PDA

View Full Version : School Me Mainecoon



Sir Evil
08-18-2006, 05:18 PM
Ok Coon I thought this would be a better way for you to scool me, keep it in one thread as I noticed you like to jump around and get your quotes confused.
So Here goes, please school me in the following:

The Iraq Issue

Seeing as this has been the crying call of damn near the entire democratic party and more, school me on a few of these issues:

1 - How many resolutions were dealt with on Iraq?

2 - How long was Iraq an issue within the U.N?

3 - Would diplomacy been the ultimate answer?

4 - At the given time of the Iraq invasion and given the fact that we saw up close what terrorism was all about, was their a better way of handling Iraq?
And was there another country that was obviously more of an issue at that time?

5 - Now we are in the middle of a possible civil war within Iraq, and I never said the situation was ideal! What do we do next? and why?

I'll start it at that, answer whichever way you want, whenever you want, but just school me as you claim to be able to do so easily! :cof1:

Cypress
08-18-2006, 05:57 PM
You and dixie: the last of the chickenhawk war apologists.


If you had $350 billion dollars to spend on terrorism and homeland security right after 9/11, would you spend it on Iraq?

Sir Evil
08-18-2006, 06:12 PM
You and dixie: the last of the chickenhawk war apologists.


If you had $350 billion dollars to spend on terrorism and homeland security right after 9/11, would you spend it on Iraq?

So Cyphilis, I didn't recognize you to be the same guy as mainecoon.

War apologist eh? far from it, I only see more and look forward to it.

So it comes down to money does it? Well this was not one of the questions I asked but I'll answe anyway.

So you think there is a better way to manage the war from a monetary point of view? I would certainly put more funding into homeland security but at the same time spending is a necessary fact of war. I have yet to claim that Iraq is going well but on the other hand I am not crying about the unfortunate budget either. The finances suck for sure but after 911, and given the nature of things I have no doubt that Iraq was a priority, if it did'nt happen then it would of happened at another time.

Annie
08-18-2006, 06:15 PM
You and dixie: the last of the chickenhawk war apologists.


If you had $350 billion dollars to spend on terrorism and homeland security right after 9/11, would you spend it on Iraq?

Seemed like a reasonable place to start a discussion, not a flamewar? Then again, as a newbie, I'm a little taken aback at how some people are judging others en toto, with a few posts.

Sir Evil
08-18-2006, 06:18 PM
Seemed like a reasonable place to start a discussion, not a flamewar? Then again, as a newbie, I'm a little taken aback at how some people are judging others en toto, with a few posts.

Hey now, I love to flame some of the shitbricks around here. I got the royal treatment my first day here so I just respond on these terms now for fun.

Annie
08-18-2006, 06:22 PM
Oh I can stand a few nasties, but Maineman seems a bit over the top with slamming anyone who disagrees with him. For someone that appears to put himself above others, he's sure quick to categorize with very limited information.

Sir Evil
08-18-2006, 06:25 PM
Oh I can stand a few nasties, but Maineman seems a bit over the top with slamming anyone who disagrees with him. For someone that appears to put himself above others, he's sure quick to categorize with very limited information.

Yep, he was the first to jump all over me with kind words but no biggie, I have thick skin. I can almost see his sheer brilliance in debating when it's not all scattered about so this is my reason for creating a thread and letting him school me.

My names outside of that are all in the name of fun, and are not meant for any other reason.....:cool:

Cypress
08-18-2006, 07:07 PM
Ok Coon I thought this would be a better way for you to scool me, keep it in one thread as I noticed you like to jump around and get your quotes confused.
So Here goes, please school me in the following:

The Iraq Issue

Seeing as this has been the crying call of damn near the entire democratic party and more, school me on a few of these issues:

1 - How many resolutions were dealt with on Iraq?

2 - How long was Iraq an issue within the U.N?

3 - Would diplomacy been the ultimate answer?

4 - At the given time of the Iraq invasion and given the fact that we saw up close what terrorism was all about, was their a better way of handling Iraq?
And was there another country that was obviously more of an issue at that time?

5 - Now we are in the middle of a possible civil war within Iraq, and I never said the situation was ideal! What do we do next? and why?

I'll start it at that, answer whichever way you want, whenever you want, but just school me as you claim to be able to do so easily! :cof1:

You know, the one and only troll I had on our previous board was a troll I made pretending to be a Con, and I used to scream about how the war was justified "because Iraq violated resolutions!" and because "the treasonous french were helping Saddam!"

Everyone on the board knew those were lame arguments - the arguments of a bush-bootlicker - who would justify any amount of death and destruction just to have the honor of defending Bush at all costs. And they knew only a lame troll would make those arguments.

You're arguments are so lame, and cannot possibly justify a half trillion dollar war, let alone tens of thousands of dead and wounded americans, that I find myself wondering if you're in fact a leftie troll trying to make Cons look like boot-licking idiots.

BRUTALITOPS
08-18-2006, 07:19 PM
Seemed like a reasonable place to start a discussion, not a flamewar? Then again, as a newbie, I'm a little taken aback at how some people are judging others en toto, with a few posts.

The vast majority of us have history, and have been posting together for about 3 years...thus we pretty much already know what each other is thinking.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-18-2006, 07:23 PM
Seemed like a reasonable place to start a discussion, not a flamewar? Then again, as a newbie, I'm a little taken aback at how some people are judging others en toto, with a few posts.


Hey now, I love to flame some of the shitbricks around here. I got the royal treatment my first day here so I just respond on these terms now for fun.

LMAO... Just wait! They have not accused you of being me or Toby yet, have they? I'm sure they have been tempted to, it's coming soon. They always resort to that because they can't fathom the possibility there is more of us than them, and so it just has to be, that we are all the same person, posting under different names!

Evil has the right idea, think.... Sea Monkeys! That's what the Pinheads are, little sea monkeys dancing around for our pleasure and enjoyment... I am often fascinated at the tricks they learn... you never can tell what they are going to come up with next!

