once stop to consider donating the old ones to a clothing bank rather than donating them to a church or shelter. 

it takes a pretty shitty government to be more concerned with how much money goes in the fat cat's pockets than how capable our schools are to teach our children or making sure families can afford health care. this country is full of people with a "mine, mine, mine" mentality. if that changes the good it would do would start to change the world. Al Gore is far from perfect but he is a step in the right direction at least. Simply honestly giving a shit and trying to do something good is more than we have in most politicians.

i live in a really poor area. this was once a thriving mill town and now one of two mills is in operation and running at i think 14% capacity. jobs are hard to come by and most people here are considered to be well below the poverty level. you should see the clothes, food, school supplies etc this area sends over seas or sent to the victims of hurricane katrina. if we all thought we needed swimming pools and bass boats it wouldn't happen. 

The New Heroes | PBS is inspiring. every person that is big enough to care beyond the borders of their life and their country is a good thing. too many people everywhere are just little piggies going to market concerned with nothing more than what they can fit on their plate.  it's nice to see that  amidst  the crowds of spiritually  blind there _are_ some people that envision a better world for everyone and put their actions where their heart is. 

i love being an American and this country has so many good hearted people. then you have your shit for brains like Georgie Bush that ruin our reputation with the rest of the world. people like him create political apathy. the American people are giving up on even participating in elections because the level of people we have to choose from makes it damned if we do damned if we don't. for the most parts our politicians are self centered fucks so why bother... one guy is Gomer Pyle enough to be , I think,  sincere  enough  to  actually want to make things better and people would just as soon wipe their ass with him rather than allow him a few faults no matter that he is still a better guy at heart than the rest.

and no _child_ chooses to starve. his parents make that decision for him in this country and too many people refuse to stand up for a child they know needs intervention. that'd be social apathy i guess. there is an old saying that you can judge the wealth of a society by how it cares for it's weakest members. maybe they should revise it to you can tell the "heart" of a people by how it takes care of it's weakest members. ours would be our children and the government doesn't even care to educate them properly because that would cost too much. i'm not about to shit on any man i see trying to change things for the better. perfect or not.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 13, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> i'm saying if our "standard of living" wasn't such a joke because so many americans are greedy pigs, or just plain stupid enough to think they need a mansion, private jet, etc or a dvd player more than food we would see also in this lesson that we have enough to share with those less fortunate and yes i do mean give away our food. i think it takes a pretty much worthless human being to covet 10 pairs of nikes and never once stop to consider donating the old ones to a clothing bank rather than donating them to a church or shelter.
> 
> it takes a pretty shitty government to be more concerned with how much money goes in the fat cat's pockets than how capable our schools are to teach our children or making sure families can afford health care. this country is full of people with a "mine, mine, mine" mentality. if that changes the good it would do would start to change the world. Al Gore is far from perfect but he is a step in the right direction at least. Simply honestly giving a shit and trying to do something good is more than we have in most politicians.
> 
> ...



LW i find most of your posts insightful, yet on this topic i can go only so far in supporting  you. i feel america does a lot as far as giving to the poor. both by private donations and by our government.  im sure many of us on this board as well as yourself have spent time, money, effort to help those as less fortunate as ourselvess.  when people go hungry, when children lack for warmth the problem comes down to economics. getting the goods,/services needed to the right people at the right time. our system isnt perfect, yet i believe it does a lot to help those in need. churches donating, private organizations, and government assistance all contribute to the needs of others


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> and no _child_ chooses to starve. his parents make that decision for him in this country and too many people refuse to stand up for a child they know needs intervention. that'd be social apathy i guess. there is an old saying that you can judge the wealth of a society by how it cares for it's weakest members. maybe they should revise it to you can tell the "heart" of a people by how it takes care of it's weakest members. ours would be our children and the government doesn't even care to educate them properly because that would cost too much.



There's a balance that needs to be struck when trying to rule people's personal lives.  As for not doing anything?  There are child services in every state.  They are thousands of organizations whose sole existence is to help poor children.  And that's just some of what we do.  I wouldn't say that we're not trying to help them.



Little Wing said:


> i'm not about to shit on any man i see trying to change things for the better. perfect or not.



So it makes perfect sense to waste money by trying to incorrectly solve a problem that's been misdiagnosed?  I assume that you're referring to Al Gore?


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> LW i find most of your posts insightful, yet on this topic i can go only so far in supporting  you. i feel america does a lot as far as giving to the poor. both by private donations and by our government.  im sure many of us on this board as well as yourself have spent time, money, effort to help those as less fortunate as ourselvess.  when people go hungry, when children lack for warmth the problem comes down to economics. getting the goods,/services needed to the right people at the right time. our system isnt perfect, yet i believe it does a lot to help those in need. churches donating, private organizations, and government assistance all contribute to the needs of others



Thank you!

And it's not just organizations or the government.  Every Christmas for the last five years, I've found a family that wont have a Christmas for one reason or another.  So I put the family (adults included) presents and a gift certificate for a turkey.  I wrap them up and drop them off.  Twice by putting them on the steps, ringing the doorbell and then taking off.

When people say that "American's don't care for each other", that just pisses on my efforts.  Not that I'm going to stop because someone else likes being a pessimist.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Thank you!
> 
> And it's not just organizations or the government.  Every Christmas for the last five years, I've found a family that wont have a Christmas for one reason or another.  So I put the family (adults included) presents and a gift certificate for a turkey.  I wrap them up and drop them off.  Twice by putting them on the steps, ringing the doorbell and then taking off.
> 
> When people say that "American's don't care for each other", that just pisses on my efforts.  Not that I'm going to stop because someone else likes being a pessimist.



that would be the part where i said this country has so many good people and gave the example of my town giving so much despite the fact we don't have much to start with. 

i honestly feel though that more people turn their backs than don't and depend on the other guy to be the ones that actually do the good deeds. and i honestly feel too many good men stand silent in the face of evil. i have seen first hand the corruption that undermines the efforts of agencies designed to help the poor. a few years back the head of the department of human services in maine tucked tail and ran when millions of dollars couldn't be accounted for. and it doesn't end there.

a social worker duct taped a little girls head with 40 feet of duct tape and left her to suffocate in a trash filled basement. when sexual abuse happens in a foster home it is seldom prosecuted for fear the money pump foster care is will be dry up. my son was knocked out and locked in the dark in his school and the woman that actually pressed on is chest hard enough to bruise his spine on the floor rendering incapable of breathing long enough for him to lose consciousness   held a higher position at that school the following year. i proved beyond any doubt that all he had done was not remove his coat and lowered his head and became unresponsive while being yelled at. the fact that the police in my town supported me and wanted something done because other kids were reporting similar treatment there meant nothing. that it costs too much to take on the legal defense available to a teacher stood in the way of justice. 

the powers that be tell us "you can't fight city hall" and we accept it "baaaaa" i believe if we refused to accept that we cannot move our communities and our governments beyond corruption this country would be a better place.

and yes a balance needs to be struck. i think Gore simply feels the importance of getting his message out there justifies the things that allow him to do it on a grand enough scale to get it heard now. we're getting ready to spend over a billion dollars in public awareness campaigns and coupons  concerning the switch to digital tv. wtf? what about our schools here not having science part of the year so they can concentrate on their shitty math performance? maybe the government wants a population that can't do math 

what politicians do you think you'd like to have represent you? who's perfect?


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> *DOMS:*
> 
> What did I say?
> 
> ...



So, you're not the asshole who said they want American troops to die?  You're not the one whose sig was a "Support our troops" ribbon with a red slash trough it?  You're not the one that talks often made up shit about my country?  You're not the one that said that the 3,000 people that died on 9/11 are no big deal?

You're not the one that wrote:



Big Smoothy said:


> Of course not.
> 
> But there won't be a draft.
> 
> ...



and?



Big Smoothy said:


> yes, 3K is nothing.
> 
> And again, no there won't be a draft.
> 
> ...



So, like I said before: *Go fuck yourself!*


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> So, you're not the asshole who said they want American troops to die?  You're not the one whose sig was a "Support our troops" ribbon with a red slash trough it?  You're not the one that talks often made up shit about my country?  You're not the one that said that the 3,000 people that died on 9/11 are no big deal?
> 
> You're not the one that wrote:
> 
> ...


----------



## danny81 (Oct 13, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> but you make 65K a year.



umm no.and stop talking shit online its pussy


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS,

Those are my opinions.  If you disagree, then you can debate me on the _issues._

Personal jabs are made when one is losing a debate on an issue.  


Yes, I think the _number_ of casualties in 9/11 of 2,967 is a very small number.  These numbers are very small.  I've repeatedly posts that I think the attacks were horrific and wouldn't with them on anyone.  Same as the Vietnam war.  58,000 Americans casualties, compared to 3 million Vietnamese - but we have a wall in Washington, DC to "honor" or pay "respect" to the teenagers that went there.  

Many of the Americans in Iraq seem to be very poorly read about Iraqi history, politics, culture.  If they were educated, they wouldn't be in Iraq.  Statistics support this.  It' not negative.  But it is reality.  The U.S. government does not want educated people in these foreign escapades.  The more knowledgeable people are, the more questions they might ask.

I've also told you before, I support the Sunni insurgents that are trying to defend themselves against the Dawa party and Al-maliki and Al-hakim government. (Sayyed Moqtadad Al-sadr recently pulled out of the government.)  If you support Shiite Islam and an alliance with Iran, DOMS, you're free to have that opinion. Whether you can explain it is another matter.  You are a poor debater who uses little to no facts.  This is why you personally attack people.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

There's nothing to debate.  You hope for the deaths of American soldiers.

End of story.

And be very thankful for the rules that mods go by.  And watch yourself, because *I* will be...




Big Smoothy said:


> DOMS,
> 
> Those are my opinions.  If you disagree, then you can debate me on the _issues._
> 
> ...


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> There's nothing to debate.  You hope for the deaths of American soldiers.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> And be very thankful for the rules that mods go by.  And watch yourself, because *I* will be...



You make me laugh.

I AM  a MODERATOR on another forum.  It's not a power trip, DOMS.

I break no rules here on IM.  I read more than I post.  I don't troll.  I contribute to discussion.


You make me laugh.  Oh, wow.  *you* will....be....watching me.

I don't break the rules here, DOM.

Watch all you want. 

You are the one that just told me to "go f*ck myself."  

And you're free to have that opinion.  I won't respond to kiddie posts like that directly.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> You make me laugh.
> 
> I AM  a MODERATOR on another forum.  It's not a power trip, DOMS.
> 
> ...



Power trip?  You're that asshat that write "am" and "moderator" in uppercase.  If I were on a power trip, you're ass would be gone.

Like I said elsewhere, until that day comes, I'm going to point out how much of a piece of shit you are.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS,

I'll offer to make a deal with you.  It's up to you.

I won't respond to your posts, and you don't respond to mine.  

Fair.  I don't want to fight and argue.


----------



## busyLivin (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Like I said elsewhere, until that day comes, I'm going to point out how much of a piece of shit you are.



Probably not necessary Doms.. that fact is glaring.


----------



## busyLivin (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I don't want to fight and argue.



That's exactly what you want.  Your signature alone is an invitation for an argument. It's sad, really.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 13, 2007)

busyLivin said:


> That's exactly what you want.  Your signature alone is an invitation for an argument. It's sad, really.



No.  I don't want to fight at all.  I use this signature on 3 other forums.  No one has made a comment about except for the few that agree.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> No.  I don't want to fight at all.  I use this signature on 3 other forums.  *No one has made a comment* about except for the few that agree.



Another dumbfuck post.  Both busyLivin and myself mentioned it.

Dumb ass.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> No.  I don't want to fight at all.  I use this signature on 3 other forums.  No one has made a comment about except for the few that agree.


 

a few said they agree but the silent majority probably thinks like i do. there is a huge difference between not supporting the war and not supporting our troops. not supporting the war is fine, but your sig is your asshat. my silence doesn't mean i don't agree with every word DOMS is saying. he is speaking for a lot of us that are subject to looking at your affront to our soldiers.


----------



## busyLivin (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> No.  I don't want to fight at all.  I use this signature on 3 other forums.  No one has made a comment about except for the few that agree.



I can assure you it's pissing people off, and don't believe for a second that that wasn't your intention.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> a few said they agree but the silent majority probably thinks like i do. there is a huge difference between not supporting the war and not supporting our troops. not supporting the war is fine, but your sig is your asshat.



It's not just that he doesn't support the troops, it's that he wants them to die.



Big Smoothy said:


> Of course not.
> 
> But there won't be a draft.
> 
> ...


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> It's not just that he doesn't support the troops, it's that he wants them to die.


well some of us wish no less a fate upon him.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> well some of us wish no less a fate upon him.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


>



good thing we're free to express ourselves in this country.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 13, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> a few said they agree but the silent majority probably thinks like i do. there is a huge difference between not supporting the war and not supporting our troops. not supporting the war is fine, but your sig is your asshat....he is speaking for a lot of us that are subject to looking at your affront to *our soldiers.*



They are not "our soldiers."

The don't represent _us._

They are representing Wolfowitz, Hadley, Richard Perle, and that small club called the PNAC.

If you support the troops, you support Shiite Islam and Iran.  Period.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> good thing we're free to express ourselves in this country.



No doubt.  Whenever I hear someone in this country talk about the government and use words like fascist and oppressive, I really wish they'd have to spend a year in a country that really is like that.  So that they'd know what it's really like and realize how much they're belittling the people that really have to live in those conditions.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 13, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> a few said they agree but the silent majority probably thinks like i do. there is a huge difference between not supporting the war and not supporting our troops. not supporting the war is fine, but your sig is your asshat. my silence doesn't mean i don't agree with every word DOMS is saying. he is speaking for a lot of us that are subject to looking at your affront to our soldiers.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> They are not "our soldiers."
> 
> The don't represent _us._
> 
> ...



they are *our* fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers... and if you believe in what you are saying so much why don't the rest of us pitch in and buy you a ticket and you can go join the insurgents and snipers instead of sitting there like a pussy n shooting off nothing but your mouth.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 13, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> they are *our* fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers... and if you believe in what you are saying so much why don't the rest of us pitch in and buy you a ticket and you can go join the insurgents and snipers instead of sitting there like a pussy n shooting off nothing but your mouth.



I offered to pay for his ticket here, and back (if he lived), so that he could go to a nearby military bar and share his opinions with the people there.

He didn't take me up on the offer.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> They are not "our soldiers."
> 
> The don't represent _us._
> 
> ...



that is quite possibly the biggest load of crap i have ever read on this site. you take the cake for crazy, wacked out agenda posting individuals whose only goal is to stir up dust instead of add to the discussion.  dare i say we have another john h arch-type on this forum?

no they represent America and Americans. they wear our flag on there uniforms. they place their lives on the line and many of them die serving in the military for the United States. They follow the orders of officers who follow a chain of command that leads to our elected officials. officials, who, for better or worse were chosen by the populace of this country.  yes, our soldiers in uniform serving at home and abroad are our representatives.

and so, the question must be asked.  you keep saying that any educated student on iraq's history would never have gone into iraq.  so since you are the self proclaimed expert on this, our humble little forum.  tell us all wise one what the middle east answer is? for of course like a Moses leading the children of Israel, you must have all of the answers.  of course since your knowlege is so much greater than our own you are prepared to lead the way into peace and harmony.

just a friendly suggestion stick to the other forum.


----------



## vortrit (Oct 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Another dumbfuck post.  Both busyLivin and myself mentioned it.
> 
> Dumb ass.








YouTube Video











It's Big Smoothy's theme song.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 13, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> no they represent America and Americans. they wear our flag on there uniforms. they place their lives on the line and many of them die serving in the military for the United States. They follow the orders of officers who follow a chain of command that leads to our elected officials. officials, who, for better or worse were chosen by the populace of this country.  yes, our soldiers in uniform serving at home and abroad are our representatives.



^ That is the propaganda bio-chem.  Propaganda.  This is how you get the masses to support the use of military force to achieve _economic goals._ 

Of course they wear the flag.  Yes, they follow orders.  But who gives the orders:  Richard Perle and his cabal of 30 people.  



> and so, the question must be asked.  you keep saying that any educated student on iraq's history would never have gone into iraq.



