• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Terrorist Trained in Iraq

Billo_Really said:
Now where's your links, Roy Clark (or is it Buck Owens).

..........................:2rofll:................................
 
Originally posted by KCConservative:
I can post where you called him Buck Owens.
Yes you may. I am guilty, unfortunately, of watching Hee-Haw. Did he say, "Yee-haw?" Oh, well, my bad.
 
It's too bad you can't prove the "no doubts" in your mind.
you know all about that, claiming Iraq wasnt a threat and all.

Duck and run. Still have not answered the question on how specifically the War on Terror will end in order to prove my assertion that you can't have a war against an ideology.
tell ya what, you tell me where Bin Laden is, and I will tell you specifically how the war on terror will end.

I only have a clue about things we have personnally discussed. Interesting.
so you do know my feelings on those other issues? youre clueless man. seriously.

That wasn't the point. Your trying to justify the US taking Hussein from power just 10 years after we put an equivelant Hussein-like regime back in power in Kuwait. Yet, that's OK to you.
when did I say that was ok with me?
your assumptions just continue to get more and more bizare.
I never said the first thing about Kuwait. YOU DID. Ive been talking about Iraq and Saddam. It was YOU that brought other regimes and countries into the conversation.

I doubt if you would answer any questions there either. Duck and run.
oh give it the ole college try.

See comment above. Duck and run.
nope. I answer you, just not how you want me to. sorry to disapointe.

That wasn't the point. You said he's a bad guy so we had to take him out 20 years later after we helped him get really bad by selling him all those arms.
it was EXACTLY THE POINT. your notion that we dont have the right to deal with him now because we didnt deal with him earlier is nonsense.

Incidently, post where I called you a name.
you really are acting like an elementary school kid. just stay calm and continue to debate without being derogatory.

OK, here you go...
all that does is say one group says 100k while others claim 15k. really doesnt prove your case at all. you just choose to accept the figure that most fits your hatred for our being there.

if I post a few links that say fewer than 10k civilian casualties have occured, will you accept them, no matter their affiliation?

I didnt think so.

if It was as simple as posting a link from a biased source, none of us would be here debating this. we would already have the answers.
 
Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
you know all about that, claiming Iraq wasnt a threat and all.
Since you can't prove that they were, your arguement does not have a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
tell ya what, you tell me where Bin Laden is, and I will tell you specifically how the war on terror will end.
So your saying when we bag Bin Laden is when the war ends?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
so you do know my feelings on those other issues? youre clueless man. seriously.
I'm not clueless! It was Mr. Green in the Dining Room with the Candlestick.

Quote:
That wasn't the point. Your trying to justify the US taking Hussein from power just 10 years after we put an equivelant Hussein-like regime back in power in Kuwait. Yet, that's OK to you.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
when did I say that was ok with me?
your assumptions just continue to get more and more bizare.
I never said the first thing about Kuwait. YOU DID. Ive been talking about Iraq and Saddam. It was YOU that brought other regimes and countries into the conversation.
The word is bizarre. If you say we had to take Hussein out because he was a bad guy, it is hypocrital to think that if that was true, we would not be taking out all bad guys. Why put a bad guy back in power, then turn around and take a bad guy next door out of power? Where's the logic in that?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
oh give it the ole college try.
Why, my college can wup your college.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
nope. I answer you, just not how you want me to. sorry to disapointe.
You answer me not.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
it was EXACTLY THE POINT. your notion that we dont have the right to deal with him now because we didnt deal with him earlier is nonsense.
It was our agreement with the UN that we would not exercise that right.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
you really are acting like an elementary school kid. just stay calm and continue to debate without being derogatory.
Why is it being a school kid to take you to task when you say I said something that I did not?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
all that does is say one group says 100k while others claim 15k. really doesnt prove your case at all. you just choose to accept the figure that most fits your hatred for our being there.
You asked for a link and I gave you four.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
if I post a few links that say fewer than 10k civilian casualties have occured, will you accept them, no matter their affiliation?
We will cross that bridge when you post a link.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I didnt think so.
What?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
if It was as simple as posting a link from a biased source, none of us would be here debating this. we would already have the answers.
Just because the assertion is not from a reader approved source does not make it false.
 
QUOTE]Since you can't prove that they were, your arguement does not have a leg to stand on.[/QUOTE]
and you cant prove they werent anymore than you can prove Iran isnt a threat to us today. so I guess we can just go in circles. But if neither of us can prove our stance, Id rather go with the one that protects American lives than the one that puts them at risk.

So your saying when we bag Bin Laden is when the war ends?
nooooo. im again pointing out that i can no more read the future than you can.

I'm not clueless!
yes, you are. you are making assumptions on how I feel about topics we havent even began to discuss.

The word is bizarre.
see. i knew you were smarter than me!!!

If you say we had to take Hussein out because he was a bad guy, it is hypocrital to think that if that was true, we would not be taking out all bad guys

no argument here. we should be taking them all out.

