Is genocide OK, if you're polite?

[Synch]

Certainly the Christian "Charities" are committing genocide in Africa and other 3rd World nations by prohibiting the use of condems in a countries plagued by AIDS.

Dissolve those Christian charities then...... I'm sure the Africans who were once were being "massacred" by these Christian charities will be estatic over such news.

Just don't force the taxpayers to make up for the difference in charity dollars that would've been there.

 

[cherokee]

Certainly the Christian "Charities" are committing genocide in Africa and other 3rd World nations by prohibiting the use of condems in a countries plagued by AIDS.

Damn good point Hip!
When a preacher tell you not to use condoms and that "God will protect you"...:roll: Its insane!

 

[Kandahar]

Dissolve those Christian charities then...... I'm sure the Africans who were once were being "massacred" by these Christian charities will be estatic over such news.

Just don't force the taxpayers to make up for the difference in charity dollars that would've been there.

Those charities that discourage condom use do more harm than good. The taxpayers wouldn't have to "make up the difference" in anything, because that implies that things would naturally deteriorate without the help of those charities. If those charities just ceased to exist entirely, the situation would improve. At least then Africans wouldn't be getting misleading sex education.

 

[Billo_Really]

I hate condoms!

If you don't trust the p_ssy, why are you f_cking the p_ssy?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It must be weird for you making a statement like that and having no one in the Administration echo your sentiments. In fact, what the Administration has said publically is just the opposite:

I don't care what the administration says, WMD was found in Iraq and it has been proven by Rick Santorum.

That's not what their saying. But since you took this position, you can't use 1441 as a precedent for attacking.

That's exactly what you and they are saying; furthermore, 1441 threatened serious consequences if those serious consequences were not military action what do you think it meant? Perhaps a strongly written letter?

Lets just see what the law says, shall we?The law is not on your side. Obey the law!

WTF does this have to do with what I posted? I proved incontrovertably that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people, it is nationalized and thanks to the Constitution it will always remain so.

Prove it!

Fine let's use your precious lancet survey:

Coalition forces blamed for 31 percent of deaths since 2003 invasion

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths - CNN.com

Now do a little simple math their bill subract 31 from 100 and what do you get? That's right the vast majority of the deaths are due to your beloved resistance.

We attacked in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Which is also part of our Constitution. It is illegal. I'll leave out all the lies to justify it, for now.

Article 51 does not put the soveriegnty of the U.S. military into the hands of the UNSC if you think it does then you're out of your mind.

A couple of posts ago, you said you cared about them. Now you don't. You care, you don't care. I don't think you know what you care about.

How does me stating the fact that it's an all volunteer army and all people agree to serve for a minimum of 8 years constitute in lack of caring in your warped mind?

Inaccurate? Your a classic example of this one......when I said this a few posts back......and when I said we are not talking about the same group of people, you said (without any proof of such)......which is doing this......Inaccurate? I don't think so!

This just proves that you don't understand the Middle Eastern press, the Middle Eastern press is a state owned propaganda apparatus that blames the Jews and the Americans for everything that's wrong in the world. I'd sooner trust the Guardian or the Daily Worker than I would the Kuwaiti owned propaganda newspaper Azzman.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
I don't care what the administration says, WMD was found in Iraq and it has been proven by Rick Santorum.

Your all over the map. I see why you like Santorum. He's a lunatic!

Originally posted by TOT:
That's exactly what you and they are saying; furthermore, 1441 threatened serious consequences if those serious consequences were not military action what do you think it meant? Perhaps a strongly written letter?

Unfortunately for you, that is not the wording when they authorize military force. ["...all necessary means..."]

Originally posted by TOT:
WTF does this have to do with what I posted? I proved incontrovertably that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people, it is nationalized and thanks to the Constitution it will always remain so.

Is this a word?

"incontrovertably"

Or a car with the top down?

Originally posted by TOT:
Fine let's use your precious lancet survey:

Coalition forces blamed for 31 percent of deaths since 2003 invasion

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths - CNN.com

Now do a little simple math their bill subract 31 from 100 and what do you get? That's right the vast majority of the deaths are due to your beloved resistance.

Half a million people are dead as a result of our invasion. We are responsible for everything that occurs.