Some would have realized the difficulties involved.  Read what Churchill wrote 80 yeas ago about Iraq.  It's a bit chilling.  Cheney stated in a video taped interview (go to youtube) about the quagmire that would likely happen.  




> what the middle east answer is?



Staying out militarily, cutting all aid to Muslim nations and Israel, and only doing commerce (trade).  Many of today's problems go back to the CIA coup that overthrew Mohamed Mossadegh in 1953.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 13, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> they wear our flag on there uniforms. they place their lives on the line and many of them die serving in the military for the United States. They follow the orders of officers who follow a chain of command that leads to our elected officials.



Here is a quote from Herman Goering:

*....The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
 leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
 attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
 exposing the country to greater danger."    -- Herman Goering at the
 Nuremberg trials*


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> Here is a quote from Herman Goering:
> 
> *....The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
> leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
> ...



i'm sorry was this supposed to prove a point? yet we were attacked. i know i saw it on tv. 3000 people died and two buildings were lost. or is that all of my imagination.  

by the way, how does this prove that these soldiers do not represent us?


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 13, 2007)

do mods get to have tasers?

and btw, just cuz we are all gathered here, i found the pic i wanted to post in the taser thread.

this is for all the people that bitched about how the cops handled that idiot after he made it clear he was there to make trouble


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 13, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> do mods get to have tasers?



only if they get tasered first. then they get to use one without restraint or oversight.

in this case i vote doms gets to use one anyways


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 13, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> only if they get tasered first. then they get to use one without restraint or oversight.
> 
> in this case i vote doms gets to use one anyways



and if this weren't the United States DOMS would get a machete instead?


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 14, 2007)

danny81 said:


> umm no.and stop talking shit online its pussy



I kindly reply with a no.

How about you stop laying down the bullshit a foot deep.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I support the insurgents.  I support road-side bombs.  I support snipers.
> 
> uneducated, poorly read, no knowledge of Iraqi history,
> 
> they deserve what they get.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 14, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> and if this weren't the United States DOMS would get a machete instead?



Here's something that I actually wrote in a PM when I was asked to be a mod.

"How about a tazer?  I can see it now, BigDyl saying, "Don't taz me, bro!" "


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> Staying out militarily, cutting all aid to Muslim nations and Israel, and only doing commerce (trade).  Many of today's problems go back to the CIA coup that overthrew Mohamed Mossadegh in 1953.



Most of what you say flys over peoples heads.  They have no idea about the 53' coup, and yet they ignore what you say and continue to repeat mainstream mantra's.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 14, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Most of what you say flys over peoples heads.  They have no idea about the 53' coup, and yet they ignore what you say and continue to repeat mainstream mantra's.



completly untrue. americans are not dumb sheep that are easily letad by politicians where ever they want us to go. such a cynical view.  we are all well aware that we have had an interest in the middle east since oil was discovered there in the 30's. our government had meddled in other countries affairs for a long time now. the record is established and no one denies it.  hell not only am i aware of it, i support it. i want our government doing whatever it takes keep america strong.  i also have no desire to let israel go it alone. they should be supported by us. they are valuable allies and leaving them isolated while surrounded by every single middle east country who is sworn to their destruction is not ok in my book


----------



## goob (Oct 14, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> completly untrue. americans are not dumb sheep that are easily letad by politicians where ever they want us to go. such a cynical view. we are all well aware that we have had an interest in the middle east since oil was discovered there in the 30's. our government had meddled in other countries affairs for a long time now. the record is established and no one denies it. hell not only am i aware of it, i support it*.* i want our government doing whatever it takes keep america strong. i also have no desire to let israel go it alone. they should be supported by us. they are valuable allies and leaving them isolated while surrounded by every single middle east country who is sworn to their destruction is not ok in my book


 
Israel is 90% of the problem. The blind support shown to them, who are often the aggressors in the region, goes someway towards the hostlity shown towards the US. But, to withdraw support would see them certainly destroyed.



> ...our government had meddled in other countries affairs for a long time now. the record is established and no one denies it. hell not only am i aware of it, i support it


 
..and that in a nutshell, is why most countries despise the US.  Even allies in Europe hate this.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 14, 2007)

goob said:


> who are often the aggressors in the region



So completely wrong.


----------



## danny81 (Oct 14, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> I kindly reply with a no.
> 
> How about you stop laying down the bullshit a foot deep.



im not u moron.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 14, 2007)

Sorry I can't understand ebonics.


----------



## vortrit (Oct 14, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Sorry I can't understand ebonics.



Ebonics Translator


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 14, 2007)

vortrit said:


> Ebonics Translator



Awesome thanks



danny81 said:


> I am a moron.



Seems to work quite well.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 14, 2007)

goob said:


> Israel is 90% of the problem. The blind support shown to them, who are often the aggressors in the region, goes someway towards the hostlity shown towards the US. But, to withdraw support would see them certainly destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> ..and that in a nutshell, is why most countries despise the US.  Even allies in Europe hate this.



i agree that the very state of Israel is a cause of contention in the region.  but it does exist and it should continue to exist with our support.

israel has rarely if ever been the agressor.  from the hour of the creation of their country they have been under attack.  it should be noted that separate states for palestine arabs and jews were originally created in the UN charter, however this was not acceptable to the arabs who attacked thinking to wipe out the israel state and have the land for themselves. 

 oh yea, they lost and that is why there has been so much problem. the palestinians want land to call theirs as well.  sounds reasonable, until you understand it in context that they got gready, started a war, and subsequently lost their land in that war.

Israel are our cousins and we should support them without question.


----------



## danny81 (Oct 14, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Awesome thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to work quite well.



ur a faggit just stfu


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 14, 2007)

danny81 said:


> im not u moron.



dont be stupid kid. ian is a smart guy that is easy to get along with. dont screw yourself with foolish childhood pride


----------



## danny81 (Oct 14, 2007)

hes not ez to get along with hes an asshole to me for no fucking reason.


----------



## brogers (Oct 14, 2007)

goob said:


> Israel is 90% of the problem. The blind support shown to them, who are often the aggressors in the region, goes someway towards the hostlity shown towards the US. But, to withdraw support would see them certainly destroyed.


 
You're a moron, let me show you why with your own quotes:



> Israel is 90% of the problem. The blind support shown to them, who are often the aggressors in the region


 


> to withdraw support would see them certainly destroyed.


 
So, they are the aggressors, but their neighbors would gladly destroy them if they thought they could? Here's the truth: If Israel laid down all of it's weapons and disbanded the IDF, they would be annihlated. If Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran laid down their weapons and disbanded their militaries, there would be peace. Israel could wipe them out right now if they wanted to. They show ENORMOUS restraint, constantly, just like we do. They've fought off three of their 'unaggressive' neighbors (Jordan, Syria, and Egypt) at the same time with a massively favorable causalty ratio.

Israel is a free country, Israel does not publically whip or execute people who break Sharia law. Israel does not use suicide bombers. Israel does not dress up it's toddlers with suicide vests to take pictures in for propaganda. Israel does not glorify death and martyrdom. Israel does not teach its children in school and on TV that muslims come from pigs and apes. Israel creates, produces, and invents. This is the complete opposite of their neighbors.

Being just isn't always popular, FYI.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 14, 2007)

brogers said:


> So, they are the aggressors, but their neighbors would gladly destroy them if they thought they could?  Here's the truth:  If Israel laid down all of it's weapons and disbanded the IDF, they would be annihlated.  If Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran laid down their weapons and disbanded their militaries, there would be peace.  Israel could wipe them out right now if they wanted to.  They show ENORMOUS restraint, constantly, just like we do.  They've fought off three of their 'unaggressive' neighbors (Jordan, Syria, and Egypt) at the same time with a massively favorable causalty ratio.
> 
> Israel is a free country, Israel does not publically whip or execute people who break Sharia law.  Israel does not use suicide bombers.  Israel does not dress up it's toddlers with suicide vests to take pictures in for propaganda.  Israel does not glorify death and martyrdom.  Israel does not teach its children in school and on TV that muslims come from pigs and apes.  Israel creates, produces, and invents.  This is the complete opposite of their neighbors.





Well said (except for the moron bit).

And Israel beat all three of those nations in 6 days.  They destroyed 99% of Egypt's aircraft while they were still on the ground.


----------



## brogers (Oct 14, 2007)

A quick FYI, the 'peaceful' retards in Hamas and Fatah in the West Bank are killing each other on a daily basis. They're all members of a death cult, just with different names.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 14, 2007)

brogers said:


> A quick FYI, the 'peaceful' retards in Hamas and Fatah in the West Bank are killing each other on a daily basis. They're all members of a death cult, just with different names.



Didn't the Palestinians try to do a real cease-fire with the Israelis, but they ended up having to fight Hamas because Hamas wouldn't stop the killing?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Didn't the Palestinians try to do a real cease-fire with the Israelis, but they ended up having to fight Hamas because Hamas wouldn't stop the killing?



yes


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 14, 2007)

danny81 said:


> ur a faggit just stfu



I am the fag....

The guy with 2 kids.... Interesting logic there.  Guess those ebonics pay off.

You sir are a boy genius.  Keep at it.


----------



## clemson357 (Oct 14, 2007)

Al made millions off a movie about a theory promoted as fact.  Then he promoted science by saying people can't dissent from my opinion because they aren't in line with the "consensus."  He definitely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 14, 2007)

clemson357 said:


> Al made millions off a movie about a theory promoted as fact. Then he promoted science by saying people can't dissent from my opinion because they aren't in line with the "consensus." He definitely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## brogers (Oct 14, 2007)

clemson357 said:


> Al made millions off a movie about a theory promoted as fact. Then he promoted science by saying people can't dissent from my opinion because they aren't in line with the "consensus." He definitely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.


 
Don't forget use of the term "Global Warming denier" as if you're on par with denying the holocaust.  Oh, and that you have to be in the pockets of evil "Big Oil" to disagree.  Al even scolded the media for allowing a small amount of airtime to "Global Warming Deniers" and told them not to put on the opposing view.


----------



## clemson357 (Oct 14, 2007)

brogers said:


> Don't forget use of the term "Global Warming denier" as if you're on par with denying the holocaust.  Oh, and that you have to be in the pockets of evil "Big Oil" to disagree.  Al even scolded the media for allowing a small amount of airtime to "Global Warming Deniers" and told them not to put on the opposing view.



yeah, Dems aren't big on the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 14, 2007)

hell. i'm probably one of the oldest people on im and i have 50 years to wait n see if this global warming thing come to fruition. so let's just wait and see. it seems to me than if there is a forest fire in canada and i can smell it here like it happened down the street the amount of impact  all of the cars, factories, people heating their homes, etc must make _some_ impact on the world. it is also undeniable that the earth is capable of unimaginable changes without the influence of man. there's no need to be too much of an alarmist but there's no need to pretend man doesn't have a negative impact on the environment either. unless you just want to keep raping the planet with no regard for future generations. 

it's not our fault their are continents in different places than they used to be, we didn't cause the mountains to rise up or put deserts where there once were seas and vice versa, but the pollution we cause and our contribution to the exhaustion of natural resources are not a natural occurrence these things fall directly on our shoulders. will we bear the responsibility like men or deny it like swine? either way we will reap what we sow.


----------



## brogers (Oct 14, 2007)

Pollution of the air isn't a natural occurence?

Are you familar with Volcanoes?  Animals?  Decaying foliage?  Termites?


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 14, 2007)

brogers said:


> Pollution of the air isn't a natural occurence?
> 
> Are you familar with Volcanoes?  Animals?  Decaying foliage?  Termites?



lame  ok i fixed it for you

but the pollution we cause and our contribution to the exhaustion of natural resources

i supposed if a girl told you to eat her pussy you'd assume she meant for you to actually chew n swallow it and she'd have to clarify that for you also


----------



## DOMS (Oct 14, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> hell. i'm probably one of the oldest people on im and i have 50 years to wait n see if this global warming thing come to fruition. so let's just wait and see. it seems to me than if there is a forest fire in canada and i can smell it here like it happened down the street the amount of impact  all of the cars, factories, people heating their homes, etc must make _some_ impact on the world. it is also undeniable that the earth is capable of unimaginable changes without the influence of man. there's no need to be too much of an alarmist but there's no need to pretend man doesn't have a negative impact on the environment either. unless you just want to keep raping the planet with no regard for future generations.
> 
> it's not our fault their are continents in different places than they used to be, we didn't cause the mountains to rise up or put deserts where there once were seas and vice versa, but the pollution we cause and our contribution to the exhaustion of natural resources are not a natural occurrence these things fall directly on our shoulders. will we bear the responsibility like men or deny it like swine? either way we will reap what we sow.



You're doing what Gore and his minions are doing.  You're mixing in real threats of pollution and resource depletion with the crappy, pulled-out-of-my-ass, _*all *_man-made global warming.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 14, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> i supposed if a girl told you to eat her pussy you'd assume she meant for you to actually chew n swallow it and she'd have to clarify that for you also



are you giving out tips?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> You're doing what Gore and his minions are doing.  You're mixing in real threats of pollution and resource depletion with the crappy, pulled-out-of-my-ass, _*all *_man-made global warming.



doesnt seem to me to be that way.

seems like she is argueing we should pay more attention to the enviornment because we do have an impact on it. that i believe in. Al Gore preaching to me about it so he can make a political move i cannot get behind


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> You're doing what Gore and his minions are doing.  You're mixing in real threats of pollution and resource depletion with the crappy, pulled-out-of-my-ass, _*all *_man-made global warming.



i know it's a big damn planet but it seems reasonable all the shit we do that just creates heat even would warm it some.    i live in maine and it's cold as hell here already, i really wouldn't mind walking outside and seeing a palm tree out there and having the weather that goes with it. people up here say "it must be that global freezing my ass off everyone is yapping about" 

*Ice shelf disruption*

 In the last several decades, glaciologist have observed consistent decreases in ice shelf extent through melt, calving, and complete disintegration of some shelves.
 The Ellesmere ice shelf reduced by 90 percent in the twentieth century, leaving the separate Alfred Ernest, Ayles, Milne, Ward Hunt, and Markham Ice Shelves. A 1986 survey of Canadian ice shelves found that 48 km². (3.3 cubic kilometers) of ice calved from the Milne and Ayles ice shelves between 1959 and 1974.[1] The Ayles Ice Shelf calved entirely on August 13, 2005. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the largest remaining section of thick (>10 m) land fast sea ice along the northern coastline of Ellesmere Island, lost 600 square km of ice in a massive calving in 1961-1962.[2] It further decreased by 27% in thickness (13 m) between 1967 and 1999.[3] In summer 2002, the Ward Ice Shelf experienced another major breakup. [4]
 Two sections of Antarctica's Larsen Ice Shelf broke apart into hundreds of unusually small fragments (100's of meters wide or less) in 1995 and 2002.
 The breakup events *may* be linked to the theoretical dramatic polar warming trends that are part of global warming.



i agree with "may" this might have nothing to do with man and it's stupid to think just cuz we are here the earth won't change unless we cause it, how arrogant, but i think the world is a dirtier, uglier place because of man and that  doing everything we can to leave it's remaining beauty to future generations is a noble thing. a lot of the global warming data makes it sound like bullshit. but if you have an open mind both sides makes some good points.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 14, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> are you giving out tips?



yes, tip # 1) exercise common sense while reading or otherwise processing information


----------



## DOMS (Oct 14, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> i know it's a big damn planet but it seems reasonable all the shit we do that just creates heat even would warm it some.    i live in maine and it's cold as hell here already, i really wouldn't mind walking outside and seeing a palm tree out there and having the weather that goes with it. people up here say "it must be that global freezing my ass off everyone is yapping about"



No, you can't just assume that mankind can change the mean global temperature.  Well...you could, but that wouldn't be science. 





Little Wing said:


> *Ice shelf disruption*
> 
> In the last several decades, glaciologist have observed consistent decreases in ice shelf extent through melt, calving, and complete disintegration of some shelves.



This is one of my favorite global warming topics.  Because it's so easy to debunk man-made global warming with it.

You do realize that the arctic ice cap use to extend down to, what is today, the state of Wyoming, don't you?  Did you know that you state of Maine was _completely_ under a glacier 10,000 years ago?  That's when the polar ice caps started to recede.  That's just a bit before industrialization and SUVs.


----------



## brogers (Oct 14, 2007)

clemson357 said:


> yeah, Dems aren't big on the Bill of Rights.