BRUTALITOPS
08-18-2006, 07:26 PM
razor and gonzo were once thought to be dixie as well.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 07:28 PM
Oh, they accused him of being Dixie within a couple minutes... He's gotten past that. He's had some fun flaming away. I'm surprised at the effect he has had on the board. Adds a little excitement.

:D

Annie
08-18-2006, 07:33 PM
The vast majority of us have history, and have been posting together for about 3 years...thus we pretty much already know what each other is thinking.

I understand that. I was invited here by some old buddies from another board, so while 'they' may be able to 'know my thinking', Maineman was way off. Not only that, but rude. (I was just shocked, seriously. On a messageboard, rudeness?)

BRUTALITOPS
08-18-2006, 07:39 PM
don't worry runyon, your first inclination was correct - most of them are idiots.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 07:40 PM
(I was just shocked, seriously. On a messageboard, rudeness?)
Yah... Truly stunning. I can't imagine how stunned I would be to read rude things on a messageboard....

:cool:

Cypress
08-18-2006, 07:46 PM
Its just that the old "But, but, Saddam violated some resolutions!" argument may sound good on the FreeRepublic board in terms of justifying the expenditure of half a trillion taxpayer dollars, and 22,000 dead and wounded american soldiers.

But, on a more independent board like this one, you're bound to get laughed at if you try to pass off those lame arguments. Even Dixie is shying away from licking bush's boots, on the Iraq war.

Sir Evil
08-18-2006, 07:53 PM
Its just that the old "But, but, Saddam violated some resolutions!" argument may sound good on the FreeRepublic board in terms of justifying the expenditure of half a trillion taxpayer dollars, and 22,000 dead and wounded american soldiers.

But, on a more independent board like this one, you're bound to get laughed at if you try to pass off those lame arguments. Even Dixie is shying away from licking bush's boots, on the Iraq war.

Very,very dissapointing response! Yes, I have mentioned the violation but that is just the begining and we all know it.

So in short you say let saddam live peacefully so the tax dollars are not spent there? man, we are heading for hell in a handbasket if someone has that same attitude gets elected into office, that is a total shitbrick response!!!!!

Tell me Cyphilis, who the hell are we fighting over there in Iraq sincle there army tumbled a dat or two into the conflict? Also where is it that you think they may be coming from??

Sir Evil
08-18-2006, 07:54 PM
I understand that. I was invited here by some old buddies from another board,

Have we crossed paths before Onion?

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-18-2006, 07:55 PM
razor and gonzo were once thought to be dixie as well.

It has, unfortunately become a status symbol to be compared to me, but alas, none can compare, I am an American Original. Still, it's flattering to know they think so highly of me.
:cof1:

Sir Evil
08-18-2006, 07:59 PM
It has, unfortunately become a status symbol to be compared to me, but alas, none can compare, I am an American Original. Still, it's flattering to know they think so highly of me.
:cof1:

You must be the original nemesis to the shitbricks? :cof1:

Annie
08-18-2006, 08:13 PM
Have we crossed paths before Onion?

Tis possible! Watch the breath!

OrnotBitwise
08-18-2006, 09:34 PM
Oh I can stand a few nasties, but Maineman seems a bit over the top with slamming anyone who disagrees with him. For someone that appears to put himself above others, he's sure quick to categorize with very limited information.
Damon, you've no idea just how ironic that statement is in any thread in which Dixie has been participating. :lolup:

Okay, it would be even funnier had Toby chimed in. Can't have everything though.

Annie
08-18-2006, 10:33 PM
Damon, you've no idea just how ironic that statement is in any thread in which Dixie has been participating. :lolup:

Okay, it would be even funnier had Toby chimed in. Can't have everything though.

Damon? Is this like claiming others are Dixie or something? I really hate when users can make multiple id's. I promise, this is my one and only here.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 10:44 PM
I think they just misspelled "damn" there, Runyon.

OrnotBitwise
08-18-2006, 10:53 PM
Damon? Is this like claiming others are Dixie or something? I really hate when users can make multiple id's. I promise, this is my one and only here.
It is amazing to me how low a rascal these scurvy scriveners take me for. Do they think me so uneducated, such an illiterate rube, that I might fail to recognize so obvious a reference as "Runyon?"

Annie
08-18-2006, 10:56 PM
:clink: It was unintentional, but I like it! I'm assuming this?

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/runyon.htm

OrnotBitwise
08-18-2006, 11:01 PM
:clink: It was unintentional, but I like it! I'm assuming this?

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/runyon.htm
That's the stiff. Always writes in the present tense. It's quite annoying, really, but what can you do? He's got the swells in his pocket.

So, not Damon Runyon, eh? Okay. We'll just have to work on the code some more.

Annie
08-18-2006, 11:04 PM
That's the stiff. Always writes in the present tense. It's quite annoying, really, but what can you do? He's got the swells in his pocket.

So, not Damon Runyon, eh? Okay. We'll just have to work on the code some more.

Well perhaps tomorrow, I think I better hang it up for tonight.

maineman
08-18-2006, 11:29 PM
Ok Coon I thought this would be a better way for you to scool me, keep it in one thread as I noticed you like to jump around and get your quotes confused.
So Here goes, please school me in the following:

The Iraq Issue

Seeing as this has been the crying call of damn near the entire democratic party and more, school me on a few of these issues:

1 - How many resolutions were dealt with on Iraq?

2 - How long was Iraq an issue within the U.N?

3 - Would diplomacy been the ultimate answer?

4 - At the given time of the Iraq invasion and given the fact that we saw up close what terrorism was all about, was their a better way of handling Iraq?
And was there another country that was obviously more of an issue at that time?

5 - Now we are in the middle of a possible civil war within Iraq, and I never said the situation was ideal! What do we do next? and why?

I'll start it at that, answer whichever way you want, whenever you want, but just school me as you claim to be able to do so easily! :cof1:

1. Nowhere near as many as have dealt with Israel, yet Bush did not feel compelled to invade, conquer, and occupy the Holy Land because of UN resolutions. This war was sold to America as a logical response to 9/11....not because we decided to invade the country with the most UN resolutions against it.