Originally posted by TOT:
Article 51 does not put the soveriegnty of the U.S. military into the hands of the UNSC if you think it does then you're out of your mind.

Stop trying to twist this into something you can argue. It is very clear, unless your too stupid to understand it or have a specific agenda that is in conflict with this............. mmmmmmmmmmm!

Originally posted by TOT:
How does me stating the fact that it's an all volunteer army and all people agree to serve for a minimum of 8 years constitute in lack of caring in your warped mind?

You just got done trashing our brave troops (who served in Iraq) a couple of posts ago.

Originally posted by TOT:
This just proves that you don't understand the Middle Eastern press, the Middle Eastern press is a state owned propaganda apparatus that blames the Jews and the Americans for everything that's wrong in the world. I'd sooner trust the Guardian or the Daily Worker than I would the Kuwaiti owned propaganda newspaper Azzman.

The difference between you and me is:

You THINK you know, I KNOW you don't!

Hey, did you check out what happened tonight? Bush got snubbed by Maliki! He was halfway to Jordan when Maliki's people told him [Bush] there was no point to meet! This is a major turn of events. So major, it could whind up with us fighting the Russians (and Chinese).

Happy! This is all your fault!

 

[hipsterdufus]

Dissolve those Christian charities then...... I'm sure the Africans who were once were being "massacred" by these Christian charities will be estatic over such news.

Just don't force the taxpayers to make up for the difference in charity dollars that would've been there.

Charity dollars for genocide? Happy to get rid of it.

Bill Clinton is working hard on part 2 as we speak.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Your all over the map. I see why you like Santorum. He's a lunatic!

It’s you who’s all over the map, I was talking about Sarin you brought up uranium, and the fact is we found 500 Sarin filled binary war heads with an indefinite shlef life.

Unfortunately for you, that is not the wording when they authorize military force. ["...all necessary means..."]

A) That’s what Kofi says now after the fact.
B) I don’t give a **** because nowhere in the UN charter does it place the sovereignty of the U.S. military into the hands of the UNSC.

Is this a word?
Or a car with the top down?

OMG I placed an A where there should be an I. Either you’re a spelling Nazi or you have really not heard of the word.

in·con·tro·vert·i·bly adj.
Impossible to dispute; unquestionable: incontrovertible proof of the defendant's innocence.

Half a million people are dead as a result of our invasion. We are responsible for everything that occurs.

A) That figures bullshit that too has been proved incontrovertibly.
B) No the vast majority of those deaths are on the hands of your beloved “insurgency.” That blood is on no ones hands but those who did the killing.

Stop trying to twist this into something you can argue. It is very clear, unless your too stupid to understand it or have a specific agenda that is in conflict with this............. Mmmmmmmmmmm!

Nowhere in Article 51 does it state that we have to ask permission from the UNSC to use our military, that would be placing the sovereignty of the U.S. military into the hands of the UNSC, I know that these big words like “incontrovertibly,” and “sovereignty,” are above your pay grade but don’t worry hooked on phonix can work for you too.

You just got done trashing our brave troops (who served in Iraq) a couple of posts ago.

Oh really please show me where I did that. It is you who calls them war criminals and believes that it is legitimate for Islamic Fascists to murder them.

The difference between you and me is:

You don’t know dick, the media in the middle east is bullshit propaganda and for you to think that it’s a reputable source is a ****ing joke.

 

[DeeJayH]

Those charities that discourage condom use do more harm than good. The taxpayers wouldn't have to "make up the difference" in anything, because that implies that things would naturally deteriorate without the help of those charities. If those charities just ceased to exist entirely, the situation would improve. At least then Africans wouldn't be getting misleading sex education.

if these charities or the Church was saying screw your brains out but dont use condoms you would have a solid point
but since the church actually says:
no condoms AND
no premarital sex

your argument is pure Bullshit
if the backwards *** ignorant sons-a-bitches actually followed the directions of the church, there would be NO AIDS epidemic

they, like most people, are having unprotected sex, with multiple partners, out of wedlock
and all the ****tards want to blame it on the church for teaching them to grow the **** up and keep it in their pants
:applaud

 

[Kandahar]

if these charities or the Church was saying screw your brains out but dont use condoms you would have a solid point
but since the church actually says:
no condoms AND
no premarital sex