 
Unless you want to make a private international phone call to Osama or Al-Zawahiri. They'll stand for that right.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> No, you can't just assume that mankind can change the mean global temperature.  Well...you could, but that wouldn't be science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



just because something happens without our being part of the cause doesn't mean we cannot then become *part* of the cause. 

hmm that guy was masturbating for years before he met her therefore it is *impossible* that her dancing around shaking her ass in his face has *any* influence on the fact he is masturbating now


----------



## vortrit (Oct 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> No, you can't just assume that mankind can change the mean global temperature.








YouTube Video











Before you ask, I have no point whatsoever.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 14, 2007)

that's a fucking great movie.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 14, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> yes, tip # 1) exercise common sense while reading or otherwise processing information


----------



## vortrit (Oct 14, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> that's a fucking great movie.



I'll agree with you on that 110%. I'm watching it right now.


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 14, 2007)

vortrit said:


> I'll agree with you on that 110%. I'm watching it right now.



i was 18 in '79 when it came out and there weren't 100 more like it. the audio was cutting edge for it's time too and the scene where the helicopters come in from the left over the treetops was uh, a very male moment. total testosterone.


----------



## vortrit (Oct 14, 2007)

Little Wing said:


> i was 18 in '79 when it came out and there weren't 100 more like it. the audio was cutting edge for it's time too and the scene where the helicopters come in from the left over the treetops was uh, a very male moment. total testosterone.



Yeah, great movie for the time. I'm watching the Redux Edition which I have on DVD. It has all of the origional scenes that they cut out for the movie. It's long as hell though.


----------



## Decker (Oct 15, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> so do you really believe this stuff you type or do you just get off typeing? bush refuses to rule out nuclear strike with iran. good. doesnt mean its going to happen. we have left that option on the table with every country in the world for 60 years and yet havent used them so i think ill say that im not too worried that bush hasnt taken it off the table. why take your best player off the field? just having him there opens up other possibilities.
> 
> so bitching about iraq is a starting point in dealing with iran? no need to go into detail with how wrong that it.
> 
> ...


The reason that the Iraq is so important to Iran is that the US's occupation of Iraq is illegitimate.

Why is that important? B/c if a country attacks another country and that use of force is not exercised in self defense, defense of another or defense of our property, that is a crime...a war crime...a crime against humanity.

It is the difference btn self defense and murder.  And it lays the groundwork killing diplomacy. 

Iran can enrich all the uranium it wants for domestic purposes.

As for the Iranians arming the insurgents allegations, the Caldwell evidence has already been debunked: an EFP factory was found in Iraq in April by troops during ???Operation Black Eagle,??? according to Army Spokesman Lt. Col Scott Bleichwehl. Also, EFPs were created by the Brits, not the Iranians.  So Iran is not necessarily arming the insurgents.

As for the WMD charge, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons. "The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, says it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use." http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html

So what do we really have here?:

1. Allegations of Iran's WMDs refuted by inspectors on the ground

2. Allegations that Iran is aiding and abetting our enemy with no supporting evidence

Boy oh boy does that sound familiar.

Where did we hear this before?


----------



## Decker (Oct 15, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> Doms just posted proof that weapons inspectors had been kicked out of iraq prior to us invading. or maybe it was you who posted proof and Doms pointed it out. it had nothing to do with fear and a desire to believe for me.
> 
> personally i consider sadam an evil individual and a good thing he is out of power regardless of the reasons for going in. hey much of the reasons for going in turned out to be false. everyone saw the same information and everyone agreed it was needed. it turned out to be wrong. we cant change that now. our information gatherers need to do a better job i agree. i dont consider evidence having been manufactured however and the point still stands we are there now and pointing fingers still doesnt solve the problem.
> 
> but you keep doing your thing and complaining we shouldnt be there in the first place and the rest of the world will still move on in this convoluted mess looking for an answer while you complain about something you cant change


Of course the WMD inspectors left Iraq before the attack:

1. they could have hung around and been killed in the invasion or

2. they could have listened to our government's advice: 
"Late last night... I was advised by the US Government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," the UN's chief nuclear weapons inspector Mohammed ElBaradei said on Monday. 
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Inspectors urged to leave Iraq


Everyone saw the same "evidence" that was prettied up by Powell and feith and passed off as incontrovertible.

Bush actively ignored any countervailing evidence to the "Iraq is a deadly WMD threat to the US" charade.

Bush based his most damning WMD allegations on what a con-man cab driver from Iraq said. Remember the insider Curveball? 

We went to war with Iraq largely b/c of the evidence Curveball provided.

On the "No WMD" side of the issue, we have *Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister*.

I would say he has a bit more credibility than Curveball the cab-driver, don't you?

And who in the hell does Bush think he is to disregard any countervailing evidence re the WMDs? He should be impeached on that basis alone.

You see biochem, we don't want to start wars if we don't have to start wars. War should never be the first option. It should be the last resort. All the death, destruction and loss and what not should be avoided if possible.

Don't you think?

"On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from *Naji Sabri*, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam's WMD programs. "The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn't, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons," one of the former CIA officers told me. 

On the eve of Sabri's appearance at the United Nations in September 2002 to present Saddam's case, the officer in charge of this operation met in New York with a "cutout" who had debriefed Sabri for the CIA. Then the officer flew to Washington, where he met with CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was "excited" about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri's information was at odds with "our best source." That source was code-named "Curveball," later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/print.html


----------



## Decker (Oct 15, 2007)

dg806 said:


> And why start this thread only to crack on Bush?


dg!  Always good to see you.

I am here to remind people what a true leader looks like and how the american public is not being served by the Uniter.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 15, 2007)

decker your lasts 2 posts show me you have now reached john h status.   i cant waste time with this thread anymore.  its not really needed for me to point out the flaws in your logic, as they are so obvious anyone even using a passing glance at your posts will be able to see the inconsistencies. 

good luck with that conspiracy stuff you have going on in your basement


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 15, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> decker your lasts 2 posts show me you have now reached john h status.   i cant waste time with this thread anymore.  its not really needed for me to point out the flaws in your logic, as they are so obvious anyone even using a passing glance at your posts will be able to see the inconsistencies.
> 
> good luck with that conspiracy stuff you have going on in your basement



The lies of politicians are nothing new.  I believe you can't disprove anything Decker said and so you take the easy way out with ad hominem attacks.

If someone claims that Bush lied about something, then you would call them a conspiracy theorist before acknowledging the evidence.  You are a true believer.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> If someone claims that Bush lied about something, then you would call them a conspiracy theorist before acknowledging the evidence.  You are a true believer.



Bush is a politician.  All politicians lie, even Gore.


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Bush is a politician.  All politicians lie, even Gore.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

Yeah, because it's in a JPG, it's gotta be true.  



NordicNacho said:


>


----------



## Decker (Oct 15, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> decker your lasts 2 posts show me you have now reached john h status. i cant waste time with this thread anymore. its not really needed for me to point out the flaws in your logic, as they are so obvious anyone even using a passing glance at your posts will be able to see the inconsistencies.
> 
> good luck with that conspiracy stuff you have going on in your basement


I fully expected you to cut and run.

Point out my flaws in logic.

Point out my inconsistencies.

I think I've been very consistent.

You are doing exactly what you are supposed to do: decry me as feeble and obviously outside the lines of reasonable debate. Then you run away without supporting your accusations or making any reasoned, fact-based argument of your own.

So good riddance Bud, you're not adding anything to the talk anyways.

However, if you want to discuss things like a man, I'll be here.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Yeah, because it's in a JPG, it's gotta be true.



You're saying no one died when Bush lied?


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

Decker said:


> I fully expected you to cut and run.
> 
> Point out my flaws in logic.
> 
> ...



Well, there were other sources beyond the one that you listed that indicated that Iraq had WMDs.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> You're saying no one died when Bush lied?



I've yet to see incontrovertible proof that he did lie.  The only thing that I've heard in that regard is people like you ranting.  I'm not saying that he didn't lie, I'm just saying that I haven't seen the proof yet.  And your "OMG there were no WMDs" rantings don't count.

But I was referring to the quote in the JPG.


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Bush is a politician.  All politicians lie, even Gore.




Maybe you should go to Iraq to find the truth.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


> Maybe you should go to Iraq to find the truth.



What "truth"?


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 15, 2007)

Does this sound like the Truth?






YouTube Video


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


> Does this sound like the Truth?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll have to wait until lunch to watch it with sound.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 15, 2007)

Wow, who would have known Cheney could see 10 years in to the future back then.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


> Does this sound like the Truth?



Well said on Cheney's part.  That still doesn't indicate that Bush lied.

I don't think that we should have stayed, either.


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 15, 2007)

YouTube Video











One of my favs.  Bush looking for the leaker.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I've yet to see incontrovertible proof that he did lie.  The only thing that I've heard in that regard is people like you ranting.  I'm not saying that he didn't lie, I'm just saying that I haven't seen the proof yet.  And your "OMG there were no WMDs" rantings don't count.
> 
> But I was referring to the quote in the JPG.




So you need incontrovertible proof of everything to believe anything?  Do you believe in God?


If you cut out the partisan bs for a moment and think about what someone said and what they did, with the ties they had, intentions they've had, and the access to resources second to none to know the truth... sometimes you don't need incontrovertible proof... you just need to take one look at the evidence and say "Wow, that's clearly BS."


----------



## Decker (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Well, there were other sources beyond the one that you listed that indicated that Iraq had WMDs.


Which sources were these?


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 15, 2007)

YouTube Video


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

Decker said:


> Which sources were these?



Saddam and Putin, to name two.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Saddam and Putin, to name two.



Very reliable indeed.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Very reliable indeed.



Saddam's desire that we believe that he had WMDs does count for a lot.  We thought that he had them (after all, we already gave him some), and he indicated that he did.  That does sound reasonable.

And Putin is suppose to be an ally.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Saddam's desire that we believe that he had WMDs does count for a lot.  We thought that he had them (after all, we already gave him some), and he indicated that he did.  That does sound reasonable.
> 
> And Putin is suppose to be an ally.



We never gave saddam nukes.  But if you mean all of the chemical and biological weapons we gave him to use against Iran, then yes, but they are way past expiration date.


----------



## Decker (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Saddam and Putin, to name two.


Unfortunately under UN Resolution 1441, they don't count for much.

Pres. Bush asked the UN to enforce Res. 1441 to make Iraq comply with that resolution.

Iraq did ultimately comply as to inspections and volunteering info re WMDs.

Bush ordered the attack anyways.

Obviously there's something grievously wrong with using force to enforce a resolution that is being complied with.

The Inspectors on the ground in Iraq were the best judges of whether Iraq had WMDs in violation of Res. 1441.

And even if Iraq had wall-to-wall WMDs, the US could not unilaterally attack Iraq. The UN Security Council had to give permission first.

It never gave such permission.


----------



## Decker (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Well said on Cheney's part. That still doesn't indicate that Bush lied.
> 
> I don't think that we should have stayed, either.


A lie can be an omission too.

*Naji Sabri,* Saddam's foreign minister told the CIA Saddam had no nukes or programs or such but the Whitehouse ignored that information.

The WH ran with Curveball's information that WMDs were everywhere in Iraq b/c it fit with what they wanted to do, namely attack Iraq.

Curveball was the cab-driver from Iraq that pretended to be an insider in the Hussein regime.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

Decker said:


> Iraq did ultimately comply as to inspections and volunteering info re WMDs.



This is very humorous. Even after 10 years, the inspectors will never got a 100% look around Iraq.  All Saddam did was agree to let them back in with promises of showing them everything (because he'd done so great in the last 10 years) *after *the US geared up to finish it.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 15, 2007)

Decker said:


> A lie can be an omission too.
> 
> *Naji Sabri,* Saddam's foreign minister told the CIA Saddam had no nukes or programs or such but the Whitehouse ignored that information.
> 
> ...



Why should they have acted on Sabri's intel?  Why should they have believed him?

Also, who is Curveball?


----------



## Decker (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Why should they have acted on Sabri's intel? Why should they have believed him?
> 
> Also, who is Curveball?


The WH ignored Sabri's information by not including it in ANY reports--so the Congress was not on the same page information-wise.

Curveball is the guy/informant who told the CIA about all the WMDs and WMD programs in Iraq. Curveball (informant) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The WMD inspectors and the germans (who originally found him) cautioned the US that he was at best unreliable and at worst, crazy.

Curveball's information laid the groundwork for Powell's WMD talk at the UN.

Why did the whitehouse run with the info from the crazy guy and ignore the Iraqi foreign minister's info?

I think you know why.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 15, 2007)

DOMS said:


> This is very humorous. Even after 10 years, the inspectors will never got a 100% look around Iraq.  All Saddam did was agree to let them back in with promises of showing them everything (because he'd done so great in the last 10 years) *after *the US geared up to finish it.



Not according to Scott Ritter.  Ritter was in Iraq for 6 years as chief weapons inspector of UNSCOM and published a report that accounts for 100% nuclear disarmament (they had none), and 99-100% of all chemical and biological weapons (virtually all accounted for).  However, anything that wasn't discovered that was given to them had long since expired.  These things have a shelf life after all.


----------



## Decker (Oct 15, 2007)

Sorry, guys, gotta run.


----------



## clemson357 (Oct 20, 2007)

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv


----------



## ZECH (Oct 21, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> I am the fag....
> 
> The guy with 2 kids.... Interesting logic there.  Guess those ebonics pay off.
> 
> You sir are a boy genius.  Keep at it.



If this post wasn't a week ago, he'd be gone now!


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 21, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> You're saying no one died when *Bush lied?*



Look at all of the people involved in this converted effort - to lie.

Peter Hadley told millions of Americans about the attempts to buy "yellow cake" in Niger, which is involved in uranium production.  This has been proven false by the CIA, DIA, and Congressional testimony.

Judith Miller - she wrote 2 false article on the front page of the _New York Times._ Who was feeding her the false info?  Libby.  This was discovered in testimony.

Richard Perle, one of the most powerful men in Washington

Wolfowitz

Rice

Doug Feith

the PNAC 


And a host of other indivituals.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 21, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I support the insurgents.  I support road-side bombs.  I support snipers.
> 
> uneducated, poorly read, no knowledge of Iraqi history,
> 
> they deserve what they get.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 21, 2007)

^ I still feel the same way, DOMS.

Thanks for reminding the others that they too, can choose correct side in this conflict.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 21, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> ^ I still feel the same way, DOMS.
> 
> Thanks for reminding the others that they too, can choose correct side in this conflict.



As usual, your logic, and ability to understand the reality of things, is fucked.

I posted that to make sure that all reading know what kind of a douche bag you are.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 22, 2007)

DOMS said:


> As usual, your logic, and ability to understand the reality of things, is fucked.



Try to be specific.  "Reality" is very complicated and is a bit philosophical.  Focus on facts.  From these facts, you can form an opinion and provide a cogent argument.  



> I posted that to make sure that all reading know what kind of a douche bag you are.



I hope you keep posting that.  That post shows that there are those who don't support dropping the Mark77 firebomb on civilians.



> Have a nice day.



Thank you.  And a nice day to you, as well.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 22, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I hope you keep posting that.  That post shows that there are those who don't support dropping the Mark77 firebomb on civilians.
> :



would you kindly explain how supporting roadside bombs against our troops shows you dont support dropping a firebomb on civilians? 


i dont support killing civilians either. i do however support out troops.  i guess i see the line of combatant and civilian a little blurry when kids are holding machine guns and taught how to make bombs


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 22, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> would you kindly explain how supporting roadside bombs against our troops shows you dont support dropping a firebomb on civilians?