2. Again...nowhere near as long as Israel has been an issue...see #1 above.

3. The answer to what? To dealing with the wahabbist islamic extremists that attacked us on 9/11? NO. But, neither was invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq.

4. Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 was about as appropriate as invading Korea in response to Pearl Harbor. Iraq posed no threat to us. Colin Powell said as much, explicitly, months before 9/11. I was fully supportive of our invasion of Afghanistan, and Bush had my support for his aggressive foreign policy initiatives there up until we outsourced the capture of OBL at Tora Bora to a bunch of Afghan warlords who went into the hills and came back empty handed except for the bribe money spilling from their pockets. He lost me there and has never gotten me back. I do not think that our enemy should be viewed as a "country", but as a "philosophy" that does not reside in any one country and as a "condition" that is primarily caused by the socio-economic inequities that exist in the region and that the residents of that region rightly or wrongly ascribe, in large measure, to the actions of the west..

5. What do we do in regards to Iraq, or in regards to the war against Islamic extremism?

With regards to Iraq, we give the Iraqi government a date in the near future that we will leave their country and let them decide amongst themselves how they should be governed. I, for one, think that an Iraqi shiite dominated theocracy with close ties to Iran is infinitely worse than a baathist secular Iraq acting as a regional foil to Iranian hegemony, but we have already screwed that pooch and the current mess in Lebanon is a by-product of our misplaced aggession against Iraq and the resulting shift in the middle eastern house of cards.

With regards to the war against Islamic extremism, until we deal with the causes of it instead of simply attempting to stomp on it, we will not solve the problem. Simply killing muslims as a strategy for getting muslims to stop wanting to kill us is a strategy doomed for failure.

Sir Evil
08-19-2006, 11:17 AM
1. Nowhere near as many as have dealt with Israel, yet Bush did not feel compelled to invade, conquer, and occupy the Holy Land because of UN resolutions. This war was sold to America as a logical response to 9/11....not because we decided to invade the country with the most UN resolutions against it.

2. Again...nowhere near as long as Israel has been an issue...see #1 above.

Ok Coonie, right of the bat we have some shitbrick answers! Israel is an ally, they have yet to show any signs of invading anyone just for the hell of it, or drop bombs for the sake of having the power. We are talking about tyranical regimes, would you say that Sharon has shown symptoms of being a madman?
Israel is very easily seen as a place that is an ally to nobody except us, especially during this latest conflict, There is some serious hatred towards the jews, and to be honest it almost sounds like you are one of them. Israel harbors no terrorists, no threats to us whatsoever! You act as though we bow to a bitty country as such is really silly!



3. The answer to what? To dealing with the wahabbist islamic extremists that attacked us on 9/11? NO. But, neither was invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq.

So, you think that there was no need to deal with Iraq at al or what?



4. Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 was about as appropriate as invading Korea in response to Pearl Harbor. Iraq posed no threat to us. Colin Powell said as much, explicitly, months before 9/11. I was fully supportive of our invasion of Afghanistan, and Bush had my support for his aggressive foreign policy initiatives there up until we outsourced the capture of OBL at Tora Bora to a bunch of Afghan warlords who went into the hills and came back empty handed except for the bribe money spilling from their pockets. He lost me there and has never gotten me back. I do not think that our enemy should be viewed as a "country", but as a "philosophy" that does not reside in any one country and as a "condition" that is primarily caused by the socio-economic inequities that exist in the region and that the residents of that region rightly or wrongly ascribe, in large measure, to the actions of the west..

Holy shitbricks batman, George W actually had the blessings of Coonie!!!

Coonie, many of your like minded were for the Iraq war originally as well. I nor you will never know the truth behind the intelligence on that deal, but even without WMD's there was still plenty of cause for this invasion. It has been proven many times over that Iraq harbored terrorists, they had terrorist training camps. Perhaps they were unable to do the US harm directly by missle attack or such, but does this make it ok? Hell no! saddam was probably one of the biggest American haters going, he would of like nothing more then to see more attacks brought upon our soil. So why the change of heart by many of your kind? I see it as gutless to stand a course until things have changed. I'll grant you the fact that things look pretty shitty there, but still that is no reason to hightail it out!



5. What do we do in regards to Iraq, or in regards to the war against Islamic extremism?


I see that you are failing to see the many that we are fighting there fall right into the category of islamic extremists!



With regards to Iraq, we give the Iraqi government a date in the near future that we will leave their country and let them decide amongst themselves how they should be governed. I, for one, think that an Iraqi shiite dominated theocracy with close ties to Iran is infinitely worse than a baathist secular Iraq acting as a regional foil to Iranian hegemony, but we have already screwed that pooch and the current mess in Lebanon is a by-product of our misplaced aggession against Iraq and the resulting shift in the middle eastern house of cards.

Fair enough! but what happens if the Iraqi government fails to secure itself? We will wind up with a bigger problem thanks to the extremists!

"The current mess in Lebanon is a by-product of our misplaced aggession against Iraq and the resulting shift in the middle eastern house of cards."?

Spoken like a true shitbrick! How do you figure this, or is it just your humble opinion? Look, Iran has already been know to be part of the axis of evil, they are the ones sending extremists into Iraq as well as Syria. The pink & the Brain think they are going to take over the entire middle east. If you cant see that the Israel-Lebanon conflict was simply about diverting attention away from Irans ambitions then you are simply just fooling yourself. It was an immediate diversion by Iran, and I don't think they expected the response that came of it.



With regards to the war against Islamic extremism, until we deal with the causes of it instead of simply attempting to stomp on it, we will not solve the problem. Simply killing muslims as a strategy for getting muslims to stop wanting to kill us is a strategy doomed for failure.

Well Coonie, I'll give ya this, you have made a pretty good attempt here but for the most part you are just spewing out typical left handed rhetoric that can be read pretty much all around the net by your kind.