Ya well most people (in just about any country) are going to have premarital sex regardless of what the charities or churches say. But thanks to the charities, Africans are going to think that there's no alternative to just risking getting AIDS.

your argument is pure Bullshit
if the backwards *** ignorant sons-a-bitches actually followed the directions of the church, there would be NO AIDS epidemic

Translation: "**** those stupid n!ggers."

they, like most people, are having unprotected sex, with multiple partners, out of wedlock

Because no one has bothered to teach them that there's an alternative other than a lifetime with AIDS or total celibacy. And in fact, they're being taught exactly the opposite.

and all the ****tards want to blame it on the church for teaching them to grow the **** up and keep it in their pants
:applaud

How ethnocentric and sexist. "Keep it in their pants"? What about the women? Most women in Africa don't even have a CHOICE. They get AIDS from whatever man forces himself on them. And of course they have no access to condoms and are actively discouraged from using them.

One ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I'm sure that those charities are trying to do good, in their own mean-spirited Jesusy way, but the fact is that they're causing more problems than they solve.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
It’s you who’s all over the map, I was talking about Sarin you brought up uranium, and the fact is we found 500 Sarin filled binary war heads with an indefinite shlef life.

You argue like a 5 year old.

Originally posted by TOT:
A) That’s what Kofi says now after the fact.

Prove it wasn't before the fact!

Originally posted by TOT:
B) I don’t give a **** because nowhere in the UN charter does it place the sovereignty of the U.S. military into the hands of the UNSC.

Just leave it at "[you] don't give a ****..." I'm not going to respond to that stupid statement of yours. Your trying to spin it into something else.

Originally posted by TOT:
OMG I placed an A where there should be an I. Either you’re a spelling Nazi or you have really not heard of the word.

in·con·tro·vert·i·bly adj.
Impossible to dispute; unquestionable: incontrovertible proof of the defendant's innocence.

You'd like to think that.

Originally posted by TOT:
A) That figures bullshit that too has been proved incontrovertibly.
B) No the vast majority of those deaths are on the hands of your beloved “insurgency.” That blood is on no ones hands but those who did the killing.

There you go making irresponsible statements you cannot prove. What kind of POS are you? My beloved insurgency! Like I said, I don't have to lie to make my point. You do!

Originally posted by TOT:
Nowhere in Article 51 does it state that we have to ask permission from the UNSC to use our military, that would be placing the sovereignty of the U.S. military into the hands of the UNSC, I know that these big words like “incontrovertibly,” and “sovereignty,” are above your pay grade but don’t worry hooked on phonix can work for you too.

It must bother the sh_t out of you not being able to find a valid argument against this issue. So you try to morph it into something else and throw some insults in at the end to cover tracks.

Originally posted by TOT:
Oh really please show me where I did that. It is you who calls them war criminals and believes that it is legitimate for Islamic Fascists to murder them.

Post #24.

Originally posted by TOT:
You don’t know dick, the media in the middle east is bullshit propaganda and for you to think that it’s a reputable source is a ****ing joke.

That's not a valid rebuttal.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Kandahar
Those charities that discourage condom use do more harm than good. The taxpayers wouldn't have to "make up the difference" in anything, because that implies that things would naturally deteriorate without the help of those charities. If those charities just ceased to exist entirely, the situation would improve. At least then Africans wouldn't be getting misleading sex education.

Originally posted by DeeJayH:
if these charities or the Church was saying screw your brains out but dont use condoms you would have a solid point
but since the church actually says:
no condoms AND
no premarital sex

your argument is pure Bullshit
if the backwards *** ignorant sons-a-bitches actually followed the directions of the church, there would be NO AIDS epidemic

they, like most people, are having unprotected sex, with multiple partners, out of wedlock
and all the ****tards want to blame it on the church for teaching them to grow the **** up and keep it in their pants

Hey, you two take your vulgar sex talk somewhere else!

This thread is about genocide and being polite!