The U.S. "troops" are causing the civilian killings, Mark77 napalm firebombs that kill civilians, and the displacement of over 2 million Iraqi civilians.  Iraqi engineers, doctors, and teachers have left the country.  The few that remained have been killed in sectarian violence long ago.  Iraq has been sent back several decades because of what the PNAC and PNAC puppets (troops) have done.  4.5 years: what has been accomplished?  It's not about the troops, it's about political and sectarian.   The U.S. troops have set up a massive Shiite block with Iran at the helm.   Time is on the Shiites side.  All they have to do is wait.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 22, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> The U.S. "troops" are causing the civilian killings, Mark77 napalm firebombs that kill civilians, and the displacement of over 2 million Iraqi civilians.  Iraqi engineers, doctors, and teachers have left the country.  The few that remained have been killed in sectarian violence long ago.  Iraq has been sent back several decades because of what the PNAC and PNAC puppets (troops) have done.  4.5 years: what has been accomplished?  It's not about the troops, it's about political and sectarian.   The U.S. troops have set up a massive Shiite block with Iran at the helm.   Time is on the Shiites side.  All they have to do is wait.



interesting read, but you didnt answer the question


----------



## Decker (Oct 23, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> ....
> 
> WMD in iran and supporting terrorism in iraq are unsupported? they admit to uranium enrichment. thats not contested. enriched uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear weapons. not contested. ive spoken to soldiers returned from iraq that say iran is supporting the insurgency over there. i wont contest that. not from several thousand miles away.
> 
> your points this day are without merrit. they are horrible in their inaccuracies and obviously coming from someone blinded from their own self image. debating with you this day has been painful in its exercise. remember how this started out as about al gore and the nobel peace prize. does al have any way of bringing peace to the middle east? he might actually deserve a medal for that


Iran has every right in the world to enrich uranium for domestic purposes.  

You may not care for that, but tough.

So it is not surprising that Iran is enriching uranium.

Thank you for your anecdotal evidence about Iran arming Iraq.  It's worthless.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 23, 2007)

Decker said:


> Iran has every right in the world to enrich uranium for domestic purposes.
> 
> You may not care for that, but tough.
> 
> ...



anecdotal? sure, false? you have evidence otherwise?  and yea, i dont like iran enriching uranium.  iran wants the bomb. you can hide behind the same arguement that irans president uses , but no one is buying it.


----------



## Decker (Oct 24, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> anecdotal? sure, false? you have evidence otherwise? and yea, i dont like iran enriching uranium. iran wants the bomb. you can hide behind the same arguement that irans president uses , but no one is buying it.


They have the right to enrich uranium for domestic purposes. Now the West can use inspections and sanctions to try and keep the Iranians from secretly developing nuclear arms and it has done that. But the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and it won???t go back. It is not desirable or possible, from a political, economic or military standpoint, to attack every country that may have a program to develop a nuclear weapon. Otherwise we would have to bomb Israel and Korea tomorrow???Israel uses the same rationale and denials that Iran uses for nuclear development

If India and neighboring Pakistan can survive for 40 years with nuclear weapons and not provide them to terrorist orgs (the US has accused Pakistan of such), then I think Iran can be handled too. We haven???t attacked Pakistan yet.

An attack of Iran will further consolidate the sympathies of Muslim countries against the US. Russia, China and much of Europe will be against us. I would wager that the worldwide terrorism explosion b/c of the Iraq invasion would pale next to those resulting from attacking Iran. 

The evidence that Iran is arming the troops may exist but now it is not conclusive. The weapons???EFPs???that allegedly only Iran could make and are turning up in Iraq has been offered as evidence that Iran is arming the Iraqi insurgents. However, an EFP factory was found inside Iraq by the US military:

???The US military also issued a statement on Sunday calling the operation in Diwaniyah, dubbed Black Eagle, a "great success" so far. It said it detained 39 militiamen and killed an unspecified number. *It also has uncovered "many large caches of weapons," including factories that make explosively formed penetrators (EFPs)*, devices that Washington accuses Tehran of supplying to Sadr's militia.??? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0410/p01s02-woiq.htm

The evidence is just not there.


----------



## Decker (Oct 24, 2007)

brogers said:


> Oh right, so Al Gore can use 20x more power than the average American because he purchases 'green power' and 'offsets' his carbon footprint. So only the wealthy have can have access to electricity? Nice.
> 
> Let's hear some more about that Green Power Gore uses, ok, Mr. "Again, you don't know but you sure shoot your mouth off like you do?"
> 
> ...


Thanks for responding. You are attempting to smear Al Gore, to show that he is duplicitous and a hypocrite re his environmental efforts. But you are incorrect:

???1) Gore???s family has taken *numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence*, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology. 

2) Gore has had a consistent position of *purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family???s carbon footprint* ??? a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore???s office explains: 

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore???s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.??? http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

See, Gore is working within the current system to be more environmentally friendly. 

The system can be changed, but at the moment, it???s the best we have.

The thread I started is about Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize for his efforts in apprising the world of the current environmental situation. You can attack Gore if you like, but like so many who have: George Will, Rush Limbaugh, you are either using incorrect data or you are just parroting nonsense. 

Gore was right about Iraq and he???s right about Global Warming.

The fact of the matter is that the worldwide scientific consensus re Global Warming is on Al Gore???s side and not yours.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 24, 2007)

Decker said:


> ???1) Gore???s family has taken *numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence*, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.



Are you certain about this one?  Can you post a link to a credible source?  I ask because I recently read an article (AP maybe?) where a reporter asked one of Gore's aides if his house was "green" in any way, to which the aide said no, but added that Gore had plans to make his mansion green.

I'll see if I can dig up a link.

Heh, I just realized that Gore has aides.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 24, 2007)

Decker said:


> 2) Gore has had a consistent position of *purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family???s carbon footprint* ??? a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore???s office explains:



Could you explain to me what a "carbon offset" is?  The link that you provided is nothing more than an opinion piece.

This sounds _*a lot*_ like the idiocy that is the Kyoto protocol.


----------



## Decker (Oct 24, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Could you explain to me what a "carbon offset" is? The link that you provided is nothing more than an opinion piece.
> 
> This sounds _*a lot*_ like the idiocy that is the Kyoto protocol.


Gore has aides. See? This is how it starts. That is pretty funny though.

First, some background. The Gore/Energy gimmick was created by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. Sounds almost reverential???it???s just pointing out a blatant hypocrisy of Gore for all to see. But wait, what of this?:


??????Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
The (Tennessee) group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.???


Looks like somebody is creating and inflating numbers to make Gore look like a hypocrite. But the ???non-partisan??? Tennessee Bullshit Center for Policy Research would never do that???.it???s non-partisan.???


(Another manufactured attack against Al Gore.)


???Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said: ???Sometimes when people don???t like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it???s convenient to attack the messenger.??? Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.?????? http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=1749

Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway. Gore purchases the bulk of his energy from here: http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/

And now to answer your question re carbon offset: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset Sometimes Wikipedia is pretty good. In short a CO is a credit that is purchased to fund some green energy activity to counter the use of carbon based energy. I do agree with you that it sounds a little implausible and I don???t like it personally. I think we can do better than trying to achieve ???carbon neutrality??? in this manner. 


I would support a nationalized effort to develop an alternative fuel and put it on par with the 1960s space program.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 24, 2007)

Decker said:


> They have the right to enrich uranium for domestic purposes. Now the West can use inspections and sanctions to try and keep the Iranians from secretly developing nuclear arms and it has done that. But the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and it won???t go back. It is not desirable or possible, from a political, economic or military standpoint, to attack every country that may have a program to develop a nuclear weapon. Otherwise we would have to bomb Israel and Korea tomorrow???Israel uses the same rationale and denials that Iran uses for nuclear development
> 
> If India and neighboring Pakistan can survive for 40 years with nuclear weapons and not provide them to terrorist orgs (the US has accused Pakistan of such), then I think Iran can be handled too. We haven???t attacked Pakistan yet.
> 
> ...



ive already said i dont think we are going to or should attack iran. so why all the "we shouldnt attack iran, rhetoric?"  who on this forum is argueing that with you?

i hope israel already has the bomb. i could care less if they develop it. why? because they are not going to give it to our enemies. (they are even more likely to use it against israel). israel has shown amazing restraint in the past with how they have lived with their neighbors and they are not going to use it as anything but a deterent.

the evidence you have given of india and pakistan is funny. they have not both been nuclear countries for 40 years. and of the 2 we have reservations about the abilities of 1 of these states to keep nuclear arms off the open market. so if iran and korea both get the bomb is one or both of them going to supply it to the enemy?

the efp factory. guess there is still alot to be answered about that one. could iran have helped the insurgents build it? did they teach them how? is the design one that is irainian?  for no better reason than i consider him a credible sourse, im going to continue to believe a cousin of mine who has served in iraq that told me iran is supplying help to the insurgents. but thats just me. i dont care if you take it second hand or not


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 24, 2007)

Decker said:


> They have the right to enrich uranium for domestic purposes. .




problem is, its not economically sound for them to do this.  they have no great uranium reserves and the cost to develop the technology is astrinomical to the price of purchasing it openly on the market.  when a country decides they want to build a nuclear power plant they go to a country that has been doing it for 50 years for the technological know how. they dont start from scratch.

simple econ 101 tells you if their intentions were simple domestic power production, they would be best served by not developing the technology.


----------



## Decker (Oct 24, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> ive already said i dont think we are going to or should attack iran. so why all the "we shouldnt attack iran, rhetoric?" who on this forum is argueing that with you?
> 
> i hope israel already has the bomb. i could care less if they develop it. why? because they are not going to give it to our enemies. (they are even more likely to use it against israel). israel has shown amazing restraint in the past with how they have lived with their neighbors and they are not going to use it as anything but a deterent.
> 
> ...


Al Gore was against the invasion and overthrow of Iraq b/c it would destabilize the middle east. It has. He was right again. Now the US is poised to attack Iran as another 'unique' threat much in the way Iraq was a unique WMD threat.

You seemed to agree with the threat posed by Iran by pointing out that Iran was enriching uranium. It looks, at the very least, like you are tacitly agreeing with how the Iranian matter is characterized by our government--namely, a threat. I disagree. I think this threat, for the most part, is being manufactured and Iran is playing ball. If Iran was such a threat, why did the US push Iran away from the negotiations table when it asked for US assurances that it would not attack after the Iraq war crime was completed back in 02-03? Instead Bush named Iran part of some asinine 'Axis of Evil'. Currently, Bush is asking Iran to cease something it has the legal right to do--enrich uranium.

It is a complex problem that would require more space to address adequately. I'll give you my idea, let the police and FBI do their jobs by kneecapping Al Qaeda where-ever possible. Strengthen our ports and borders. Keep working on improving those two aspects of battling terrorism. 

It is not possible to attack every country that has nuclear ambitions and yellowcake.

I do understand your reservations about the Iraqi occupation. I was not denigrating your ideas.

You are correct, Pakistan had nuclear intentions dating back 40+ years and capabilities extending back about 30 years and fully functional bombs since about 10 years ago. So thanks for correcting that.

It's not the open market, it's the black market that we must be careful of. The knowledge of how to build a bomb is not a secret anymore--it hasn't been for years. The problem is engineering/manufacturing.

EFPs were created by the British, not the Iranians.

As for your cousin's information, I have no doubt that Iranian (black market) people are helping some of the Iraqi insurgents: some of the insurgents are Shia aligned with the Shia of Iran. That's a far cry from governmental support though.


----------



## Decker (Oct 24, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> problem is, its not economically sound for them to do this. they have no great uranium reserves and the cost to develop the technology is astrinomical to the price of purchasing it openly on the market. when a country decides they want to build a nuclear power plant they go to a country that has been doing it for 50 years for the technological know how. they dont start from scratch.
> 
> simple econ 101 tells you if their intentions were simple domestic power production, they would be best served by not developing the technology.


The Iranians hired the Russians to build their reactors.

*Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation*
Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 24, 2007)

Decker said:


> The Iranians hired the Russians to build their reactors.
> 
> *Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation*
> Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation



thanks for providing more proof of my point. the russians can also provide fuel at a cheaper cost as well.  there is no benificial reason iran needs to develop the technology to enrich uranium as they are not the low cost provider.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 24, 2007)

Decker said:


> Al Gore was against the invasion and overthrow of Iraq b/c it would destabilize the middle east. It has. He was right again. Now the US is poised to attack Iran as another 'unique' threat much in the way Iraq was a unique WMD threat.
> 
> You seemed to agree with the threat posed by Iran by pointing out that Iran was enriching uranium. It looks, at the very least, like you are tacitly agreeing with how the Iranian matter is characterized by our government--namely, a threat. I disagree. I think this threat, for the most part, is being manufactured and Iran is playing ball. If Iran was such a threat, why did the US push Iran away from the negotiations table when it asked for US assurances that it would not attack after the Iraq war crime was completed back in 02-03? Instead Bush named Iran part of some asinine 'Axis of Evil'. Currently, Bush is asking Iran to cease something it has the legal right to do--enrich uranium.
> 
> ...



im not sure we are on the same wavelength. your last 2 posts are confusing the hell out of me by what your argueing. so lets re-cap a bit.

i think iran is led by an evil government that has bad intentions for US and Israels interests in the middle east. i dont think at this time we are going to or need to attack them. i also dont think our leaders need to 'take it off the table out of hand' just knowing we could attack provides some deterent.  i dont trust irans nuclear ambitions as i see no benificial reason for them to develop nuclear technology.

while i dont like the handling of the iraq war, i support the troops and i feel we need to see it through in an effort to protect against further destabalization of the area. it is our mess and we need to clean it up.

al gore is a retard

that is all


----------



## brogers (Oct 24, 2007)

If Gore did the "green power" switch, he did so after he got caught saying he had it, when he in fact did not, and was using 20x more than average Joe.  Thus, it is meaningless.  "Oh I signed up for green power, so I can use as much as I want!"  "No you didn't...."  "I just did 30 seconds ago you're a liar!"

Additionally, his "carbon-offset" scam is him buying stock in an investment firm he co-founded.   You should offset your carbon and send Al's some money as well.

Not to mention the whole "carbon-offset" thing is about as stupid as paying someone else to go on a diet for you.  I'll pay you 10 bucks, you don't eat any junk, and in the mean time I'll pig out on Snickers bars.  Scam.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 24, 2007)

brogers said:


> Not to mention the whole "carbon-offset" thing is about as stupid as paying someone else to go on a diet for you.  I'll pay you 10 bucks, you don't eat any junk, and in the mean time I'll pig out on Snickers bars.  Scam.



You just described the Kyoto Protocol.


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> thanks for providing more proof of my point. the russians can also provide fuel at a cheaper cost as well. there is no benificial reason iran needs to develop the technology to enrich uranium as they are not the low cost provider.


It really doesn't matter how you view the cost/benefit of Iran's pursuit of nuclear power.  They have the legal right to do that.  End of story.


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> im not sure we are on the same wavelength. your last 2 posts are confusing the hell out of me by what your argueing. so lets re-cap a bit.
> 
> i think iran is led by an evil government that has bad intentions for US and Israels interests in the middle east. i dont think at this time we are going to or need to attack them. i also dont think our leaders need to 'take it off the table out of hand' just knowing we could attack provides some deterent. i dont trust irans nuclear ambitions as i see no benificial reason for them to develop nuclear technology.
> 
> ...


You think that "Iran is evil and has bad intentions for US..." and "...see no benficial reason for them to develop nuclear technology."

You characterize Iran as evil and then prohibit Iran's lawful development of nuclear technology.

Can you see why I might interpret your views as consistent with the Bush Administration's views?  

It doesn't matter what you think or what Bush thinks re Iran's lawful enrichment of uranium for domestic purposes. And outside of perpetrating another war crime, there is nothing the US can do about it.

As for Iraq, it is a civil war which the US is officiating. I don't support the troops b/c that would imply that I agree with their mission--I do not. I see nothing wrong with a precipitous phased withdrawal from the area.

Al Gore was right about Bush's folly of invading and occupying Iraq...not to mention the ruinous tax cuts, immigration fiasco....

If Gore's a retard, what does that make your boy Bush? And he is your boy if you voted for him.


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

brogers said:


> If Gore did the "green power" switch, he did so after he got caught saying he had it, when he in fact did not, and was using 20x more than average Joe. Thus, it is meaningless. "Oh I signed up for green power, so I can use as much as I want!" "No you didn't...." "I just did 30 seconds ago you're a liar!"
> 
> Additionally, his "carbon-offset" scam is him buying stock in an investment firm he co-founded. You should offset your carbon and send Al's some money as well.
> 
> Not to mention the whole "carbon-offset" thing is about as stupid as paying someone else to go on a diet for you. I'll pay you 10 bucks, you don't eat any junk, and in the mean time I'll pig out on Snickers bars. Scam.


