- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,988
- Reaction score
- 10
- Location
- Pasadena, California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
ShamMol said:Hey all, I am a Democrat who absolutely loves to argue. I am 17 years old, volunteered for the Kerry campaign already. I am especially good at constitutional law and love to argue obscure elements of it like the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA relating to the participation in extracurricular sports...just for example.
I don't know what else to say except I love this forum after only 4 posts.
ShamMol
alienken said:Good to see you ShamMal.........I am independent conservative so feel free to come at me anytime, that's what I'm here for. I try to stay cool and calm without namecalling......Right now I'm aggravated with the Supreme Court.Some of the judges are not even pretending to focus on just our constitution and laws but referring to other country's laws.Agree or disagree about the judgment rendered, our lawsare supposed to come from law makers that represent the people!
Jaymo said:Bumper sticker idea - God is alive in heaven and there's a Texan in the White House. Life is GOOD!
I saw a bumper sticker today that pretty well sums up the state of our country since it has been hijacked by the Neo-CON death squads. It was a bush cheney /2004 cut in half with a German swastika flag in between and below it read Join the Party with the
RNC below that.
Jaymo said:I saw a bumper sticker today that pretty well sums up the state of our country since it has been hijacked by the Neo-CON death squads. It was a bush cheney /2004 cut in half with a German swastika flag in between and below it read Join the Party with the
RNC below that.
Strangelove said:Ok-rule no.1 if you want your argument to be taken seriously:
Don't resort to hyperbole. the 'death squads' remark is absurd.
Bush/Cheney stickers with swastikas borders on the theatrical.
It's good to disagree. But use facts to support your position, not invective to verify your emotion.
Perhaps what Jaymo meant was the neo-con lead American army and US gov't. Are you possibly implying that you support neo-conservatives?Strangelove said:Ok-rule no.1 if you want your argument to be taken seriously:
Don't resort to hyperbole. the 'death squads' remark is absurd.
Bush/Cheney stickers with swastikas borders on the theatrical.
It's good to disagree. But use facts to support your position, not invective to verify your emotion.
anomaly said:Perhaps what Jaymo meant was the neo-con lead American army and US gov't. Are you possibly implying that you support neo-conservatives?
ShamMol said:...you call me ignorant
ShamMol said:...you call me ignorant
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min
17053
Max
19422
Absolutely right, I like the way you think and I can add only one thing.Fallujah was where the enemy was and we gave them notice that we where coming that gave the enemy plenty of time to run making the job of capturing/killing them even harder to spare as many innocent lives as possible(PRES Bush and the military was criticized for letting the enemy escape).....We could have been done with these terrorists long time ago if we didn't have the handicap of caring about citizens when the enemy does not.Strangelove said:......
Which leads me to conclude that the vast majority of 'innocent civilians' were neither innocent nor civilians. They knew for 7 months that Fallujah was going to be assaulted. Remember those 'innocent civilians' burning alive those 4 contractors, then hanging their mutilated corpses from the bridge? If you are a family man in Fallujah, and you know full well the Marines are coming-----you leave. Regardless if it's your home. What's more important-your mud house or your life?. Their intent was clear.
Fallujah was a notorious Ba'th stronghold. Do you know who the Ba'thists are? If not, learn.
So, those people wanted a confrontation and got it. End of story......................
By the way, I love the way you ignore all the other facts regarding military doctrine and technology I offered. No response, huh?
So far, debating here is pretty typical. I was hopin for soemthing a little deeper. Are there any liberals in here who can refrain from the 'Bush death squad' and 'Bush is Hitler' comment long enough to form a coherent argument?
Strangelove said:A).I never called youshamol... ignorant. I don't engage in ad hominem attacks. Read the post carefully.
B) All the sources you cited are well-known anti-war, anti-Bush liberal biased mouthpieces, especially the Guardian, which ran a headline on November 3rd-"How can Americans be so stupid?"
C)-from your own sources:
"..The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths,.."
"Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground,"
"...an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the second two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families. "
"...The biggest death toll recorded by the researchers was in Falluja,..."
Which leads me to conclude that the vast majority of 'innocent civilians' were neither innocent nor civilians. They knew for 7 months that Fallujah was going to be assaulted. Remember those 'innocent civilians' burning alive those 4 contractors, then hanging their mutilated corpses from the bridge? If you are a family man in Fallujah, and you know full well the Marines are coming-----you leave. Regardless if it's your home. What's more important-your mud house or your life?. Their intent was clear.
Fallujah was a notorious Ba'th stronghold. Do you know who the Ba'thists are? If not, learn.
So, those people wanted a confrontation and got it. End of story.
Even Human Rights Watch, no friend of this war says:
"..."The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated."
100,000?
NO WAY It's a fashion statement number that this non-scientific, bogus study ponies out for the 6 o'clock news.
By the way, I love the way you ignore all the other facts regarding military doctrine and technology I offered. No response, huh?
So far, debating here is pretty typical. I was hopin for soemthing a little deeper. Are there any liberals in here who can refrain from the 'Bush death squad' and 'Bush is Hitler' comment long enough to form a coherent argument?
Strangelove said:This site is annoying me. I type out an entire post, then I get some stupid message about 'too many tags, please go back and fix it'.....So I go back, AND ALL MY WORK IS GONE.
i didn't defend their actions, and in fact said they were horrible actions, i called you a bigot, big difference. and as news sources go, in the mainstream media, i trust that and kcet above all else. they haven't lied to me yet.Strangelove said:This site is annoying me. I type out an entire post, then I get some stupid message about 'too many tags, please go back and fix it'.....So I go back, AND ALL MY WORK IS GONE.
Anyway, shamol, suffice to say that when you cite 'NPR as a non-biased news source' :rofl ...you really need to do some homework before debating here.
Stay in school, read, learn...then come back.]
by the way, read this:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5974.htm
...."Another man gave a chilling description of how the men were dragged from their car, begging for their lives. "They had gasoline splashed on them and were set alight," he said....."
These are the people you are defending. com
Numbers will always be thrown around but the intensions ARE important.Terrorist target civilians, U.S. Military is likely to lose a skirmish than to harm many civilians. This gives the terrorist an avantage and makes the war on terror very difficult. Remember, the soldiers of the U.S. Military are the good guys. Too many people here forget that fact.ShamMol said:I have no response to the tech questions because I agree with it. The military's actions towards civilians has been lessened significantly, but that doens't mean those numbers aren't correct. That Iraqi body count site is not credible like Fact Check, like the washington post is (see above link)-you don't know what their alleigence is, you don't know anything about them because they provide no information on the site.......
I don't think anyone forgets that...we on the left are just shocked at how you on the right mixed up the 'bad guys' with the people of Iraq. That's all.alienken said:Numbers will always be thrown around but the intensions ARE important.Terrorist target civilians, U.S. Military is likely to lose a skirmish than to harm many civilians. This gives the terrorist an avantage and makes the war on terror very difficult. Remember, the soldiers of the U.S. Military are the good guys. Too many people here forget that fact.
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?