 

[hipsterdufus]

if these charities or the Church was saying screw your brains out but dont use condoms you would have a solid point
but since the church actually says:
no condoms AND
no premarital sex

your argument is pure Bullshit
if the backwards *** ignorant sons-a-bitches actually followed the directions of the church, there would be NO AIDS epidemic

they, like most people, are having unprotected sex, with multiple partners, out of wedlock
and all the ****tards want to blame it on the church for teaching them to grow the **** up and keep it in their pants
:applaud

Of course the "****tards" would believe in slavery, human sacrifice, gay bashing, creationism and a flat earth....

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You argue like a 5 year old.

What are you talking about we found WMD case closed you lose next!

Prove it wasn't before the fact!

Because he made no such statement before the fact. Prove me wrong.

Just leave it at "[you] don't give a ****..." I'm not going to respond to that stupid statement of yours. Your trying to spin it into something else.

No I'm not show me where the UN charter says that we have to ask permission from the UNSC to use our military.

You'd like to think that.

No I know that and I have proven that because it says it right ****ing here in the Iraqi Constitution:

Article 108: Oil and gas are the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.
​

Article 109: First: The federal government with the producing governorates and regional governments shall undertake the management of oil and gas extracted from current fields provided that it distributes oil and gas revenues in a fair manner in​

proportion to the population distribution in all parts of the country with a set allotment for a set time for the damaged regions that were unjustly deprived by the former regime and the regions that were damaged later on, and in a way that assures balanced development in different areas of the country, and this will be regulated by law.

Second: The federal government with the producing regional and governorate governments shall together formulate the necessary strategic policies to develop the oil and gas wealth in a way that achieves the highest benefit to the Iraqi people using the most advanced techniques of the market principles and encourages investment.

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files...itution_en.pdf​

There you go making irresponsible statements you cannot prove.
[/quote]

What can't I prove that your figures bullshit or that the vast majority of the casualties are due to your beloved insurgency?

If it's the former and not the latter then explain why UNDP ILCS study which used a comprable methodology only a much larger and better distributed sample population came to a totally different conclusion? If it's the latter and not the former well if you believe the Lancet survey then you must also believe their assertion that 70% of the civilian deaths are the result of your beloved insurgency.

What kind of POS are you? My beloved insurgency! Like I said, I don't have to lie to make my point. You do!

Yes your beloved insurgency and I don't have to lie either:

They have a legal right to resist an illegal occupation of their country.

It must bother the sh_t out of you not being able to find a valid argument against this issue. So you try to morph it into something else and throw some insults in at the end to cover tracks.

No it doesn't bother me in the least, because I understand the English language, and if the Article 51 of the U.N. Charter says what you say it says then why don't you show us all where it says it?

Post #24.

And show me the part in post 24 in which I denigrate the soldiers. Please show us all.

That's not a valid rebuttal.

Actually what you just posted is not a valid rebuttle because the media in the Middle East is bullshit, if you think they have a free press over there you're out of your god damn mind.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
What are you talking about we found WMD case closed you lose next!

Not so fast! We ain't done until I say we are or you run away.

White House Admits WMD Error

Their not even looking for them anymore.

Originally posted by TOT:
No I'm not show me where the UN charter says that we have to ask permission from the UNSC to use our military.

Stop trying to spin this into your agenda-laden arguments! It says it recognizes every nations inherent right to self defense. It attacked, you have every right to attack back. Only when you want to embark on millitary aggression, do you do it under the auspices of the UNSC. What is wrong with you? You think we can just do what ever we please? Only selfish a.s.s.hole's think that way. Is that what you think?

Originally posted by TOT:
No I know that and I have proven that because it says it right ****ing here in the Iraqi Constitution:

The Iraqi Constitution is an illegal document.

Iraq and the Laws of War

by Professor Francis A. Boyle

This brings the analysis to the so-called Constitution of Iraq that was allegedly drafted by the puppet Interim Government of Iraq under the impetus of the United States government. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare flatly prohibits the change in a basic law such as a state's Constitution during the course of a belligerent occupation: "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." This exact same prohibition has been expressly incorporated in haec verba into paragraph 363 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). To the contrary, the United States has demonstrated gross disrespect toward every law in Iraq that has stood in the way of its imperial designs and petroleum ambitions, including and especially the pre-invasion 1990 Interim Constitution for the Republic of Iraq. Most recently, to the same effect is U.N. Security Council Resolution 1637 of 9 November 2005, which extends the foreign military occupation of Iraq until 31 December 2006 but expressly subject to Annex II thereof setting forth a 29 October 2005 letter by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the President of the Security Council guaranteeing that: "The forces that make up the MNF will remain committed to acting consistently with their obligations under international law, including the law of armed conflict." Thereunder, the new Iraqi government that will be installed after the self-styled elections of 15 December 2005 will still remain a puppet government according to the laws of war.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not so fast! We ain't done until I say we are or you run away.