Is there no piece of propaganda re Gore that you won't take to heart? Do you even research, hell, even read these hit pieces on Gore? The numbers re Gore's energy use have been inflated by the rightwing think tank that started this character assassination. Gore has been making his home environmentally friendly since he moved into it back in 2002. His own neighbors stood in the way some of his changes, especially solar power. Gore's solar plans thwarted by upscale neighborhood's rules - USATODAY.com

As for the "carbon-offset" scam, you just love that don't you? I mean it shows Gore is a hypocrite again. But it is not true:


Here are the facts:Gore's London-based employee-owned company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), purchases -- but isn't a provider of -- carbon dioxide (CO2) "offsets," said spokesman Richard Campbell.​ 

GIM is strictly an investment firm that considers how eco-friendly corporations are in assessing long-term sustainability, Campbell told *Cybercast News Service* by phone from London. Gore's Company Says He's Not Profiting from 'Carbon Offsets' -- 03/07/2007​ 

Critics, like yourself, have no answers for Gore???s scientific arguments so you've decided to smear him personally.​


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> It really doesn't matter how you view the cost/benefit of Iran's pursuit of nuclear power.  They have the legal right to do that.  End of story.



bull shit. if a government that is hostile to this people or its allies has bad intentions in gaining horrific weaponry i want my government to do something about it.

can you think of one benifit to the government or people of iran that does not include nuclear weaponry, of there desire to enrich uranium?


----------



## brogers (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> Is there no piece of propaganda re Gore that you won't take to heart? Do you even research, hell, even read these hit pieces on Gore? The numbers re Gore's energy use have been inflated by the rightwing think tank that started this character assassination. Gore has been making his home environmentally friendly since he moved into it back in 2002. His own neighbors stood in the way some of his changes, especially solar power. Gore's solar plans thwarted by upscale neighborhood's rules - USATODAY.com
> 
> As for the "carbon-offset" scam, you just love that don't you? I mean it shows Gore is a hypocrite again. But it is not true:
> 
> ...


 
When his home energy use came out, his aide said he had not subscribed to any green power switch, but was "looking into it."  He's a liar and a hypocrite on this.  Period.  The fact that he's trying to "make his mansion environmentally friendly" is meaningless, reality is what matters.  He said he was buying green power, he wasn't.  I really don't care about the fact that he wanted to put some solar panels on his house which would generate a pittance of electricity or about his toxic CF bulbs he put in.  Not impressed.  I have no problem with his lifestyle at all, so long as he doesn't tell me, from his mansion after getting off his private jet that I shouldn't travel, shouldn't use so much energy in my home, etc.

During the same time all this crap was going the claim was made that he offsets his carbon footprint by investing in sustainable and renewable technologies, AKA HIS OWN COMPANY.  Whether or not they sell something specifically called a "carbon-offset" doesn't matter.  Gore has claimed that by investing in said technologies (through his own company) he is offsetting his footprint.

Yes I will continue to attack the hypocritical messenger who's got a huge financial reward if the world buys his scam, this thread is titled AL GORE WINS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.  Duh??


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> You think that "Iran is evil and has bad intentions for US..." and "...see no benficial reason for them to develop nuclear technology."
> 
> You characterize Iran as evil and then prohibit Iran's lawful development of nuclear technology.
> 
> ...



your going to continue down the line of lawful pursuit of enriched uranium for domestic purchases?  if the iranian leader has such noble intentions as nuclear power to support the growth of his country and help his people, why is he spending so much money on enriching uranium when he will never be able to provide it cheaper than he can get it elsewhere?  iran has no signifigant uranium deposits. nor do they have uranium mines. they are not developing a natural resourse here. THEY DO NOT HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS like domestic purposes crap.  keep telling yourself that. 

i dont believe the US or bush has committed a war crime.  to say so is just trying to draw attention to yourself or your views. its a publicity stunt.

immigration was/will be a problem long before and long after bush. he has little to do with the situation in my opinion.  i support tax cuts always.  and while al gore is a retard, that makes president bush just that. the president of the united states.  al gore is nothing more than an also ran.  you might as well be talking about michael dukakis.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 25, 2007)

Well said.  



brogers said:


> When his home energy use came out, his aide said he had not subscribed to any green power switch, but was "looking into it." He's a liar and a hypocrite on this. Period. The fact that he's trying to "make his mansion environmentally friendly" is meaningless, reality is what matters. He said he was buying green power, he wasn't. I really don't care about the fact that he wanted to put some solar panels on his house which would generate a pittance of electricity or about his toxic CF bulbs he put in. Not impressed. I have no problem with his lifestyle at all, so long as he doesn't tell me, from his mansion after getting off his private jet that I shouldn't travel, shouldn't use so much energy in my home, etc.
> 
> During the same time all this crap was going the claim was made that he offsets his carbon footprint by investing in sustainable and renewable technologies, AKA HIS OWN COMPANY. Whether or not they sell something specifically called a "carbon-offset" doesn't matter. Gore has claimed that by investing in said technologies (through his own company) he is offsetting his footprint.
> 
> Yes I will continue to attack the hypocritical messenger who's got a huge financial reward if the world buys his scam, this thread is titled AL GORE WINS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. Duh??


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

brogers said:


> When his home energy use came out, his aide said he had not subscribed to any green power switch, but was "looking into it." He's a liar and a hypocrite on this. Period. The fact that he's trying to "make his mansion environmentally friendly" is meaningless, reality is what matters. He said he was buying green power, he wasn't. I really don't care about the fact that he wanted to put some solar panels on his house which would generate a pittance of electricity or about his toxic CF bulbs he put in. Not impressed. I have no problem with his lifestyle at all, so long as he doesn't tell me, from his mansion after getting off his private jet that I shouldn't travel, shouldn't use so much energy in my home, etc.
> 
> During the same time all this crap was going the claim was made that he offsets his carbon footprint by investing in sustainable and renewable technologies, AKA HIS OWN COMPANY. Whether or not they sell something specifically called a "carbon-offset" doesn't matter. Gore has claimed that by investing in said technologies (through his own company) he is offsetting his footprint.
> 
> Yes I will continue to attack the hypocritical messenger who's got a huge financial reward if the world buys his scam, this thread is titled AL GORE WINS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. Duh??


I believe you are getting your "Gore Lied" information from a Peter Schweitzer article that's been debunked.  In that article, Schweitzer lied about alleged royalties Gore received from a zinc mine, Gore's alleged ownership of Occidental Petroleum stock, and that Gore does not pay for his carbon offset credits.
Why should I believe a hearsay quote from some person in Gore's office.

The story was so bad that the USA today had to run a retraction.

Your source is garbage.


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> bull shit. if a government that is hostile to this people or its allies has bad intentions in gaining horrific weaponry i want my government to do something about it.
> 
> can you think of one benifit to the government or people of iran that does not include nuclear weaponry, of there desire to enrich uranium?


We are doing something about it.  The IAEA is engaging in inspections in Iran and they are finding no evidence of enrichment for anything other than domestic purposes.

The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons.  "The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, says it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use."  http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html

So what do we really have here?:

1.  Allegations of Iran's WMDs refuted by inspectors on the ground

2.  Allegations that Iran is aiding and abetting our enemy with no supporting evidence

Sound familiar?


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> your going to continue down the line of lawful pursuit of enriched uranium for domestic purchases? if the iranian leader has such noble intentions as nuclear power to support the growth of his country and help his people, why is he spending so much money on enriching uranium when he will never be able to provide it cheaper than he can get it elsewhere? iran has no signifigant uranium deposits. nor do they have uranium mines. they are not developing a natural resourse here. THEY DO NOT HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS like domestic purposes crap. keep telling yourself that.
> 
> i dont believe the US or bush has committed a war crime. to say so is just trying to draw attention to yourself or your views. its a publicity stunt.
> 
> immigration was/will be a problem long before and long after bush. he has little to do with the situation in my opinion. i support tax cuts always. and while al gore is a retard, that makes president bush just that. the president of the united states. al gore is nothing more than an also ran. you might as well be talking about michael dukakis.


The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons. "The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, says it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use." http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html


Iraq:  The US asks to enforce Res 1441 compelling Iraq to permit inspections;  It does;  Bush orders an attack without receiving permission from the UN Security Council as required under Res 1441.

That is an unprovoked attack on Iraq in violation of UN Resolution 1441--A war crime or crime against the Peace.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons. "The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, says it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use." http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html
> 
> 
> Iraq:  The US asks to enforce Res 1441 compelling Iraq to permit inspections;  It does;  Bush orders an attack without receiving permission from the UN Security Council as required under Res 1441.
> ...



no need to go into the absurdity of the UN process. i dont want our president going to anyone but congress before we go to war. iraqs defiance over allowing security inspectors for the entire clinton administration  combined with there constant attempt to shoot down our pilots in the no-fly zone does not constitute unprovoked. stop trying to paint little bitty iraq with harmless leader saddam as just some country we were trying to bully around. everyone on this forum knows better


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons. "The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, says it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use." http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html
> 
> .



maybe because uranium enrichment for weapons and power is the exact same thing up until it gets to 5%.  something not easy to do. do we really need to go into the "declared nuclear material" topic?


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> no need to go into the absurdity of the UN process. i dont want our president going to anyone but congress before we go to war. iraqs defiance over allowing security inspectors for the entire clinton administration combined with there constant attempt to shoot down our pilots in the no-fly zone does not constitute unprovoked. stop trying to paint little bitty iraq with harmless leader saddam as just some country we were trying to bully around. everyone on this forum knows better


Oh really?

Then why did Bush go to the UN and ask for permission to use force to attack Iraq?

The no-fly zones have no legal force--it's something the US just threw together to anatagonize the Iraqis and further erode their economic standing.

So Iraq was flaming meteor on course to take down the US?  Iraq was pretty harmless.  It was a toothless tiger.

Now it's a civil war b/c of Bush's illegal invasion.


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> maybe because uranium enrichment for weapons and power is the exact same thing up until it gets to 5%. something not easy to do. do we really need to go into the "declared nuclear material" topic?


Nope.  I'll settle for the expert opinion of the IAEA inspectors.

And so should you.

The inspectors are on the ground doing the job they are trained to do.

This is the run up to war Iraq-style:  No evidence on your part, just innuendo and unsupported allegations.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> Oh really?
> 
> Then why did Bush go to the UN and ask for permission to use force to attack Iraq?
> 
> ...



the first question was pretense. nothing more.

no fly zones.  multiple reasons none of which you mentioned. 

saying iraq was harmless is just wrong. the country in the 20 years previous to us invading has shown agression multiple times both against its neighbors and own people.  yea, iraq was a toothless tiger that invaded kuwait, gassed kurds and fought a war with iran.  pretty toothless if you ask me


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> Nope.  I'll settle for the expert opinion of the IAEA inspectors.
> 
> And so should you.
> 
> ...



so your going with the guys on the ground? i would to if they were allowed to do their job. truth is rarely are they given the ability to do that.  to go in and see what they need to without being turned away and let in much later. they have little power to go into a country and do what they need to the first time. its not happened in iraq, iran, korea.  they are allowed to see only what the countries leaders want them to see.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Director General´s Statement to IAEA 51st General Conference
Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak ??? "this is regrettable", he commented; and 

While the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues. 

heavy water reactors are use for????thats right plutonium production


also on sept 12 of this year, just a month old the IAEA director said that iran had just agreed to a timeline so outstanding questions on irans nuclear program could be answered.  sounds to me like iran has been open and forthcoming on their nuclear program and we should just let them be.



Iran´s Failure to Comply with UN Demands

FT: People expect on Wednesday you will report that Iran has not suspended because there´s no sign that Iran has suspended. That´s the clear expectation.

ELBARADEI: Yes.

FT: So after your report there will obviously more pressure from the US to push for more sanctions. Do you think that it will be ill advised to push for more sanctions at the Security Council straight away?

ELBARADEI: Obviously, short of a major change of heart, I would report that Iran has not complied with the demand of the international community to suspend. I´m going to see Mr. Larijani tomorrow, who´s coming to see me in Vienna. And I will continue to make a last-ditch effort to try to convince them that it is in their interest to find a way to go into negotiations. If it doesn´t happen and I don´t see that it is going to happen overnight, I will have to report negatively.

The Security Council resolution, the previous one, 1737 [agreed in December], indicated that if Iran did not comply they will take additional measures. It´s a policy judgment, I do not want to replace myself for the Security Council´s judgment, but I know for sure that even with additional sanctions, if they were to go for additional sanctions, they would still, in parallel, look for ways to get Iran to the negotiating table and in compliance with the concern of the international community that the programme is not a peaceful programme. Really the whole thing is about confidence-building.


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> Director General´s Statement to IAEA 51st General Conference
> Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak ??? "this is regrettable", he commented; and
> 
> While the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.
> ...


While your recount of the press release is good, it doesn???t show me anything I didn???t already know. Here???s a recap of the latest statements:

_*Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran*_
Regarding the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran, I (ElBaradei ) would make four brief points.

First, *the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. *Iran has continued to provide the access and reporting needed to enable Agency verification in this regard.

Second, *Iran has provided the Agency with *additional *information and access *needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues, *such as the scope and nature of past plutonium experiments.*

Third, contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence building measures,* Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak.* This is regrettable.

Fourth, while the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, *Iran and the Agency agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.* These verification issues are at the core of the lack of confidence about the nature of Iran´s programme, and are what prompted actions by the Security Council. Iran´s agreement on such a work plan, with a defined timeline, is therefore an important step in the right direction. Naturally, Iran´s active cooperation and transparency is the key to full and timely implementation of the work plan. *If the Agency were able to provide credible assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran´s past and current nuclear programme, this would go a long way towards building confidence about Iran´s nuclear programme*, *and could create the conditions for a comprehensive and durable solution.*
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2007/ebsp2007n014a.html#iran

What do we have? Iran is cooperating with inspections and has agreed to more inspections. It has not suspended its uranium enrichment b/c it has a legal right as a sovereign nation to do so. The UN might not like that and UN Res. 1737 does impose sanctions for such development but Iran is living with those penalties while still permitting inspections and developing its nuclear power.

ElBaradei wants inspections to continue: ???UN nuclear chief Mohamed *ElBaradei walked out* on an afternoon session Tuesday of his IAEA* to protest an EU speech which did not fully support his deal for new inspections in **Iran*, diplomats told AFP.

"He walked out because the EU did not support the Secretariat," a diplomat who was at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors said.??? http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9blUeSGZOoidYozU9XYmzfgntCg

'This situation, which might continue for two or three months, is an investment in peace,' Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Thursday in an interview with the Egyptian daily al-Ahram.

It is a sticky problem. In my opinion, negotiation is really the only way to go. Let???s face it, we don???t even know if or where they may have underground nuclear development facilities. No amount of bombing or attacks or sanctions will change that. Iran is not Iraq???it???s huge in size and population, economically advanced and politically adroit.  Iran is player with powerful friends--Russia and China.  The US cannot be trigger happy in this instance.


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> the first question was pretense. nothing more.
> 
> no fly zones. multiple reasons none of which you mentioned.
> 
> saying iraq was harmless is just wrong. the country in the 20 years previous to us invading has shown agression multiple times both against its neighbors and own people. yea, iraq was a toothless tiger that invaded kuwait, gassed kurds and fought a war with iran. pretty toothless if you ask me


Check your calendar.  Those examples are ancient history...or are you still worried about the Roman Imperial Army too?

So the 2003 Iraq that we attacked was not toothless?  Ok.  How was Iraq a threat to the US or US interests in 2003?


----------



## Decker (Oct 25, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> so your going with the guys on the ground? i would to if they were allowed to do their job. truth is rarely are they given the ability to do that. to go in and see what they need to without being turned away and let in much later. they have little power to go into a country and do what they need to the first time. its not happened in iraq, iran, korea. they are allowed to see only what the countries leaders want them to see.


Possibly. But neither you nor I know what the inspectors look for. I have read that they can determine with precision if an area had at one time been used as a nuclear development area. I don't know how they do that.