And what the hell does "dealing with the cause mean"? Should we take the time for a more diplomatic approach? should we be trying the hearts & minds routine? Blah, blah, blah....... That's all bullshit!!! We need to be even more aggresive on the war against terror! It's many like you that can't see the big picture of the extremist movement, they don't wanna win over your attention, they don't wanna make peace with you, they don't wanna know nothing from you, they wan't you dead, and that's the bottome line!!!!

Wake up coonie, you have a little ways to go before you go on to be a teacher of anything! :cool:

Cypress
08-19-2006, 01:30 PM
Chickenhawk bluster from someone who's unwilling to serve or die in an unnecessary war he helped start.

ChickenHawk update, August 19, 2006:

-22,000 dead, wounded and maimed american soldiers
-50-100,000 dead iraqi civilians
-350,000,000,000 Taxpayer dollars
-Final estimated cost for your war: 1 - 1.5 Trillion taxpayer $$$

Sir Evil
08-19-2006, 03:15 PM
Chickenhawk bluster from someone who's unwilling to serve or die in an unnecessary war he helped start.

ChickenHawk update, August 19, 2006:

-22,000 dead, wounded and maimed american soldiers
-50-100,000 dead iraqi civilians
-350,000,000,000 Taxpayer dollars
-Final estimated cost for your war: 1 - 1.5 Trillion taxpayer $$$

Cyphilis - Why pull your thumb out of your ass just to stick it in your mouth?

Highly intelligent refute to the discussion, where did ya copy & paste it from?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-19-2006, 05:41 PM
bluster from someone who's unwilling to serve

You know what... you are right, we shouldn't have a voice if we aren't willing to serve, so you will back an immediate Constituional measure to only allow those currently serving in the military, the right to vote? If not, shut your bluster hole!

Annie
08-20-2006, 05:34 AM
bluster from someone who's unwilling to serve

You know what... you are right, we shouldn't have a voice if we aren't willing to serve, so you will back an immediate Constituional measure to only allow those currently serving in the military, the right to vote? If not, shut your bluster hole!

Bluster from "Living Legend", that's rich.

I'm trying to reason if you are insinuating that only those who have served should be able to speak? Or those that haven't can only speak if they agree with you? Or you agree that all should be able to voice their opinions?

Care4all
08-20-2006, 05:55 AM
Bluster from "Living Legend", that's rich.

I'm trying to reason if you are insinuating that only those who have served should be able to speak? Or those that haven't can only speak if they agree with you? Or you agree that all should be able to voice their opinions?

Welcome Runyon! :)

ok, here's the scoop.... Maineman was in the Navy, a lifer, I believe...

Dixie did not serve in the military, because of some medical disability I believe is what he said....

So Maineman and Dixie have a LONG standing fight going on regarding this...

Thus, Dixie is being SARCASTIC and humorous in his response that you are questioning!

hope that helps!

care

Annie
08-20-2006, 06:12 AM
Welcome Runyon! :)

ok, here's the scoop.... Maineman was in the Navy, a lifer, I believe...

Dixie did not serve in the military, because of some medical disability I believe is what he said....

So Maineman and Dixie have a LONG standing fight going on regarding this...

Thus, Dixie is being SARCASTIC and humorous in his response that you are questioning!

hope that helps!

care

Thanks for the welcome and yes, that info. does help. I've seen vets taunted on some boards, as well as 'vets' saying that 'unless you serve/d, 'just shut up', neither of which are or should be part of an American dialogue, IMO.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-20-2006, 07:58 AM
Bluster from "Living Legend", that's rich.

I'm trying to reason if you are insinuating that only those who have served should be able to speak? Or those that haven't can only speak if they agree with you? Or you agree that all should be able to voice their opinions?


Allow me to clarify... I am sick and tired of snot-nosed punks who want to call people names and whine and moan about people "unwilling to serve" in this war, having a valid opinion. I am fed up with ex-military jackasses, who seem to think their opinions are more valid and credible, and they have more freedom of speech, than those of people who were not able to serve or didn't serve. The notion that, if you didn't serve, or aren't ready to go sign up right now, you shouldn't have a voice or opinion about this war or any war.

Here is what I propose... We only allow those CURRENTLY serving to vote. I'll give up my right and allow that to be the rule from now on. This should satisfy the snot-noses, and put an end to the name calling and such. Yes, it's a bit sarcastic, I admit, but it solves the problem those who want to bitch seem to have. Next time a snot-nose pops off to you about why you're not in Iraq fighting this war, ask them if they would like to sign on to this initiative, if they are not willing to do this, they are not very sincere about their position.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-20-2006, 08:10 AM
Welcome Runyon! :)

ok, here's the scoop.... Maineman was in the Navy, a lifer, I believe...

Dixie did not serve in the military, because of some medical disability I believe is what he said....

So Maineman and Dixie have a LONG standing fight going on regarding this...

Thus, Dixie is being SARCASTIC and humorous in his response that you are questioning!

hope that helps!

care


My response was not to that person, I no longer speak to the person you mentioned, and cannot go into detail about the specifics, because Damo doesn't want it mentioned here. Suffice it to say, any parent would fully understand my concerns regarding the safety of my family, including my minor daughter, who he made very graphic public comments about. If you would like to send me a private message, I will be happy to divulge exactly what he said and what took place, and why I no longer speak to him. I promised Damo I would avoid posting it here, and I will honor my word.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-20-2006, 08:18 AM
I'm trying to reason if you are insinuating that only those who have served should be able to speak?

Not those who "have" served, those who are currently serving. If you are no longer in the military, your bacon isn't on the line anymore, you are really no different, or any more qualified to be making decisions about war, than someone who never served. So, let's put a rest to the rhetoric, let's all back a Constitutional Amendment to only allow people currently serving in our Armed Forces the right to vote. We either need to have a system, where we all have an equal voice, or we need to agree that only the ones risking their lives should have the voice. I can go either way.

Damocles
08-20-2006, 10:19 AM
Thank you for letting that one stay in Private, where it belongs.

Annie
08-20-2006, 01:15 PM
I'm trying to reason if you are insinuating that only those who have served should be able to speak?