Their not even looking for them anymore.

Ya because we already found them.

Stop trying to spin this into your agenda-laden arguments! It says it recognizes every nations inherent right to self defense. It attacked, you have every right to attack back. Only when you want to embark on millitary aggression, do you do it under the auspices of the UNSC. What is wrong with you? You think we can just do what ever we please? Only selfish a.s.s.hole's think that way. Is that what you think?

Un hunh and where does it say we have to ask permission from the UNSC to use our military? Are you now trying to assert that the Islamic Fascists in Iraq are a legitimate resistance and that the Democratically elected government is not legitimate?

The Iraqi Constitution is an illegal document.

Wow your source is so horribly misinformed or intentionally biased that it's almost laughable, the Iraqi people voted for their government and they voted for the ratification of their Constitution. We didn't create the Constituion or institue their change in laws, that was done by the people of Iraq themselves. Are you honestly trying to assert that the laws of tyrannical Ba'athist regime are legitmate but the Constituion of the Democracy of Iraq are not?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Ya because we already found them.

You didn't find sh_t! No expert in this field has corroborated this report. Not even the White House has backed you up. How does it feel to be rejected by the very group you worship?

Originally posted by TOT:
Un hunh and where does it say we have to ask permission from the UNSC to use our military?

Your not here to debate. Your just trolling. There isn't one post in all your 11,000+ where you have demonstrated any effort to understand an opposing point of view. And if you don't understand it, you don't know what your responding too. And if you don't know what your responding too, you don't know what your talking about.

But I already knew that.

Originally posted by TOT:
Are you now trying to assert that the Islamic Fascists in Iraq are a legitimate resistance and that the Democratically elected government is not legitimate?

As far as your irresponsible lie about "legitamate resistance", I've asked you repeatedly to post the proof I said that. You have failed to do so every time out. Yet you keep saying it without proving it. You need help!

As far as the Iraqi government, Bush is still calling the shots over there. He's the one deciding on Iran's participation. If what you said was true, Bush wouldn't have any say so in the matter.

Originally posted by TOT:
Wow your source is so horribly misinformed or intentionally biased that it's almost laughable, the Iraqi people voted for their government and they voted for the ratification of their Constitution. We didn't create the Constituion or institue their change in laws, that was done by the people of Iraq themselves. Are you honestly trying to assert that the laws of tyrannical Ba'athist regime are legitmate but the Constituion of the Democracy of Iraq are not?

Yeah, all sources are biased, their all wrong, your the only one right..................... right! What a joke. You wouldn't know objective if it hit you upside your head. It is illegal to write a Constitution or change the government in a time of war. Do the math.

 

[Moot]

Recently, on another thread, I was discussing my outrage with the US occupation of Iraq, when this poster responded that my position was just "partisan" talking points. After posting several links (from un-related sources) depicting the war crimes and the carnage caused as a result of the un-provoked attack and illegal occupation of that country by the US, this poster complimented me on my research and data collection. But never commented on the content of what was being stated in the links.

This is the same person who recently took issue with my use of profanity. So it started me thinking, he's offended by fowl language, but is indifferent to almost 3000 American GI's and a half a million Iraqis dying because of faulty intelligence.

So I pose the question to the "marketplace of ideas":

The question posed, "is genocide okay, if you're polite?" is akin to the fallacious argument called Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Hitler was not considered evil because of he was polite. He was considered evil because he commited genocide.

One can be polite and still commit genocide, just as one can be polite and not commit genocide. Genocide does not require one be polite or not be polite. Just as being polite does not require that one commit genocide.

And yet in the past, there were those who thought that even in war the rules of politness must be observed....

Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness. - Otto von Bismarck

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You didn't find sh_t!

Yes we did 500 Sarin filled binary warheads with indefinate shelf lifes, case closed you lose.