I would disagree with your assessment about inspections in Iraq. Blix came to the opposite conclusion. It was a slow go but it happened. And as it turned out, the Iraqis were telling the truth and it was our president who was mistaken...to the detriment of 70,000 dead Iraqis.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> While your recount of the press release is good, it doesn???t show me anything I didn???t already know. :
> 
> 
> It is a sticky problem. In my opinion, negotiation is really the only way to go. Let???s face it, we don???t even know if or where they may have underground nuclear development facilities. No amount of bombing or attacks or sanctions will change that. Iran is not Iraq???it???s huge in size and population, economically advanced and politically adroit.  Iran is player with powerful friends--Russia and China.  The US cannot be trigger happy in this instance.



my intention is not to educate you. your decision is made and wont be changed, i understand that. my intention is to show those reading this your point of view has many holes in it.

how many times have i said i dont think we should attack iran?  iran is bad, iran is dangerous, i dont think sanctions and diplomacy and dialogue will do shit in preventing iran from becoming a nuclear power. but attacking iran is not benificial to the US at this time.  in the meantime people can talk about how its perfectly legal for iran to seek enriched uranium for domestic purposes. its all a bunch of horseshit until a mushroom clout rises above tel aviv


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> Possibly. But neither you nor I know what the inspectors look for. I have read that they can determine with precision if an area had at one time been used as a nuclear development area. I don't know how they do that.
> 
> 
> I would disagree with your assessment about inspections in Iraq. Blix came to the opposite conclusion. It was a slow go but it happened. And as it turned out, the Iraqis were telling the truth and it was our president who was mistaken...to the detriment of 70,000 dead Iraqis.



point is it shouldnt be a slow go. if sadam was forthcoming with information he would still be alive right now.  i read a time magazine article in 2004 or so that showed sadam had a large mis-information campaign to show he still had a nuclear/biological program in order to project strength. it worked too well. everyone believed it and now he is dead.   never mind the fact that he was an evil psycopath in the image of hitler and we should have gotten rid of him in 91


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Arak - Iran Special Weapons Facilities

any thoughts on irans heavy water plant and reactors? considering these are research reactors good for high grade plutonium and uranium production. can anyone really sit here and say that irans nuclear program is peaceful?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> Check your calendar.  Those examples are ancient history...or are you still worried about the Roman Imperial Army too?
> 
> So the 2003 Iraq that we attacked was not toothless?  Ok.  How was Iraq a threat to the US or US interests in 2003?



as of 2003 it was the same government and same leader in charge of all my examples.  i dont see a ceasar in rome.

but if you must. they were still shooting at our pilots. thats a no no.


----------



## brogers (Oct 25, 2007)

Decker said:


> I believe you are getting your "Gore Lied" information from a Peter Schweitzer article that's been debunked. In that article, Schweitzer lied about alleged royalties Gore received from a zinc mine, Gore's alleged ownership of Occidental Petroleum stock, and that Gore does not pay for his carbon offset credits.
> Why should I believe a hearsay quote from some person in Gore's office.
> 
> The story was so bad that the USA today had to run a retraction.
> ...


 
1) I never mentioned a zinc mine
2) I never mentioned Occidental Petroleum
3) I never said Gore didn't pay for his "Carbon offsets"  

You completely ignored what I said, which is understandable, because it's the truth and it hurts.


----------



## brogers (Oct 25, 2007)

You can also add in his "guest house" for an extra $1,000 per month worth of electricity

Oh and regarding Al's little carbon-offset scam, from Kalee Krider, a Gore spokeswoman:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe.

So please, for the safety of the world, send Generation Investment Management some money. Al's ego will grow along with his portfolio.


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> point is it shouldnt be a slow go. if sadam was forthcoming with information he would still be alive right now. i read a time magazine article in 2004 or so that showed sadam had a large mis-information campaign to show he still had a nuclear/biological program in order to project strength. it worked too well. everyone believed it and now he is dead. never mind the fact that he was an evil psycopath in the image of hitler and we should have gotten rid of him in 91


*Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain *
Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain

*Blix Hopes Iraq's Cooperation Will Prevent War*
"...Blix painted a far more positive picture of Iraq's recent compliance..."
His assessment was in sharp contrast to Secretary of State Colin Powell's
FOXNews.com - Blix Hopes Iraq's Cooperation Will Prevent War - U.S. & World

So we see that Bush's sabre rattling worked and Iraq was complying with UN inspections and was forthcoming with information. Yet Bush ordered the attack anyways.

We've gotten rid of a dictator but at what price. "Hitler"??? please, that is just hyperbole. In exchange for ridding the world of the flea Hussein, we've got almost 80,000 dead Iraqis by US hands (murder if the attack was illegal, which it was), we have an ongoing civil war in Iraq which is destabilizing the entire middle east and we have Iran--part of the axis of evil--bracing itself for a US attack. That and we are spending 2 Billion US tax dollars a week on this fiasco. Congressional analysis puts cost of Iraq war at $2 billion a week - The Boston Globe

What did we gain again?


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> my intention is not to educate you. your decision is made and wont be changed, i understand that. my intention is to show those reading this your point of view has many holes in it.
> 
> how many times have i said i dont think we should attack iran? iran is bad, iran is dangerous, i dont think sanctions and diplomacy and dialogue will do shit in preventing iran from becoming a nuclear power. but attacking iran is not benificial to the US at this time. in the meantime people can talk about how its perfectly legal for iran to seek enriched uranium for domestic purposes. its all a bunch of horseshit until a mushroom clout rises above tel aviv


I know, to your credit, that you disagree with attacking Iran.  The nuclear genie is out of the bottle.  Negotiations and inspections are the way to go to manage that problem.  That and MAD has been effective for decades--the track record is good.  Let's hope it still works.


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

brogers said:


> 1) I never mentioned a zinc mine
> 2) I never mentioned Occidental Petroleum
> 3) I never said Gore didn't pay for his "Carbon offsets"
> 
> You completely ignored what I said, which is understandable, because it's the truth and it hurts.


I know you didn't mention those things.  I am pointing out that the likely source of your article (Schweizer) lied about those 3 things thus ruining the credibility of your source.

What were you saying about 'truth' again?


----------



## DOMS (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> *Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain *
> Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain
> 
> *Blix Hopes Iraq's Cooperation Will Prevent War*
> ...



Wow, that's great.  It only took 10 years, and the threat of imminent war, to get "accelerated cooperation".   Yep, he was _this close_ to actually complying.


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

brogers said:


> You can also add in his "guest house" for an extra $1,000 per month worth of electricity
> 
> Oh and regarding Al's little carbon-offset scam, from Kalee Krider, a Gore spokeswoman:
> 
> ...


Do you also know if Al Gore's asswipe in his toilet is environmentally friendly?

You do know that our current president, read: not private citizen, has broken the law by invading Iraq, killed about 80,000 people, spends 2 billion US tax dollars a week on the fiasco, is making a farce of immigration, has put this country so far into debt that our great grandchildren will still owe...

Your priorities on knit picking Gore just illustrate your contempt and fascination with the man. The discredited hit pieces you site show your desperation.  When you come across some credible criticism, let me know.


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Wow, that's great. It only took 10 years, and the threat of imminent war, to get "accelerated cooperation". Yep, he was _this close_ to actually complying.


You're right, the alternative is much better for everyone:























Sorry about the graphics, but we are talking about human life and our money with this unnecessary war.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 26, 2007)

You mean to say that war isn't fun?!  So it isn't so!

The war, on our end, went find until dumb shit decided to "bring democracy" to a bunch of Arabs who can't live that way.

Not that I like GWB, but you'll notice that most of that graph was before his time.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 26, 2007)

Oh, and nice try with the pics of only children.  Sorry pal, but those are _Arab _children, to which I'm indifferent.  After all, they grow up to be the bomb wearing, hand chopping, woman rapping, people that their parents are.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> Do you also know if Al Gore's asswipe in his toilet is environmentally friendly?
> 
> You do know that our current president, read: not private citizen, has broken the law by invading Iraq, killed about 80,000 people, spends 2 billion US tax dollars a week on the fiasco, is making a farce of immigration, has put this country so far into debt that our great grandchildren will still owe...
> 
> Your priorities on knit picking Gore just illustrate your contempt and fascination with the man. The discredited hit pieces you site show your desperation.  When you come across some credible criticism, let me know.



your response to al gores hypocricy on green energy is to rip on bush? WOW. that is lame. even though i totally disagree with every point of view you have ever placed on this forum, i never thought this would be your response.  your defending a dead horse. you argue with the high and mighty attidude of someone who knows more than your peers. and then you come back with something ridiculous about bush? al gores lack of green energy has nothing to do with the war in iraq or bushs running of it. you have totally discredited anything you may have ever said on this site.

by the way, you didnt discredit anything that was put up showing critisim of gore.  you may have said you did, but that doesnt discredit it.  no one here has a fascination with al gore except you. your un-dead love for the man is frankly un-heathly and i think you should see a therapist.

oh yea,  bush never broke the law, and you repeating it over and over doesnt change that.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> You're right, the alternative is much better for everyone:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



thats right. but how do we know that the pictures of that little boy are not caused by arabs?
Boy, 5, doused in gas, set on fire by masked men - CNN.com
arabs are causeing the most death to their own people over there.  you make it sound like american soldiers are going over there to kill children. stupid. yes children die. we are not targeting them like they are. if anything you make people more resolute on the iraq war. you would do more to help your cause by remaining quiet and unseen than arguing for it as you do such a bad job


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Oh, and nice try with the pics of only children. Sorry pal, but those are _Arab _children, to which I'm indifferent. After all, they grow up to be the bomb wearing, hand chopping, woman rapping, people that their parents are.


I would have shown more pictures of the dead returning from Iraq, but the Bush whitehouse prohibits photographing those events.

So if you can argue that killing women, children, men or seniors is ok with you b/c Hussein was slow in his compliance with a UN Resolution or that the culture practices some barbarism, then we really do not have a common ground to discuss this stuff anymore.

It is not fathomable to me how someone could think that the Bush remedy--attacking Iraq--is commensurate with the problem--Hussein's slow-footed compliance with and inspection resolution.

Death, destruction and waste was the product of this illegal use of force.  I can't rationalize that no matter how hard I try.  So I'm beat on that point.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> So if you can argue that killing women, children, men or seniors is ok with you b/c Hussein was slow in his compliance with a UN Resolution or that the culture practices some barbarism, then we really do not have a common ground to discuss this stuff anymore.



The difference between what Saddam did and what the US did, was that Saddam did it for a totalitarian control and the US did it as a by-product of war.  It's a shame that you can't see the difference.



Decker said:


> It is not fathomable to me how someone could think that the Bush remedy--attacking Iraq--is commensurate with the problem--Hussein's slow-footed compliance with and inspection resolution.



He was the enemy.  The *US* chose to let him take a peaceful way out 10 years earlier.  He chose not to comply, so it was the US choice to finish it.



Decker said:


> Death, destruction and waste was the product of this illegal use of force.  I can't rationalize that no matter how hard I try.  So I'm beat on that point.



Blah, blah, blah... Illegal _this_, illegal _that_.  And yet no trial.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> You mean to say that war isn't fun?!  So it isn't so!
> 
> The war, on our end, went find until dumb shit decided to "bring democracy" to a bunch of Arabs who can't live that way.
> 
> Not that I like GWB, but you'll notice that most of that graph was before his time.




That's why you don't take war lightly.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Oh, and nice try with the pics of only children.  Sorry pal, but those are _Jewish _children, to which I'm indifferent.



Himmler?


----------



## ZECH (Oct 26, 2007)

Regardless if you think Iran has a right to enrich uranium or not (I do not), they have already stated they want total destruction of Israel and the United States. Now, Decker, do you think that the US and the rest of its allies should take that chance and let Iran enrich the uranium and then be capable of making a bomb to destroy one or both?? I don't think you can honestly say yes. If they are so set on ways to maker power and such, I'm sure there are other ways that the US would not object to and be willing to work with them on. Let's face it, the leader of Iran is an idiot.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 26, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> your response to al gores hypocricy on green energy is to rip on bush? WOW. that is lame. even though i totally disagree with every point of view you have ever placed on this forum, i never thought this would be your response.  your defending a dead horse. you argue with the high and mighty attidude of someone who knows more than your peers. and then you come back with something ridiculous about bush? al gores lack of green energy has nothing to do with the war in iraq or bushs running of it. you have totally discredited anything you may have ever said on this site.
> 
> by the way, you didnt discredit anything that was put up showing critisim of gore.  you may have said you did, but that doesnt discredit it.  no one here has a fascination with al gore except you. your un-dead love for the man is frankly un-heathly and i think you should see a therapist.
> 
> oh yea,  bush never broke the law, and you repeating it over and over doesnt change that.



If someone is damaging the environment with their wreckless policies then you are supposed to rip them.


It's funny how you argue about the law with a lawyer.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 26, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Himmler?



Emo cock sucker?

Jews are way better than Arabs.  Do you see Jews strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up woman and children?  Do they stone each other to death?  

Jews don't do a tenth of the fucked up stuff that Arabs do.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 26, 2007)

dg806 said:


> Regardless if you think Iran has a right to enrich uranium or not (I do not), they have already stated they want total destruction of Israel and the United States. Now, Decker, do you think that the US and the rest of its allies should take that chance and let Iran enrich the uranium and then be capable of making a bomb to destroy one or both?? I don't think you can honestly say yes. If they are so set on ways to maker power and such, I'm sure there are other ways that the US would not object to and be willing to work with them on. Let's face it, the leader of Iran is an idiot.





You're buying into the propaganda.  The government could care less if they have some uranium.  The whole point is to systematically control the region.  Do you see the line the countries form?  Afganistan, Iran, and Iraq.  See any significance?  See any significance with the oil in the region, or the strategic location, perfect for military base installations, right next to Russia and China, controlling resources in their neighborhood?


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Emo cock sucker?
> 
> Jews are way better than Arabs.  Do you see Jews strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up woman and children?  Do they stone each other to death?
> 
> Jews don't do a tenth of the fucked up stuff that Arabs do.



What did an arab ever do to you?  Or are you basing your facts and stats off of movies and fox news pie charts?


----------



## ZECH (Oct 26, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> You're buying into the propaganda.  The government could care less if they have some uranium.  The whole point is to systematically control the region.  Do you see the line the countries form?  Afganistan, Iran, and Iraq.  See any significance?  See any significance with the oil in the region, or the strategic location, perfect for military base installations, right next to Russia and China, controlling resources in their neighborhood?



I don't buy that..............if we wanted it we could take it. Why go through so much trouble?


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> your response to al gores hypocricy on green energy is to rip on bush? WOW. that is lame. even though i totally disagree with every point of view you have ever placed on this forum, i never thought this would be your response. your defending a dead horse. you argue with the high and mighty attidude of someone who knows more than your peers. and then you come back with something ridiculous about bush? al gores lack of green energy has nothing to do with the war in iraq or bushs running of it. you have totally discredited anything you may have ever said on this site.
> 
> by the way, you didnt discredit anything that was put up showing critisim of gore. you may have said you did, but that doesnt discredit it. no one here has a fascination with al gore except you. your un-dead love for the man is frankly un-heathly and i think you should see a therapist.
> 
> oh yea, bush never broke the law, and you repeating it over and over doesnt change that.


"...I argue with the high and mighty attitude of someone who knows more than your peers...". 

If you are referring to grammar, then in this case you are right. I'm sorry if my style of debate makes you think I'm some sort of elitest (that's the conclusion I draw from your characterization of me). I like to think that I defend the constitution and the People. Both of which Pres. Bush has mangled. And by the way, with few exceptions, if you support the republican machine you are an elitest. See my thread on Right Wing Populism.

I mentioned Bush b/c the character assassins of Gore, like yourself, become tedious. You push any discredited story you can b/c it slams Gore. I thought I'd point out that instead of worrying about the inconsequential minutae that really shows Gore is a hypocrite, you should consider the massive damage being done to our country and our constitution by the current adiminstration.

Maybe I expect too much of you to make that connection.

And another thing about your perception of Gore. It's a shame you can't see beyond the end of your spiteful nose to recognize the work this man has done on behalf of his country. He's a statesman always trying to better our country. He didn't go running off to Japan and badmouth the US for million dollars a speech the way Reagan did once he was out of office. He's a bright guy with vision. To not compare him to the simpering fool in the whitehouse would be a disservice to ratiocination. (I learned that word from Antonin Scalia, b/c in my elitest views, reading is a good thing, even if you read the works of your political enemies).

As to your sweeping statement that "I've totally discredited everything I've ever said on this website"....thank you bio-cry me a river-chem. 