Not those who "have" served, those who are currently serving. If you are no longer in the military, your bacon isn't on the line anymore, you are really no different, or any more qualified to be making decisions about war, than someone who never served. So, let's put a rest to the rhetoric, let's all back a Constitutional Amendment to only allow people currently serving in our Armed Forces the right to vote. We either need to have a system, where we all have an equal voice, or we need to agree that only the ones risking their lives should have the voice. I can go either way.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with your sarcastic amendment. See, I think every American over 18, that hasn't been convicted of a crime and meets the other requirements of registration has the right to vote and speak freely.

I do NOT think that VETS or current service members have a right to tell others to stfu. I do though, personally, listen when someone who is or has been 'there' explains why some idea will not work. I may not agree with them, but usually if I respect them and they explain WHY, I tend to see their pov.

I think vets, regardless of whether or not I agree with them, deserve my thanks and applause. I don't care if they volunteered or were drafted, they put their life on the line, for all of us.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-21-2006, 07:13 AM
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with your sarcastic amendment. See, I think every American over 18, that hasn't been convicted of a crime and meets the other requirements of registration has the right to vote and speak freely.

I do NOT think that VETS or current service members have a right to tell others to stfu. I do though, personally, listen when someone who is or has been 'there' explains why some idea will not work. I may not agree with them, but usually if I respect them and they explain WHY, I tend to see their pov.

I think vets, regardless of whether or not I agree with them, deserve my thanks and applause. I don't care if they volunteered or were drafted, they put their life on the line, for all of us.

I don't think we disagree, I think you don't understand the sarcasm. I agree, we should all have the same voice, but some people don't believe this, they think "chickenhawks" who never served, shouldn't be allowed to make decisions, shouldn't have a legitimate voice, or valid opinions regarding war. When I encounter people with this illogical and irrelevant view, I suggest they join me in backing a law to only allow current service members the right to vote, and they generally shut up real fast.

maineman
08-21-2006, 10:32 AM
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with your sarcastic amendment. See, I think every American over 18, that hasn't been convicted of a crime and meets the other requirements of registration has the right to vote and speak freely.

I do NOT think that VETS or current service members have a right to tell others to stfu. I do though, personally, listen when someone who is or has been 'there' explains why some idea will not work. I may not agree with them, but usually if I respect them and they explain WHY, I tend to see their pov.

I think vets, regardless of whether or not I agree with them, deserve my thanks and applause. I don't care if they volunteered or were drafted, they put their life on the line, for all of us.

thank you runyon... and don't believe everything that blowhard says about me... He got a taste of what he had been dishing out to me for months and months and we quickly discovered that he was quite capable of dishing, but did not have the ability to "catch" anything like he dished.

I do not think that my status as a veteran gives me any right to tell anyone to shut the fuck up.

I do think, however, that those who have never served and yet have vigorously waved pompoms and given Dubya the public support he has needed to continue this incredible debacle in Iraq ought to be reminded of the fact that the blood of 2611 brave American fighting men and women is caked on their fingers...and that those 2611 brave men and women did something for THEIR country that the pompom waving chickenhawks were too frightened to do. Shame on them.

I also think that my status as a former UN Observer and crisis mediator in Lebanon gives me a certain perspective that ought not to be denigrated by those selfsame chickenhawks.

Sir Evil
08-21-2006, 10:35 AM
Coonie, I take it all back! you at least post your own thoughts around here unlike the many other shitbricks. You have been taken off shitbrick detail! :cof1:

Annie
08-21-2006, 05:16 PM
thank you runyon... and don't believe everything that blowhard says about me... He got a taste of what he had been dishing out to me for months and months and we quickly discovered that he was quite capable of dishing, but did not have the ability to "catch" anything like he dished.

I do not think that my status as a veteran gives me any right to tell anyone to shut the fuck up.

I do think, however, that those who have never served and yet have vigorously waved pompoms and given Dubya the public support he has needed to continue this incredible debacle in Iraq ought to be reminded of the fact that the blood of 2611 brave American fighting men and women is caked on their fingers...and that those 2611 brave men and women did something for THEIR country that the pompom waving chickenhawks were too frightened to do. Shame on them.

I also think that my status as a former UN Observer and crisis mediator in Lebanon gives me a certain perspective that ought not to be denigrated by those selfsame chickenhawks.



Your service, to both the US/UN, denigrated? Never. As for the UN itself, another kettle altogether. But that isn't the 'peacekeepers' fault. Unless of course they were involved in the sex scandals. (Interesting, no? That it never seems to be US members accused of such. Considering that so many make it sound as if our troops are raping and murdering their way through Iraq. Could it be, possibly, that the professionalism of our troops, moreso than our citizens, is the envy of the world?) Just a thought.

NOVA
08-21-2006, 08:24 PM
According to Maine, if you didn't play football, you can't cheer for your team....

Totally logical thinking to the left wing....and totally freekin' wrong...

Annie
08-21-2006, 08:29 PM
According to Maine, if you didn't play football, you can't cheer for your team....

Totally logical thinking to the left wing....and totally freekin' wrong...

dang, I lettered in gymnastics.

Care4all
08-21-2006, 08:37 PM
According to Maine, if you didn't play football, you can't cheer for your team....

Totally logical thinking to the left wing....and totally freekin' wrong...

$10 bucks on Charlie being next!

alpha, bravo, charlie......? :D

NOVA
08-21-2006, 08:42 PM
Then you can cheer while watching highlights from the Senate spa....

Don't underestimate this Maineman dude....he is as narrow minded and brainwashed as they come....doesn't give an inch.....his hate for Bush over shadows reason at times....most times....but a worthy adversary nevertheless.....one of the few lefties that can actually string a few words together and make them appear meaningful at first glance anyway....

He's by pal....batting each other around for awhile now....but hes got a glass jaw in the end....

NOVA
08-21-2006, 08:44 PM
Hi Care...yeah....if you see a 'Charlie" on another site...assume its me....LOL!