Your not here to debate.

Oh I see you can't show me where it says it because it doesn't say it IE you are a lier.

As far as your irresponsible lie about "legitamate resistance", I've asked you repeatedly to post the proof I said that.

That's just a blatant ****ing lie I have it posted three times now here it is one more time:

Originally Posted by Billo
They have a legal right to resist an illegal occupation of their country.

As far as the Iraqi government, Bush is still calling the shots over there.

Again you're full of **** the Iraqi people have democratically elected their own government and ratified their own consitution guaranteeing that their oil is and will remain nationalized.

Yeah, all sources are biased, their all wrong, your the only one right..................... right! What a joke. You wouldn't know objective if it hit you upside your head.

Wow you post sources from the Kuwaiti state owned paper "Azzman," and I'm the one who's not objective? You're the joke dude just nobody's bothered to inform you.

It is illegal to write a Constitution or change the government in a time of war. Do the math.

lmfao it's illegal for the Iraqi people to democratically elect their own government? Are ****ing on crack?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Yes we did 500 Sarin filled binary warheads with indefinate shelf lifes, case closed you lose.

You still haven't posted one expert to back you up.

Originally posted by TOT:
That's just a blatant ****ing lie I have it posted three times now here it is one more time:

Where do you see the words "Islamic Jihadists"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billo
They have a legal right to resist an illegal occupation of their country.

I was speaking about Iraqi citizens and your lying to say I wasn't.

Originally posted by TOT:
Again you're full of **** the Iraqi people have democratically elected their own government and ratified their own consitution guaranteeing that their oil is and will remain nationalized.

I noticed how you avoided the question.

Originally posted by TOT:
Wow you post sources from the Kuwaiti state owned paper "Azzman," and I'm the one who's not objective? You're the joke dude just nobody's bothered to inform you.

First your for Kuwait, then your against Kuwait, like I said, your all over the map.

Originally posted by TOT:
lmfao it's illegal for the Iraqi people to democratically elect their own government? Are ****ing on crack?

King of the mis-quotes and Dean of Dis-information.

I have know idea what your talking about there.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You still haven't posted one expert to back you up.

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

eat it................

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Where do you see the words "Islamic Jihadists"?

Are you saying that the insurgency (or as you call them the resistance) is not made up of Islamic Fascists?

I was speaking about Iraqi citizens and your lying to say I wasn't.

And which Iraqi citizens would those be? The Shia terrorists, or the Sunni terrorists? Because they are both Islamic Fascists and they are both illigitmate factions who are trying to destroy the legitimate Democratically elected Iraqi government.

I noticed how you avoided the question.

You didn't ask a question you made a statement which I disproved by posting the portion of the Iraqi constitution that proves that not only is the Iraqi government not a puppet government of the U.S., but also proves that the war was never about oil.

First your for Kuwait, then your against Kuwait, like I said, your all over the map.

I'm against all of the state owned media in the mid-east because it is nothing more than propaganda used to diflect attention from their own corrupt regimes by blaming all of their problems on Israel and the West.

King of the mis-quotes and Dean of Dis-information.
I have know idea what your talking about there.

You said that the Iraqi Constitution which was created by the Democratically elected government of Iraq and ratified by the Iraqi people was illegal, hence I asked if you were on crack?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Are you saying that the insurgency (or as you call them the resistance) is not made up of Islamic Fascists?

I'm saying that reports from military commanders in the field have indicated that the number of insurgents coming in from foreign country's is less than 10% of the resistance.

Originally posted by TOT:
And which Iraqi citizens would those be? The Shia terrorists, or the Sunni terrorists? Because they are both Islamic Fascists and they are both illigitmate factions who are trying to destroy the legitimate Democratically elected Iraqi government.

How does one determine the difference between a Shia/Sunni terrorist from a Shia/Sunni government official? Which, by the way, only governs the Green Zone! Outside the Green Zone, average Iraqi citizens think it's a joke!

Originally posted by TOT:
You didn't ask a question you made a statement which I disproved by posting the portion of the Iraqi constitution that proves that not only is the Iraqi government not a puppet government of the U.S., but also proves that the war was never about oil.