Why I better just surrender in the face of such an implacable foe like yourself.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> If someone is damaging the environment with their wreckless policies then you are supposed to rip them.
> 
> 
> It's funny how you argue about the law with a lawyer.



people argue chemistry with me. and thats a science. its how it goes. and just because your a lawyer doesnt mean your the final word on the law. i think the differences in lawyers opinions about the law is well documented.  i consider my inteligence every bit equal to his or others on this site. i just chose to focus my energies in a different field. it has no bearing on this discussion. when he is wrong, he is wrong


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> You're buying into the propaganda.  The government could care less if they have some uranium.  The whole point is to systematically control the region.  Do you see the line the countries form?  Afganistan, Iran, and Iraq.  See any significance?  See any significance with the oil in the region, or the strategic location, perfect for military base installations, right next to Russia and China, controlling resources in their neighborhood?



no this isnt propaganda. iran wants a nuclear bomb. they are developing a nuclear bomb. they are developing balistic missles. the leaders want the destruction of israel and the us. i want my leaders to stop crazy sons of bitches who meet these requirements. propaganda that.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> "...
> 
> As to your sweeping statement that "I've totally discredited everything I've ever said on this website"....thank you bio-cry me a river-chem.
> 
> Why I better just surrender in the face of such an implacable foe like yourself.



i would prefer it if you would just stick to the topic at hand.  anyone here who had attacked gore happened because you started a thread about sucking his cock. i disagree with your love of this man. i dont think the nobel peace prize should be given for a movie on green energy. its a movie. whoop dee doo. when he goes over to the middle east or some other war torn part of the world and brokers peace let me know.  like i said a post about al gore and green energy has nothing to do with bush and the iraq war.  you didnt respond to the post you simply tried to deflect it into someone no one likes. thats not debate.  your so big on crediting sources and yet you havent posted a source discrediting the critique on al gores use of energy. all you have done is said they were discredited.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

dg806 said:


> Regardless if you think Iran has a right to enrich uranium or not (I do not), they have already stated they want total destruction of Israel and the United States. Now, Decker, do you think that the US and the rest of its allies should take that chance and let Iran enrich the uranium and then be capable of making a bomb to destroy one or both?? I don't think you can honestly say yes. If they are so set on ways to maker power and such, I'm sure there are other ways that the US would not object to and be willing to work with them on. Let's face it, the leader of Iran is an idiot.



can we get an anwer on this please? its a direct question that gets to the heart of the matter


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> The difference between what Saddam did and what the US did, was that Saddam did it for a totalitarian control and the US did it as a by-product of war. It's a shame that you can't see the difference.
> 
> He was the enemy. The *US* chose to let him take a peaceful way out 10 years earlier. He chose not to comply, so it was the US choice to finish it.
> 
> Blah, blah, blah... Illegal _this_, illegal _that_. And yet no trial.


The war is illegitimate.  I cannot, in good conscience, support a war that was not borne of some aspect of self-defense.  The attack of Iraq was an attack of a prone country acting in compliance with our demands.  That is unacceptable.

There was nothing to "finish."

Iraq was decimated in the first war and sanctions kept Iraq a shell of a country.  Iraq was not a threat to the US or US interests.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> It is not fathomable to me how someone could think that the Bush remedy--attacking Iraq--is commensurate with the problem--Hussein's slow-footed compliance with and inspection resolution.



so he should not have had any consequence for his actions? we should have continued to let him jerk around inspectors like he did for the first 10 years? 

attacking iraq was always the consequence for non-compliance with weapons inspections.  im just shocked it took over a decade


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> The war is illegitimate.  I cannot, in good conscience, support a war that was not borne of some aspect of self-defense.  The attack of Iraq was an attack of a prone country acting in compliance with our demands.  That is unacceptable.
> 
> There was nothing to "finish."
> 
> Iraq was decimated in the first war and sanctions kept Iraq a shell of a country.  Iraq was not a threat to the US or US interests.



the iraqi republican guard was hardly touched in the first war and sanctions do little.  iraq was not in compliance. links have been shown to that effect.


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 26, 2007)

YouTube Video


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


> YouTube Video



one of the few intelligent things ive seen that guy say


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

dg806 said:


> Regardless if you think Iran has a right to enrich uranium or not (I do not), they have already stated they want total destruction of Israel and the United States. Now, Decker, do you think that the US and the rest of its allies should take that chance and let Iran enrich the uranium and then be capable of making a bomb to destroy one or both?? I don't think you can honestly say yes. If they are so set on ways to maker power and such, I'm sure there are other ways that the US would not object to and be willing to work with them on. Let's face it, the leader of Iran is an idiot.


Neither Pres. Ahmadinejad or the Supreme Leader Khameini have called for the destruction of Israel. That's never happened. They have called for regime change in Israel though.

My opinion on deterring Iran from making a bomb is that it cannot be done. Even carpet bombing the country will not stop Iran from getting the manufacturing ability to create a nuclear weapon some day. The knowledge on a-bomb creation is readily available. The means for engineering those bombs is the only thing holding it back. And as you know, technology is always improving.

That's why negotiation is the way to go and, at the moment, inspections.


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> so he should not have had any consequence for his actions? we should have continued to let him jerk around inspectors like he did for the first 10 years?
> 
> attacking iraq was always the consequence for non-compliance with weapons inspections. im just shocked it took over a decade


He's paid the price, he's dead.  

Why should his people suffer the same fate for, in essence, doing nothing to the US but be guilty of living in dictatorial regime?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> He's paid the price, he's dead.
> 
> Why should his people suffer the same fate for, in essence, doing nothing to the US but be guilty of living in dictatorial regime?



hey i have no complaint with pulling out of iraq as soon as possible. just as soon as the iraqi government can take care of itself im all for bringing our boys home.


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> the iraqi republican guard was hardly touched in the first war and sanctions do little. iraq was not in compliance. links have been shown to that effect.


Sanctions do little?  Are you sure?

The sanctions imposed on Iraq -- to force Saddam Hussein to allow the United Nations to dismantle or destroy Iraq's long-range missiles and chemical, nuclear and biological weapons -- and related circumstances have prevented the country from repairing all its damaged or destroyed infrastructure, and whenever attempts have been made, those have been incomplete. That applies to electricity-generating and water-purification plants, sewage-treatment facilities and communication and transportation networks. That has affected the quality of life of countless Iraqis, especially those belonging to the middle and lower economic levels who do not have alternatives or options to overcome the effects of the war and the sanctions. 
Iraq is an oil-rich country, which before the 1991 war was almost totally dependent on the import of food and medicine. Financial constraints as a result of the sanctions have prevented the necessary import of food and medicine. 
The vast majority of Iraq's people has been on a semi-starvation diet for years. 
The reduction in the import of medicines, owing to a lack of financial resources, as well as a lack of minimum health care facilities, insecticides, pharmaceutical and other related equipment have crippled the health care services, which in prewar years were of a high quality. 
The effect of this situation on Iraq's infant and child population is especially severe. From 1991 to 1998, children under 5 died from malnutrition-related diseases in numbers ranging from a conservative 2,690 a month to a more realistic 5,357 per month. 
The U.N. Oil-for-Food Program has kept the numbers of deaths and cases of malnutrition from rising still higher, but it was never intended as a remedy for the situation. 
Effects of the Iraq sanctions

I found a more exhaustive list here re the effects of sanctions:
Effects of Sanctions - Global Issues


But I don't know how to print tables to this forum.

Iraq was complying.  I already posted the link showing Blix saying as much.


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 26, 2007)

Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Mid-East outside of Isreal 


Isreal should have never been created  Should of gave them half of Germany or Nevada it would of saved us a lot of problems


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> hey i have no complaint with pulling out of iraq as soon as possible. just as soon as the iraqi government can take care of itself im all for bringing our boys home.


I agree with you on this point but the reality is is that the US has built the single largest embassy (600 million dollar) in the world in Iraq along with 6 smaller ones.  We are not leaving any time soon.

USATODAY.com - Giant U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad


----------



## Decker (Oct 26, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> i would prefer it if you would just stick to the topic at hand. anyone here who had attacked gore happened because you started a thread about sucking his cock. i disagree with your love of this man. i dont think the nobel peace prize should be given for a movie on green energy. its a movie. whoop dee doo. when he goes over to the middle east or some other war torn part of the world and brokers peace let me know. like i said a post about al gore and green energy has nothing to do with bush and the iraq war. you didnt respond to the post you simply tried to deflect it into someone no one likes. thats not debate. your so big on crediting sources and yet you havent posted a source discrediting the critique on al gores use of energy. all you have done is said they were discredited.


Now is this kind of writing necessary? You ought to know better than that. Shame on you for such childish namecalling.

If you disagree with the Nobel Prize Committee's award to Gore, I suggest you take it up with that body.

"Brokers peace in the middle east"--like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton--or fans the flames of war in the middle east--like Both Bushs

You have shown me no evidence that Al Gore uses excessive energy. Why should I spend my time discrediting something that has not been shown? 

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research's hit piece on Gore, the source of your criticism, has been debunked as inflating numbers to make a point:

???Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.???

This link reprints excerpts from the original TIME article which is no longer available online.
Gore Wars! Did Tennessee Group Inflate Energy Numbers? | ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip
Al Gore Draws Flak On Utility Bill - TIME

Then there's the Peter Shweizer article slamming Gore based on the erroneous findings of theTCPR. It contained several key factual errors to give the appearance that Gore was not only lying about his personal use of green energy and carbon credits, but that he was actually profiting from anti-environemental industries. USA Today had to print a correction b/c of Shweizer's errors but that webpage has been taken down:

*1. Gore does not receive royalties from a zinc mine.* From the USA today correction: ???In a column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy???the mine was closed in 2003.???​
*2. Gore has never owned any Occidental Petroleum stock.* His father worked for the company for several years and his parents used to own some stock. All of it was sold years ago.​
*3. Gore pays for his own carbon off-sets.* Parmount is also purchasing off-sets above and beyond what Gore is doing individually.​Think Progress » After USA Today Issues Correction, Fox Host Repeats Smears Against Gore

So until you find something credible worth commenting on, I think our debate on Gore's greenness is over.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> Neither Pres. Ahmadinejad or the Supreme Leader Khameini have called for the destruction of Israel. That's never happened. They have called for regime change in Israel though.
> 
> My opinion on deterring Iran from making a bomb is that it cannot be done. Even carpet bombing the country will not stop Iran from getting the manufacturing ability to create a nuclear weapon some day. The knowledge on a-bomb creation is readily available. The means for engineering those bombs is the only thing holding it back. And as you know, technology is always improving.
> 
> That's why negotiation is the way to go and, at the moment, inspections.



CNN.com - Iran leader urges destruction of 'cancerous' Israel - December 15, 2000
just one of many articles claiming for the destruction of israel.

to fully understand the engineering and technological know how needed to develop an atomic bomb i would recomend The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. that will tell a better more in depth picture of the difficulties of development of the a-bomb even today.  current estimates have iran between 5-9 years away from the bomb.  and yes, destroying their centrifuges and heavy water reactor would put them back considerably from that estimate.  they have two centrifuges above ground running, with possibly 2 more underground.  if the 2 we know of are shut down this severely limits their capabilities of coming up with the needed fissionable material for a bomb.  we have the time and capability to stop iran from becoming a nuclear power at this time.  with current conditions i do not think it unwise to explore options in preventing them from becoming a nuclear power.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> Sanctions do little?  Are you sure?
> 
> The sanctions imposed on Iraq -- to force Saddam Hussein to allow the United Nations to dismantle or destroy Iraq's long-range missiles and chemical, nuclear and biological weapons -- and related circumstances have prevented the country from repairing all its damaged or destroyed infrastructure, and whenever attempts have been made, those have been incomplete. That applies to electricity-generating and water-purification plants, sewage-treatment facilities and communication and transportation networks. That has affected the quality of life of countless Iraqis, especially those belonging to the middle and lower economic levels who do not have alternatives or options to overcome the effects of the war and the sanctions.
> Iraq is an oil-rich country, which before the 1991 war was almost totally dependent on the import of food and medicine. Financial constraints as a result of the sanctions have prevented the necessary import of food and medicine.
> ...



and doms provided a link showing that after 10 years iraq was getting ready to comply.

also what i meant by sanctions do little, is that sactions do little to change the ways of the government.  yes the iraqi people suffered under sanctions from the US. saddam hussien did not. they may have gone hungry. he did not. i saw a picture of an AK-47 that was inlayed with gold which belonged to one of his sons. it is well documented how many palaces he continued to build for himself and his party while the iraqi people suffered under the conditions you described.  the amount of money our soldiers found was incredible. millions of dollars just wrapped up in his palaces. hidden in the walls or sitting on pallets. sanctions do little to change repressive governments and i put very little hope in the UN and its ability to check governments such as this through diplomacy


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


> Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Mid-East outside of Isreal
> 
> 
> Isreal should have never been created  Should of gave them half of Germany or Nevada it would of saved us a lot of problems



bull shit. this statement shows someone who doesnt know the history of Israel. the tension over in the region is not the fault of the Jews. When it was first created the UN called for both jewish and palestinian states. it was the arabs that said no and declared war on this proposal. Israel was barely minuites old when they had to fight a war against multiple arab neighbors.  whose ass they kicked on multiple occasions. they have been generous in how they have treated the arabs.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> Now is this kind of writing necessary? You ought to know better than that. Shame on you for such childish namecalling.
> 
> If you disagree with the Nobel Prize Committee's award to Gore, I suggest you take it up with that body.
> 
> ...



what name calling? coming from the guy who used the bio- cry me a river -chem statement  im a little confused.

yes, jimmy carter and bill clinton did a great job in brokering peace  

ive personally posted no statements on al gore or his use use of electricity. nothing on zink, or occidental petroleum, or carbon off sets. i dont think anyone has on this site. yet, you continue to post links refuting this as if it proves your point.  whatever numbers you wish to use, al gore uses considerably more electricity than the average american.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 26, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> What did an arab ever do to you?  Or are you basing your facts and stats off of movies and fox news pie charts?



As always, I base it on my own personal experiences, and self-education.

Arabs are one fucked up group of people.

Oh, and Cockrider, I don't watch Fox news.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 26, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> ive personally posted no statements on al gore or his use use of electricity. nothing on zink, or occidental petroleum, or carbon off sets. i dont think anyone has on this site. yet, you continue to post links refuting this as if it proves your point.  whatever numbers you wish to use, al gore uses considerably more electricity than the average american.




I've made this point before.  The human-caused global warming pundits are always talk about how "people" have to start changing their lifestyles to save the world, but the speakers seldom do much, if anything, that they advocate.

Al Gore lives in a mansion, drives around in nice big luxury cars, and flies in a private jet.

The same goes for pretty much every other big name pundit.  I guess it's okay to change to save the world, but only if someone else does it.


----------



## clemson357 (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker, you used to come across as the intelligent but reserved free thinker on the forum.  Now you are the wacko, overly vocal, neo-liberal.


----------



## clemson357 (Oct 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I've made this point before.  The human-caused global warming pundits are always talk about how "people" have to start changing their lifestyles to save the world, but the speakers seldom do much, if anything, that they advocate.
> 
> Al Gore lives in a mansion, drives around in nice big luxury cars, and flies in a private jet.
> 
> The same goes for pretty much every other big name pundit.  I guess it's okay to change to save the world, but only if someone else does it.



Hey, at least they aren't as bad as John Edwards, who charged tens of thousands of dollars to give a speech on poverty to disadvantaged public school students.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 26, 2007)

clemson357 said:


> Hey, at least they aren't as bad as John Edwards, who charged tens of thousands of dollars to give a speech on poverty to disadvantaged public school students.



What a douche bag.


----------



## brogers (Oct 26, 2007)

Decker said:


> Do you also know if Al Gore's asswipe in his toilet is environmentally friendly?
> 
> You do know that our current president, read: not private citizen, has broken the law by invading Iraq, killed about 80,000 people, spends 2 billion US tax dollars a week on the fiasco, is making a farce of immigration, has put this country so far into debt that our great grandchildren will still owe...
> 
> Your priorities on knit picking Gore just illustrate your contempt and fascination with the man. The discredited hit pieces you site show your desperation. When you come across some credible criticism, let me know.


