- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Would you like to prove that one, or are you eventually going to admit you're lying and misrepresenting character to try to pass an argument that isn't logically sound because you have nothing else to contribute other than snide remarks trying to say I'm a communist when you have no proof of such and accusation? No? Still want to continue with your intellectual dishonesty? K, noted.
So you can't produce an official declaration of war from Congress. Ok, noted.
I've read it, I probably understand it well more than you'll ever understand it.
That's why I'm on the side of small government, and you're on the side of large, intrusive, militaristic government (BTW, those are all the hallmarks of fascism, so does that make your hero Mussolini? HAHAHHA)
You have only proven you have zero idea what soveriegnty means. We aren't the sovereigns of Iraq, thus we have no rightful say.
No, if you're going to get Americans killed I damned well expect actual information. One guy being in a place is coincidence, you have to establish that it's being used as a hideout for a larger number than 1 else you don't get to risk the lives of Americans.
Maybe that should be a lesson to us to quit messing in other people's business. We helped that party get in charge, Saddam came out of that. That's what happens when you monkey in things we have no business monkeying in.
No, it proves 1 terrorist was in Iraq at some point, that's it. Not that there is a national policy of hiding terrorists (plural). You don't know what you're talking about.
Apparently you're under no obligation to provide proof before getting American soldiers killed.
Bad data justifies restructuring and review of policy and chain of command. Actions taken on bad data are mistakes.
Aye, you did. You said that Saddam violated UN sanction and that was a justification, but then you claim the UN is useless and we have to enforce their mandates. One way or the other, waffling to get your way isn't the intellectually honest way to make a point.
We shouldn't be involved in other people's business if it doesn't concern us. We're no different than any other sovereign state.
The UN has no real power and no sovereignty, it's a pointless organization and isn't run in any manner which could be a functioning government.
We had no rightful reason to destroy, and now we occupy for how long?
I figure....been there for five years....another fifteen.
That's one of the main reasons I opposed invading Iraq. I'm smart enough to look not only down the road, but over the cliff at the end of it, too.
How much longer? That government we created is not going to last in the image in which we crafted it for long.
Depends. With people like you tearing it down, how could it?
Under our direction and "guidance", yes. Saddam also allowed the Iraqi people to vote...voting itself doesn't indicate rightful and free government.
Oh, that's rich. Creamy, too. You do stand-up in the evenings, don't you?
Oh? We've succeeded (past tense) in establishing a self sufficient Iraq? So you're saying we can pull out in total or that you have no idea what self-sufficient means.
They think they're self-sufficient. They could be, it's a hard thing to measure, isn't it. They're talking about asking us to leave. I'm all for leaving when they ask us to. You think we should stay past that time?
It's half assed imperialism.
Nope. Not allowed. You can't have half-assed imperialism until you can actually show it was an imperialist act. Since it wasn't imperialist, you can't show it to be so, and thus it can't be half-assed.
That's semantics.
Yeah, it's what you get when you're caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.
So I guess you didn't sign the sheet that says in effect "this contract is binding and supersedes all other agreements verbal and otherwise, entered into prior to signing this contract", also known as the "You got screwed by your recruiter too, clause"?
For some reason, my recruiter never lied to me. I told him what I wanted...which happened to fill out the hardest to fill spot on his quota list, and I never had a problem.
+1
I read the contract. the whole contract. I always do. The fact that he thinks they screwed him because he failed at due diligence is rather humorous.
Still lying about what others have said eh? Get a grip.
So I guess you didn't sign the sheet that says in effect "this contract is binding and supersedes all other agreements verbal and otherwise, entered into prior to signing this contract", also known as the "You got screwed by your recruiter too, clause"?
For some reason, my recruiter never lied to me. I told him what I wanted...which happened to fill out the hardest to fill spot on his quota list, and I never had a problem.
You call stop-loss slavery, I call it in your contract. you failed to read yours apparently. I read mine, so it was no surprise....
Consider that a life lesson my friend. :2wave:
First you lied by claiming I disparaged our troops when I did no such thing.