I posted the actual International Laws (ie, GC, Hague, Nuremberg Principles) that the US has violated. Of which, you have not responded too. And if it wasn't about oil, then why is it, that the first thing we secured when we went into Iraq (while all this lawless looting was going on), was the oil fields? We stood by and watched their entire infrastructure get dessimated while we guarded the oil.

Yeah, right, were not there for oil!

Originally posted by TOT:
I'm against all of the state owned media in the mid-east because it is nothing more than propaganda used to diflect attention from their own corrupt regimes by blaming all of their problems on Israel and the West.

Your against anything the US government tells you to be against. Because you don't have a mind of your own and you do not think for yourself. You have to be told what to think. You would be for the burning of Jews and gassing of Kurds if it was US policy. And because of this, you have turned your back on your country and its flag. Blind allegiance to the flag is tantamount to treason.

Originally posted by TOT:
You said that the Iraqi Constitution which was created by the Democratically elected government of Iraq and ratified by the Iraqi people was illegal, hence I asked if you were on crack?

Thank you for correctly stating my point.

Now, why would you ask me if I was on crack when I posted the International Laws that prohibit the changing of government structures during while being under the control of an occupational force?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
eat it................

Isn't that stuff considered to be toxic?

Because it certainly doesn't classify as WMD.

So-Called Iraqi WMD
By Larry C. Johnson
t r u t h o u t | Reality Check
Saturday 24 June 2006

Senator Rick Santorum's desperate effort to re-energize his failing re-election campaign by touting the discovery of so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Repeat after me, BULL FECAL MATTER!

Leave it to Faux, er ... I mean, Fox News, to spin the malarkey: "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

Now for a reality check. Mustard gas and sarin gas are not Weapons of Mass Destruction. They are potential Mass Casualty Weapons, but they do not cause "mass destruction." They can cause mass casualties but, fortunately, are not very reliable weapon systems. How do we know? We have the empirical evidence from the Iraq-Iran war. Most of the casualties in that 8 year war were caused by conventional weapons, not so-called "WMD." To cause mass casualties, mustard or sarin must be delivered via massive artillery bombardment or through air platforms (i.e., airplanes). Then Mother Nature has to cooperate and ensure that the wind is blowing toward the enemy lines. And the soldiers have to stand still and breathe the gas. Of course, soldiers do not always cooperate. Instead of sitting around smelling the fumes, they turn and run and escape the danger (which many did). Chemical weapons are effective systems for disrupting the attack of an invading army. Even the threat of a chemical attack can force troops to don bulky chemical suits, which, when coupled with stifling heat, can rapidly degrade an Army's ability to fight. Chemical weapons are more of a nuisance, a potentially deadly nuisance, but they are not nuclear weapons. A nuke is a genuine mass destruction weapon.

I could almost write your response for you...

Could have been originally posted by TOT (but ghost written by billo):
"Your gonna post propaganda from some leftist website and try to use that as proof! Give me a break!"

...How am I doing?

My expert, on the other hand, is CIA! And as such...

Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and US State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world.

Link same as above.

...your guy (or girl) is just regular army. My guy is actually considered an expert in this field. After awhile, this kind of crap (discrediting ones source) gets pretty silly, doesn't it? You only consider the source to a point. But you don't put all your eggs in that basket.

 

[FreeThinker]

Recently, on another thread, I was discussing my outrage with the US occupation of Iraq, when this poster responded that my position was just "partisan" talking points. After posting several links (from un-related sources) depicting the war crimes and the carnage caused as a result of the un-provoked attack and illegal occupation of that country by the US, this poster complimented me on my research and data collection. But never commented on the content of what was being stated in the links.

This is the same person who recently took issue with my use of profanity. So it started me thinking, he's offended by fowl language, but is indifferent to almost 3000 American GI's and a half a million Iraqis dying because of faulty intelligence.

So I pose the question to the "marketplace of ideas":

3000 soldiers in 5 years? That's not a bad number for ridding that country of an insane human rights violator like Saddam.

Half a million civilians? Rolf. You realize that there are only 20 million people in Iraq right? That would mean 1 in every 40 Iraqis has been killed since 2001.

1 in 40 people? Ok billo. Your detachment from reality stopped being cute 1000 posts ago. Read a book.