 
This thread is about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize.  I criticize Al Gore in a thread you created about him.  You defend Al Gore by complaining about George Bush, honestly, who has the "contempt and fascination" with  certain someone?  I'm addressing the topic, you're demonstrating a terrible case of BDS.

My criticisms are credible.  You on the other hand, ramble about George Bush and the Iraq War (Which can be stopped right now by your buddies in the House if they actually wanted to).


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 26, 2007)

brogers said:


> This thread is about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize.  I criticize Al Gore in a thread you created about him.  You defend Al Gore by complaining about George Bush, honestly, who has the "contempt and fascination" with  certain someone?  I'm addressing the topic, you're demonstrating a terrible case of BDS.
> 
> My criticisms are credible.  You on the other hand, ramble about George Bush and the Iraq War (Which can be stopped right now by your buddies in the House if they actually wanted to).


----------



## Decker (Oct 29, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> people argue chemistry with me. and thats a science. its how it goes. and just because your a lawyer doesnt mean your the final word on the law. i think the differences in lawyers opinions about the law is well documented. i consider my inteligence every bit equal to his or others on this site. i just chose to focus my energies in a different field. it has no bearing on this discussion. when he is wrong, he is wrong


The U.N. Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It says force may only be used in self-defense or if approved by the Security Council. 


As soon as you show me where the UN Security Council gave Bush the authority to use force to attack Iraq in 2003, I will back off my argument that the war is illegal.

Until then you are wrong.


----------



## Decker (Oct 29, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> CNN.com - Iran leader urges destruction of 'cancerous' Israel - December 15, 2000
> just one of many articles claiming for the destruction of israel.
> 
> to fully understand the engineering and technological know how needed to develop an atomic bomb i would recomend The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. that will tell a better more in depth picture of the difficulties of development of the a-bomb even today. current estimates have iran between 5-9 years away from the bomb. and yes, destroying their centrifuges and heavy water reactor would put them back considerably from that estimate. they have two centrifuges above ground running, with possibly 2 more underground. if the 2 we know of are shut down this severely limits their capabilities of coming up with the needed fissionable material for a bomb. we have the time and capability to stop iran from becoming a nuclear power at this time. with current conditions i do not think it unwise to explore options in preventing them from becoming a nuclear power.


Wow, I must be slipping in my old age. I mean wikipedia and CNN address the quote right up front that Israel is a cancer right that must be excised. That???s called political red meat. Khamenei knows an attack of Israel would be suicide. That was also 7 years ago before the US surrounded Iran with armed forces. Life's as simple as you make it. The rhetoric he uses is directed at his ethnic and ideological enemy. Sort of like when Reagan said this: *In 1982 President Reagan called the **Soviet Union** an "Evil Empire" and described his "plan and hope for the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history."*
*__President Reagan, June 1981*


Now granted we are more civilized than they are and that statement reflects it but it???s spoken in the same spirit???destroying the enemy as is. Considering that Iran is surrounded by the US and in light of the Iraq invasion, it would be surprising to me that Iran would not seek some sort of nuclear arms. I mean Iran watched Iraq comply with the US???s disarmament wishes and it still got leveled by an illegal US attack. Self preservation is still self preservation. An attack on Iran, which you are against, would likely guarantee that Iraq pursue the bomb--dirty or otherwise.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 29, 2007)

Decker said:


> The U.N. Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It says force may only be used in self-defense or if approved by the Security Council.
> 
> 
> As soon as you show me where the UN Security Council gave Bush the authority to use force to attack Iraq in 2003, I will back off my argument that the war is illegal.
> ...



The UN gave the US permission back in '90.  Once the US went it war, the particulars were up to the US.  *The US* chose to give Saddam a chance to get out without further violence.  He failed to take the US up on the offer.  So the US finished the job.

If the US had truly committed an illegal action, then where are the legal proceedings and sanctions?


----------



## Decker (Oct 29, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> what name calling? coming from the guy who used the bio- cry me a river -chem statement im a little confused.
> 
> yes, jimmy carter and bill clinton did a great job in brokering peace
> 
> ive personally posted no statements on al gore or his use use of electricity. nothing on zink, or occidental petroleum, or carbon off sets. i dont think anyone has on this site. yet, you continue to post links refuting this as if it proves your point. whatever numbers you wish to use, al gore uses considerably more electricity than the average american.


So you see no difference btn "cry me a river" and "sucking Gore's cock"...no wonder you have no sense of proportion re Iraq.

Interesting, you said in a prior post that you have opposed every stand I have made at IM. So I'll pick two things two things to flesh out what kind of person you are: The Iraq invasion and the US's new torture policy (Al Gore was against both).

Either you're a vindictive face in the republican crowd or you are a true believer. 

The good news is, if you're vindictive, you support Bush's policy to battle terrorists (illegal invasion, torture) b/c you are a petty person.

The bad news is if you support Bush b/c you truly identify with the lawless attack on Iraq (read crime against humanity) and torture (pretty much the same) and you are fully aware of the consequences and implications of your choices, then you are a person whose lost his humanity.

If you fully embrace the evil that the Bush administration has done--war crime and torture--then you are in this class: the Nazis, the Japs, the mafia, Nicaraguan Death squads and the Soviets b/c they all share your views on those topics.

Here's really what your positions come down to:

*If the Illegal Invasion succeeds, then you can't call it an illegal invasion (war crime), you cheer it on.

*If torture is gotten away with, then you don't condemn torture, you embrace it.

So do you support these abominable and unconstitutional things b/c your a face in the republican crowd or do you support these things b/c you identify with the worst that humanity has to offer?

At this degree, support of war crimes and torture is tantamount to treason.

Or if the Treason succeeds, None Dare Call it Treason?


----------



## Decker (Oct 29, 2007)

DOMS said:


> The UN gave the US permission back in '90. Once the US went it war, the particulars were up to the US. *The US* chose to give Saddam a chance to get out without further violence. He failed to take the US up on the offer. So the US finished the job.
> 
> If the US had truly committed an illegal action, then where are the legal proceedings and sanctions?


Yes, I've read that tortured defense you gave that UN Res 660 gave the US authority to unilaterally use force against Iraq. 

It clearly does 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.

In fact, Security Council resolutions cannot authorize "regime change." The U.N. Charter gives the Council no such power, and even the Council may act only within the limitations of the Charter.

So, really under no circumstance does 1441 permit Bush to use force unilaterally.

Even Richard Perle has admitted this time and again.


----------



## Decker (Oct 29, 2007)

clemson357 said:


> Decker, you used to come across as the intelligent but reserved free thinker on the forum. Now you are the wacko, overly vocal, neo-liberal.


Who rattled your fucking chain?

Crawl back to the comforts of the Free Republic.

Unless you have something substantive to say.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 29, 2007)

Decker said:


> Yes, I've read that tortured defense you gave that UN Res 660 gave the US authority to unilaterally use force against Iraq.
> 
> It clearly does not.
> 
> ...



Tough shit.  They asked us to put our money, men, and resources on the line to take care of a problem that they couldn't.  They can put whatever verbage in there that makes them happy, but they lost control the minute the US went to war.

Otherwise, _*again*_, where's the trial and sanctions?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2007)

Decker said:


> The U.N. Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It says force may only be used in self-defense or if approved by the Security Council.
> 
> 
> As soon as you show me where the UN Security Council gave Bush the authority to use force to attack Iraq in 2003, I will back off my argument that the war is illegal.
> ...



as soon as you show me where in the constitution the president has to go anywhere other than congress to declare war ill back off mine. the constitution never gave permission to the government to give these decisions to other countries or bodies. i dont want my president beholden to anyone but the people of the united states through our elected officials. that our president has to ask france, russia, china or anyone else is stupid. the very idea of the UN is about as effective as the articles of confederation. it doesnt work.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2007)

Decker said:


> So you see no difference btn "cry me a river" and "sucking Gore's cock"...no wonder you have no sense of proportion re Iraq.



ok so this is about a proportional response? im sorry i didnt realise i was supposed to go before a governing body to make sure my response was within dictated guidlines. that if im responding to an insult on an open forum  escalating would be totally out of the question and i might hurt your feelings.  screw that. i said the thread is about sucking gore's cock. it is. i didnt say your sucking gore's cock.  but if we are really going to go to this childishness over name calling that i didnt think was offensive on either part i will end with this. you started it.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 29, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> as soon as you show me where in the constitution the president has to go anywhere other than congress to declare war ill back off mine. the constitution never gave permission to the government to give these decisions to other countries or bodies. i dont want my president beholden to anyone but the people of the united states through our elected officials. that our president has to ask france, russia, china or anyone else is stupid. the very idea of the UN is about as effective as the articles of confederation. it doesnt work.



What you've described is exactly what the UK is suffering.  Right now, they're beholden to the EU as to whether or not the can go to war.  A lot of Brits don't seem to be happy with that idea.

There's a very good documentary on the EU and why it sucks.  Plus, it also contains some scary, and plausible, ideas about the formation of the EU and Germany.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2007)

Decker said:


> Who rattled your fucking chain?
> 
> Crawl back to the comforts of the Free Republic.
> 
> Unless you have something substantive to say.



wow dude. you really have lost it.  the guy was trying to give you an honest opinion of how you are viewed on this forum and you attack him?  he hasnt made himself a part of this debate. you are nutty.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 29, 2007)

I found the video in question over at the Pirate Bay.


----------



## Decker (Oct 29, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> as soon as you show me where in the constitution the president has to go anywhere other than congress to declare war ill back off mine. the constitution never gave permission to the government to give these decisions to other countries or bodies. i dont want my president beholden to anyone but the people of the united states through our elected officials. that our president has to ask france, russia, china or anyone else is stupid. the very idea of the UN is about as effective as the articles of confederation. it doesnt work.


The War Powers Resolution (which Bush has violated also) permits the president to use force with out Congress declaring war on any country.  This what gave Bush authority to use force against Iraq.

But pursuant to what?  Bush knew that he couldn't attack Iraq outright since he had no legal footing:  IRaq did not attack the US or an ally or threaten our interests.

So President Bush went to the UN and asked to enforce the disarmament resolution.

Bush had the color of law but blew it by clearly violating the resolution he sought to enforce.


----------



## Decker (Oct 29, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> wow dude. you really have lost it. the guy was trying to give you an honest opinion of how you are viewed on this forum and you attack him? he hasnt made himself a part of this debate. you are nutty.


Yeah, I'm practically Howard Dean crazy.

What is with you conservatives?  You simply cannot state an opinion you have to attack the speaker.

First you say something about sucking Gore's cock then this genius chimes in with this:

"Decker, you used to come across as the intelligent but reserved free thinker on the forum. *Now you are the wacko, overly vocal, neo-liberal."*

He doesn't even defend his asinine statement.  NO, he's got you for that.

And you just parrot him.  What am I supposed to do?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2007)

Decker said:


> The War Powers Resolution (which Bush has violated also) permits the president to use force with out Congress declaring war on any country.  This what gave Bush authority to use force against Iraq.
> 
> But pursuant to what?  Bush knew that he couldn't attack Iraq outright since he had no legal footing:  IRaq did not attack the US or an ally or threaten our interests.
> 
> ...



look i could care less if the international game is being played or not by our president.  if he overstepped his legal rights as president, then it is our congress by power of the constitution and as our elected representitives that are under power to call him to task. no international law has the power to do anything to my president.  just like DOMS keeps asking. where is the trial?  congress authorized force in iraq. both times. i accept that. the UN has no power. they should have no power. it is a worthless body that has accomplished none of its stated goals.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2007)

Decker said:


> The War Powers Resolution (which Bush has violated also) permits the president to use force with out Congress declaring war on any country.  This what gave Bush authority to use force against Iraq.
> 
> But pursuant to what?  Bush knew that he couldn't attack Iraq outright since he had no legal footing:  IRaq did not attack the US or an ally or threaten our interests.
> 
> ...



this doesnt show bush broke the law. if anything it shows congress gave him permission to go into iraq. he didnt break the law


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2007)

Decker said:


> Yeah, I'm practically Howard Dean crazy.
> 
> What is with you conservatives?  You simply cannot state an opinion you have to attack the speaker.
> 
> ...



im sorry. i thought that every one of my opinions has been stated clearly. and ive not attacked you. now i will. yea, your coming off as a crazy, wacko, neo-liberal. its not needed to back it up. people reading these statements of yours are coming to these opinoins. clemson was just giving an overall impression of how your posts have changed on this forum. take it, or not. if your not able to take critique then this might not be the place for you. its up to you. you need to be a little bit thicker skinned. if your looking for someone getting attacked look at posts directed at danny. and yet he can take it like a big boy even if he is 17.


----------



## Decker (Oct 29, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> look i could care less if the international game is being played or not by our president. if he overstepped his legal rights as president, then it is our congress by power of the constitution and as our elected representitives that are under power to call him to task. no international law has the power to do anything to my president. just like DOMS keeps asking. where is the trial? congress authorized force in iraq. both times. i accept that. the UN has no power. they should have no power. it is a worthless body that has accomplished none of its stated goals.


Fine. The UN is a worthless body and international law is a joke and negotiations are a farce.

Do you see how ridiculous that looks? Do you know what you've just articulated? The law of the jungle. So I guess all that 'rule of law' stuff during the Clinton impeachment was just bullshit.

The charter of the UN, the holdings of the Nuremberg Trials and a host of treaties make up international law. As a founding member of the UN, the US is the single most powerful member.

Just b/c there is no trial for a war crime doesn't mean it did not happen.

That's like saying Capone was no murderer b/c he was only tried and convicted of tax evasion.

The reason there will be no trial is b/c any condemnation of the US will be killed in the Security Council by the US. The US already ignores the World Court (UN's court) b/c the first case on the docket is war crimes charges against the US for the Iran/Contra Affair.


----------



## Decker (Oct 29, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> im sorry. i thought that every one of my opinions has been stated clearly. and ive not attacked you. now i will. yea, your coming off as a crazy, wacko, neo-liberal. its not needed to back it up. people reading these statements of yours are coming to these opinoins. clemson was just giving an overall impression of how your posts have changed on this forum. take it, or not. if your not able to take critique then this might not be the place for you. its up to you. you need to be a little bit thicker skinned. if your looking for someone getting attacked look at posts directed at danny. and yet he can take it like a big boy even if he is 17.


Oh so now you know that "people reading these statements of (mine) are coming to these opinoins"...

Oh my, since objectivity is the essence of truth I guess I am crazy and wacko and have lost any credibility I might have had...I say might.

You know, I left here originally a few months back b/c the level of discourse was really bottoming out. 

Now you two have come along and really driven the point home.  Your arguments are retreads that really aren't thought out or done very well.  You sure can call a guy names though.  Zing!

See, I don't really care about the names (that is perturbing though), it's your woefully substandard arguments that cause me to wonder why the hell I'm wasting my time here.  

After I left here, I went to a political forum and GetBig.  Both are eminently superior to the work product here.  I think I'll go back.

So good luck debating 17 year old danny--you should be right on par with him.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2007)

Decker said:


> Fine. The UN is a worthless body and international law is a joke and negotiations are a farce.
> 
> Do you see how ridiculous that looks? Do you know what you've just articulated? The law of the jungle. So I guess all that 'rule of law' stuff during the Clinton impeachment was just bullshit.
> 
> ...



can you explain to me what if any of the UN goals have been accomplished since its creation?  i dont want the US government sub-serviant to another body or entity. i consider iran a dangerous nation with dangerous intentions towards us and our allies with desires to build nuclear arms.  if any of these basic statements you disagree with let me know.  everything else seems to be so far off topic that i think we need to bring it back to the issue at hand.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2007)

Decker said:


> Oh so now you know that "people reading these statements of (mine) are coming to these opinoins"...
> 
> Oh my, since objectivity is the essence of truth I guess I am crazy and wacko and have lost any credibility I might have had...I say might.
> 
> ...



yea, people not involved with this debate are starting to now enter the thread and voice their opinion on your posts. you might pay attention to what they are saying without writing them off so quickly.

i really dont think your being objective here. and the name calling was begun by yourself. now your mad? this thing went on for 5 pages before the name calling started. when someone responds back you get all pissed off? i insulted the thread in a very mild mannor. nothing has gotten out of hand. grow some thicker skin and jump back into the debate with something that will get someone to think. the way your presenting your point of view is pushing people away from taking you seriously.

but if you feel another forum is more to your tastes? im sure we will do fine without you.


----------