Care4all
08-21-2006, 08:48 PM
Hi Care...yeah....if you see a 'Charlie" on another site...assume its me....LOL!


i'm going to check another site right now to see if charlie is a new member and if he's made any negative Byrd comments, and if he has....then confirmation! :D and you'll owe me $10 bucks! lol

NOVA
08-21-2006, 08:52 PM
I only go with the Byrd bashing because MM loves the little bigoted SOB and defends him regularly....if he can't see that sig. every night its of no use....

maineman
08-22-2006, 06:59 AM
According to Maine, if you didn't play football, you can't cheer for your team....

Totally logical thinking to the left wing....and totally freekin' wrong...

NO....according to maineman, if you are capable of fighting in the middle of the civil war in Iraq that your own pompom waving helped set in motion, then you ought to have the courage to go fight in it so that some other poor GI - who may not have been all that keen on losing his life in the middle of a civil war that we have no rightful business being in the midst of - does not have to die because of YOUR side's fuckup.... or alternatively, have the grace to admit that the war in Iraq was a terrible mistake, put your fucking pompoms down ,and start demanding that we get out of there before any MORE Americans die for NOTHING.

asshole.:321:

Gaffer
08-22-2006, 09:12 AM
After reading through all this its hard to decide where to start.

I don't have any use for anyone that posts with a second account pretending to be either a lib or a con. I quit one board that I posted at regularly because of just that kind of action. So Cyphilus (SE's name for him) has no credibility in my book from here on.

mInUte man is a Bush hater who has some spin ability. Though nothing more and no concrete answers to anything other than cut and run.

My pompoms are out for our troops in iraq. They always will be. And i won't see us cut and run and abandon everything that has been gained so far in iraq. That tactic was used in Vietnam and proved fatal to that country. All the money and lives were wasted and it better not ever happen again. If we took a wrong turn, fine, now we will find a way back. If we can't find a way we will make one. But we will NOT turn back.

Those who served in the military did so so that we can all post here and be free to say and do as we please. If I were younger I would be going back in the military myself. Unfortunately us old men have to sit back and let the young ones do it.

iraq has become a secular civil war, its being stirred up by iran. That is our real and true enemy. saddam needed to be taken down and was. He and his forces are irrelevant now. We are dealing with shea insurgents supplied and supported by iran. They are just another arm of that country like hezbollah is in lebannon. Its just another small front in the war on islamo-facists based in iran. If you libs weren't so all fired up over Bush hating you would recognize that.

maineman
08-22-2006, 11:52 AM
"everything that has been gained in Iraq so far"????

besides the overthrow of Saddam...which I still feel is of dubious merit given his long record of success at curtailing the regional ambitions and influence of Iran.... what else have we gained? We have spent a half a trillion dollars.... we have laid seige to a country that had done nothing to us and have, in the process, killed and maimed thousands of innocent civilians. We have, with our bumbling lack of understanding of the sectarian dynamics of the region, set a civil war in motion that will end up killing many more tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.... we have radicalized the arab street, we have allowed Iran to flex its muscles in ways that would have been unheard of with Saddam in power.... what exactly HAVE we really gained????

and FYI...the VAST majority of "insurgent" activity in Iraq comes from sunnis and not shi'ites.

Do you just make this shit up, or what?

LadyT
08-22-2006, 11:58 AM
besides the overthrow of Saddam...which I still feel is of dubious merit given his long record of success at curtailing the regional ambitions and influence of Iran.... what else have we gained?

There are two sides to this story:

On the one hand, we got rid of saddam which in an of itself is a good thing

on the other hand, we got rid of saddam - the person who basically kept Iran in check.

Good for Iraqi's (that statement is loaded with caveats) but still bad for us.

maineman
08-22-2006, 12:02 PM
my guess is that the families of the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that we have slaughtered plus the families of the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who will die in the civil war between sunnis and shiites will not think that our invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq and ouster ouster of Saddam is a "good" thing.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 12:11 PM
my guess is that the families of the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that we have slaughtered plus the families of the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who will die in the civil war between sunnis and shiites will not think that our invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq and ouster ouster of Saddam is a "good" thing.


Yeah :( that's why say, "in and of itself"

Care4all
08-22-2006, 12:41 PM
so what now? what would be the best way to handle this f-up? with us supporting the shiites in gvt, while the shiite people in iraq side with hezbollah and iran, in the middle of a civil war with sunnis?

i mean, could this have gotten any more SCREWED UP than it did?

gees louise!

the shiites are killing alot of sunnis too maineman, from what i've been reading, the shiites are shedding their revenge upon the sunnis for holding them in captivity for so long under saddam....? it's pretty bad!!!

care

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 12:43 PM
Friend to all nations.
Entangling alliances with none.

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 12:47 PM
so what now? what would be the best way to handle this f-up? with us supporting the shiites in gvt, while the shiite people in iraq side with hezbollah and iran, in the middle of a civil war with sunnis?

i mean, could this have gotten any more SCREWED UP than it did?

gees louise!

the shiites are killing alot of sunnis too maineman, from what i've been reading, the shiites are shedding their revenge upon the sunnis for holding them in captivity for so long under saddam....? it's pretty bad!!!

care

Tis a key question on the mind of many! Clearly nobody likes the current admins way of handling things so why not have everyone offer a solution to the problem, wehter it be more troops, less troops, pull out all together, or what have ya. Can't have it both ways with the should'nt have been there to begin with, fact is that we are there and no one has really offered up much other than criticism. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that comment is directed to them, it's simply pointing out the current problem amongst the politicians!

LadyT
08-22-2006, 12:47 PM
so what now? what would be the best way to handle this f-up? with us supporting the shiites in gvt, while the shiite people in iraq side with hezbollah and iran, in the middle of a civil war with sunnis?

i mean, could this have gotten any more SCREWED UP than it did?

gees louise!

the shiites are killing alot of sunnis too maineman, from what i've been reading, the shiites are shedding their revenge upon the sunnis for holding them in captivity for so long under saddam....? it's pretty bad!!!

care

slowly step away and hope no one notices?