Then you lied by claiming I said I got screwed by my recruiter when I never said that.
Like I pointed out, all you have are hollow words. Apparently that isn't shady enough so you have to lie on top of it. Then you have the arrogance of preaching about "lessons." Lol...what a joke.
Regardless of all of the Iraq War arguments flying around here, I think it's obvious that the people who did this should be held accountable for their actions. Freedom of speech is one thing, but there is no excuse for vandalism. That being said, I think that some of the vitriol coming from the right calling these people "anti-American" or "hippy scum" and assuming that there are liberals out there who are secretly "spanking their monkeys" because they are happy about this is absurd. You are no better than the extremist hyper-partisan liberals that you attack.
Regardless of all of the Iraq War arguments flying around here, I think it's obvious that the people who did this should be held accountable for their actions. Freedom of speech is one thing, but there is no excuse for vandalism. That being said, I think that some of the vitriol coming from the right calling these people "anti-American" or "hippy scum" and assuming that there are liberals out there who are secretly "spanking their monkeys" because they are happy about this is absurd. You are no better than the extremist hyper-partisan liberals that you attack.
But Iraq and how our military is currently being used is at the center of the vandalism.
Some reactions to this vandalism also shows some absurd positions. Those whining about this the most imply breaking some windows and splashing red paint is the crime of the century. But bombing the hell out of people who never attacked us is a beacon of morality.
So you think it was possibly angry republicans that did this, not a fringe element from the fringe groups World Can't Wait and Code Pink?
So you think it was possibly angry republicans that did this, not a fringe element from the fringe groups World Can't Wait and Code Pink?
But Iraq and how our military is currently being used is at the center of the vandalism.
Some reactions to this vandalism also shows some absurd positions. Those whining about this the most imply breaking some windows and splashing red paint is the crime of the century. But bombing the hell out of people who never attacked us is a beacon of morality.
I never said that. It's obvious that it was anti-war people. I think it's stupid to assume that there are liberals out there who are "spanking their monkey" because of this. Not one single person on this board has applauded what they have done and there are some pretty extreme liberals on this board. I also wouldn't call the actions un-American. Against the law? Absolutely. But not un-American. And what the **** do hippies have to do with it? Is it just because it was in Berkeley?
Well it is Berkeley. :lol:
No most liberals abhor this behavior, I am sure. I misunderstood you. However while no one is applauding it, there is at least one excusing it.
But anyway, I see your point, I disagree about it not being "un-american", I quite frankly think it is. we probably wont come to a consensus on that aspect though.
Well, personally I think it's stupid and completely misguided to attack a recruiting station as if they put us in the war. The recruiters are just doing their job. Nobody is forcing people to enlist. Then again, how can one expect the people who would vandalize a recruiting station as sign of protest to have a level head?
Do you consider that murder?
Note we spend billions avoiding civilian casualties. Your suggestion that we "bomb the hell out of people" is disparaging the troops.
excusing vandalism, noted.
It is an act of cowardice as well, to sneak through the night and attack a building under cover of darkness.
I never excused the vandalism so why try to add another lie to the list?
I also never said we don't do our best to avoid civilian casualties. Yet another lie.
I also never disparaged our troops.
I simply pointed out the self righteous hypocrisy of those who condemn this one act of vandalism but laud bombing places that never attacked us. Go ahead and lie some more because that seems to be your only available resource
Well, they wouldn't want to have to worry about getting their asses kicked.
:lol:
Well it is Berkeley. :lol:
No most liberals abhor this behavior, I am sure. I misunderstood you. However while no one is applauding it, there is at least one excusing it.
But anyway, I see your point, I disagree about it not being "un-american", I quite frankly think it is. we probably wont come to a consensus on that aspect though.
This is my opinion. not a lie.
"bomb the hell out of people"
not a lie
"bomb the hell out of people"
"bomb the hell out of people"
what do you mean by this?
not a lie.
who "lauds" it? oh wait, are you doing what you accuse me of? classic! :lol:
FAIL
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?