LadyT
08-22-2006, 12:50 PM
Tis a key question on the mind of many! Clearly nobody likes the current admins way of handling things so why not have everyone offer a solution to the problem, wehter it be more troops, less troops, pull out all together, or what have ya. Can't have it both ways with the should'nt have been there to begin with, fact is that we are there and no one has really offered up much other than criticism. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that comment is directed to them, it's simply pointing out the current problem amongst the politicians!

I've been offering the same solution for about 3 years now......

"Pull out of Iraq"

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 12:56 PM
I've been offering the same solution for about 3 years now......

"Pull out of Iraq"

The eventual pullout is indeed the best overall solution, nobody wants to see it worse of than it already is. However pulling out now, would that really be the best thing in your opinion? As you stated above, jokingly Im sure, "leave now and hope nobody notices" happens to be a very big part of the problem. Thing is everyone would notice! The admin is too worried what type of backlash that would get, how weak it may make them look, and so on. We all saw the claimed victory by hizbollah, the same thing would occur, and terrorists, Iran, and Syria would be claiming a victory. Even worse then that they would wholeheartedly believe it too! Just palin can't have that or they would see themselves as world rulers.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 12:58 PM
Iraq will be fine without us. The insurgency will not be able to take over the country if we leave now. As far as sectarian violence we can't do much about that since they will probably start as soon as we leave regardless.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 12:59 PM
I encourage a partition of the country 3 nations.

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 01:04 PM
The insurgency will not be able to take over the country if we leave now.

Do you believe the insurgents sent across borders would just up and leave if we did? I have a hard time believing that, I think it might even increase for the single purpose of furthering Irans want to be the big player in the middle east.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 01:08 PM
The eventual pullout is indeed the best overall solution, nobody wants to see it worse of than it already is. However pulling out now, would that really be the best thing in your opinion? As you stated above, jokingly Im sure, "leave now and hope nobody notices" happens to be a very big part of the problem. Thing is everyone would notice! The admin is too worried what type of backlash that would get, how weak it may make them look, and so on. We all saw the claimed victory by hizbollah, the same thing would occur, and terrorists, Iran, and Syria would be claiming a victory. Even worse then that they would wholeheartedly believe it too! Just palin can't have that or they would see themselves as world rulers.

I've been for a pull out for a long time, but its been an evolving plan. I think Bush have in addition to general elections put an initiative on the ballot that would get rid of US occupational forces in the country. Given that most of the people were against us being there it would have been a win-win: We don't look like we were occupiers, democracy would be working and the civil war that was inevitable would ensue sans the US military. We could still do that but I odn't know of any general elections coming up. The best option would be to pull out our uniformed forces and support them with special ops forces and with IT gathering from outside Iraq and redeploying a small number of troops on friendly bases. That would be my suggestion. But we need to face up to what's going on: its civil war and a uniformed US military presence isn't helping the situation, so if its not helping, we should get out.

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 01:12 PM
The best option would be to pull out our uniformed forces and support them with special ops forces and with IT gathering from outside Iraq and redeploying a small number of troops on friendly bases. That would be my suggestion. But we need to face up to what's going on: its civil war and a uniformed US military presence isn't helping the situation, so if its not helping, we should get out.

BAM! One of the better suggestions I have seen of late! I think it's a decent start anyway but what to do should the insurgency continue? civil war will take place regardless if the government & military there can't stand on it's own.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 01:13 PM
Do you believe the insurgents sent across borders would just up and leave if we did? I have a hard time believing that, I think it might even increase for the single purpose of furthering Irans want to be the big player in the middle east.

No the insurgency will not completely desolve. However it is more likely to shrink than grow. Many in the insurgency simply want to kill Americans not their fellow countrymen. They will have lost a primary motivator with our withdrawal. As for the remainder I believe the Iraqi army can hold them at bay at least. Yes there will continue to be bombings and the like but they won't take over the country. They're no Viet Cong.

As for Iran I don't think it is Iran's interests to subvert the interests of a shiitite dominated theocratic democracy in Iraq.

The insurgency is Sunni anyway. It isn't totally unlikely that without us there the Iranians might help Iraq destory the Sunni insurgency.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 01:20 PM
I think it's a decent start anyway but what to do should the insurgency continue?

Offer up intel and deploy troops if its absolutely necessary to stabilize a situation and then get out, immediately.

To be honest I'd almost prefer if the redeployed troops were NATO, but I don't know what kinds of timeframe commitments they may or may not regarding being on stand by.

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 01:23 PM
As for Iran I don't think it is Iran's interests to subvert the interests of a shiitite dominated theocratic democracy in Iraq.

The insurgency is Sunni anyway. It isn't totally unlikely that without us there the Iranians might help Iraq destory the Sunni insurgency.

So you don't see Iran having any interest in extending power other than trying to kill out some of our troops? I figured it may be a key for them without our troops there, saddam no longer in charge, and the chance to extend their power of extemism.

Admittedly I have little knowledge of the different tribes intentions, coonie was schooling me on that one but I have yet to take it all in so I may very well see it in a whole other light.

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 01:27 PM
To be honest I'd almost prefer if the redeployed troops were NATO, but I don't know what kinds of timeframe commitments they may or may not regarding being on stand by.

Darn LadyT, ya got it going on now! Glad to see someone recognize that NATO would be more of a force as opposed to the UN. I could see NATO becoming more involved in this age if some could get the idea that the UN just can't handle these kind of issues.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 01:41 PM
Darn LadyT, ya got it going on now! Glad to see someone recognize that NATO would be more of a force as opposed to the UN. I could see NATO becoming more involved in this age if some could get the idea that the UN just can't handle these kind of issues.


Thnx. Its refreshing to hear a con actually consider pulling out of Iraq.

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 01:50 PM
Thnx. Its refreshing to hear a con actually consider pulling out of Iraq.

LOL, now what gave you the impression that I was a "con" as you would put it, is that the automatic for the opposing views?

Pulling the troops is something I see as a need but when, is a whole other animal! I would'nt say it's a good idea to put a timetable on it, nor just pull em' out all together without a planB ready to go.

I like what you have offered thus far in ideas, it's more than many have offered. With that said I wanna make a little assumption of my own, you lean left but not far left, you hate everything Bush is about, and you could neve see eye to eye with someone who supports him. Would that be a fair assesment?

LadyT
08-22-2006, 02:01 PM
LOL, now what gave you the impression that I was a "con" as you would put it, is that the automatic for the opposing views?

Pulling the troops is something I see as a need but when, is a whole other animal! I would'nt say it's a good idea to put a timetable on it, nor just pull em' out all together without a planB ready to go.

I like what you have offered thus far in ideas, it's more than many have offered. With that said I wanna make a little assumption of my own, you lean left but not far left, you hate everything Bush is about, and you could neve see eye to eye with someone who supports him. Would that be a fair assesment?

No. I give Bush credit when he does something right. Offhand I think there may have been two things that I thought were smart.

One was the funds he set aside for bird flu preparedness. The details are fuzzy, but I can remember thinking, "oh look he's thinking ahead and he has our welfare in mind".

OH, and the other was the voter's act he kept recently.

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 02:06 PM
No. I give Bush credit when he does something right. Offhand I think there may have been two things that I thought were smart.

One was the funds he set aside for bird flu preparedness. The details are fuzzy, but I can remember thinking, "oh look he's thinking ahead and he has our welfare in mind".

OH, and the other was the voter's act he kept recently.

I could go along with that, and agree. Is that the "con" coming out of you a bit?
I' just trying to figure the mindset of many here, I have'nt really declared anything other than opinions but somehow many tend to classify right away, to me that is a biggie of a problem right now in the political world. Ya just palin gotta be on a declared side, and be against the opposing side in order to get anything done. Hows about one side of opposing views figuring out the grand scheme during critical times and leaving the partisan ways along the side until a better time?

LadyT
08-22-2006, 02:09 PM
I could go along with that, and agree. Is that the "con" coming out of you a bit?
I' just trying to figure the mindset of many here, I have'nt really declared anything other than opinions but somehow many tend to classify right away, to me that is a biggie of a problem right now in the political world. Ya just palin gotta be on a declared side, and be against the opposing side in order to get anything done. Hows about one side of opposing views figuring out the grand scheme during critical times and leaving the partisan ways along the side until a better time?

Well, you are correct. You don't even know it, but you've actually busted me on being hypocritical. I've often shun labels and over generalizing people and here I've done it to you. I apologize.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 02:14 PM
So you don't see Iran having any interest in extending power other than trying to kill out some of our troops? I figured it may be a key for them without our troops there, saddam no longer in charge, and the chance to extend their power of extemism.

Admittedly I have little knowledge of the different tribes intentions, coonie was schooling me on that one but I have yet to take it all in so I may very well see it in a whole other light.

I'm sure Iran intends to exert great control in that area and that is one thing we cannot really prevent that either unless we stay indefinitely. It is debatable if Iranian influence in Iraq is that detrimental to us anyway.

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 02:20 PM
Well, you are correct. You don't even know it, but you've actually busted me on being hypocritical. I've often shun labels and over generalizing people and here I've done it to you. I apologize.

No apology needed, nobody is the winner at the end of the day as it is all about opinion But we all stand to be the losers if the problems are'nt recognized before it's too late. Take a look around this board for instance, we have the "kerry slamming lieberman" thing, fighting amonsgst their own and then conservs crossing lines to throw a pat on the back in favor of lieberman. We have articles criticizing hilary for her original vote for war, the McCain side of things, and it just goes on, and on... So long as they wish to fight amongst themselves, cross lines in support to gain a vote or two along the way the bigger picture is lost.

Step back and look at it from a outsiders view, one of the biggest acts of terrorism reaked havoc on the american people, and that is simply the dissention created by it all. Who do you think is laughing at the end of the day? That being a look without taking sides needs to be something that we all need to see if we wanna declare any kind of victory when it's over!

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-22-2006, 03:19 PM
I wanna make a little assumption of my own, you lean left but not far left, you hate everything Bush is about, and you could neve see eye to eye with someone who supports him. Would that be a fair assesment?

LOL... She leans so far left the change falls out of her pockets, and you'd be real surprised who she can see eye to eye with, given the cause. Right, T?
;)

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 06:38 PM
I wanna make a little assumption of my own, you lean left but not far left, you hate everything Bush is about, and you could neve see eye to eye with someone who supports him. Would that be a fair assesment?

LOL... She leans so far left the change falls out of her pockets, and you'd be real surprised who she can see eye to eye with, given the cause. Right, T?
;)

LOL, that was funny but must admit I have seen far worse than her here on this board. Honestly though I have seen some on the left side that would be considered king in these parts! She atr least is reasonable in her views from what I read so far, and even if I amway off there I can say that she can carry a norma discussion,

LadyT
08-22-2006, 07:13 PM
I wanna make a little assumption of my own, you lean left but not far left, you hate everything Bush is about, and you could neve see eye to eye with someone who supports him. Would that be a fair assesment?

LOL... She leans so far left the change falls out of her pockets, and you'd be real surprised who she can see eye to eye with, given the cause. Right, T?
;)

LOL :clink:

Vive l'underground!

LadyT
08-22-2006, 07:15 PM
LOL, that was funny but must admit I have seen far worse than her here on this board.

Oh gee thanks.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 07:17 PM
Oh gee thanks.
That's just his way of saying he thinks you are sexy!

Care4all
08-22-2006, 07:21 PM
LOL :clink:

Vive l'underground!

hey! vive l'underground!

:clink:

without it... there would not be this site we are on today! :D

Care4all
08-22-2006, 07:22 PM
That's just his way of saying he thinks you are sexy!
hahaha!
gotta learn the language lady t!
;)

Sir Evil
08-22-2006, 07:23 PM
Oh gee thanks.

Hey, I thought I poured quite a bit of credibilty your way if ya read a bit further!

LadyT
08-23-2006, 10:39 AM
hey! vive l'underground!

:clink:

without it... there would not be this site we are on today! :D

LOL,

On behalf of Grind, Dixie, Brent and myself: your welcome! ;)