We will cross that bridge when you post a link.
the correct answer is.....NO

You asked for a link and I gave you four.
I can give you a dozen links that say Fidel Castro is a good guy. it doesnt make it fact.
 
Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
and you cant prove they werent anymore than you can prove Iran isnt a threat to us today. so I guess we can just go in circles. But if neither of us can prove our stance, Id rather go with the one that protects American lives than the one that puts them at risk.
Much like a nuetered dog, you don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what a perceived threat is, there is no stipulation in International Law for a pre-emptive strike. And the fact that you are OK with attacking a country that did nothing to us speaks volumes on the kind of person you are.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
nooooo. im again pointing out that i can no more read the future than you can.
And that's exactly why I say you cannot have a bullshit war against an ideology. Because there is no definitive ending.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
yes, you are. you are making assumptions on how I feel about topics we havent even began to discuss.
Since you won't discuss them, "assumption" is my only option.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
see. i knew you were smarter than me!!!
Now that's bizarre!

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
no argument here. we should be taking them all out.
So you believe in the concept of American Empire?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
the correct answer is.....NO
You know what you do when you "assume"?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I can give you a dozen links that say Fidel Castro is a good guy. it doesnt make it fact.
Give it to me baby (I'm pretty fly, for a white guy).
 
Much like a nuetered dog, you don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what a perceived threat is, there is no stipulation in International Law for a pre-emptive strike. And the fact that you are OK with attacking a country that did nothing to us speaks volumes on the kind of person you are.
I get it perfectly. first of all, our attack wasnt pre-emtimve. Iraq struck the first blow when it failed to comply with the U.N. and the cease fire agreement. and the fact that you are ok with taking chances with the lives of innocent Americans speaks volumes as well.

And that's exactly why I say you cannot have a bullshit war against an ideology. Because there is no definitive ending.
so since we cant predict when and where it will end, we should do nothing!!!. now thats a brilliant strategy.

Since you won't discuss them, "assumption" is my only option.
I would rather narrow the scope of our debate to the issue of Iraq. if you wish to discuss others, feel free to start threads on them. Its rather difficult to discuss multiple topics in one thread. It gives you easier outs and ways to dodge the actual topic at hand....which is clearly the reason you wish to bring them into the discussion to begin with. lets just concentrate on Iraq in this thread. just look at the title of the thread!!!

So you believe in the concept of American Empire?
I beieve in the concept of protecting Americans from another 9-11 at all costs. I believe in stopping terrorism BEFORE Americans die. you believe in waiting untill they are dead to do something about the problem. that really is the bottom line here isnt it?

Give it to me baby (I'm pretty fly, for a white guy).

you understand my point without a doubt. but its cute when you act like you dont.
 
Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I get it perfectly. first of all, our attack wasnt pre-emtimve. Iraq struck the first blow when it failed to comply with the U.N. and the cease fire agreement. and the fact that you are ok with taking chances with the lives of innocent Americans speaks volumes as well.
How were Americans threatened?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
so since we cant predict when and where it will end, we should do nothing!!!. now thats a brilliant strategy.
So your in favor of perpetual war? What a mighty hawk you are.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I would rather narrow the scope of our debate to the issue of Iraq. if you wish to discuss others, feel free to start threads on them. Its rather difficult to discuss multiple topics in one thread. It gives you easier outs and ways to dodge the actual topic at hand....which is clearly the reason you wish to bring them into the discussion to begin with. lets just concentrate on Iraq in this thread. just look at the title of the thread!!!
That's a cop out!

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I beieve in the concept of protecting Americans from another 9-11 at all costs. I believe in stopping terrorism BEFORE Americans die. you believe in waiting untill they are dead to do something about the problem. that really is the bottom line here isnt it?
What does this have to do with Iraq? Didn't you read the title of the thread?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
you understand my point without a doubt. but its cute when you act like you dont.
The thing I understand is that you cannot post links to back up your absurd comments.
 
How were Americans threatened?
irrelevant. it must be nice to selectively decide what to and what not to respond to in a debate.
was the ceasefire agreement broken? and was our attack pre emptive knowing that it was?

So your in favor of perpetual war? What a mighty hawk you are.
and you are in favor of allowing Americans to die before you take action.

That's a cop out!
no, im trying to narrow the scope of the argument so you dont have so many outs and ways to dodge the debate. its difficult to keep up with so many topics at once. again, im intelectually inferior to liberals so you will have to allow me this one.

What does this have to do with Iraq? Didn't you read the title of the thread?
I must have hit the nail on the head because you didnt dispute my statement.

The thing I understand is that you cannot post links to back up your absurd comments.
you really dont think its possible to find web links that are positive about Fidel Castro?
 
Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
irrelevant. it must be nice to selectively decide what to and what not to respond to in a debate.
was the ceasefire agreement broken? and was our attack pre emptive knowing that it was?
When we attack a country, it is irrelevent as to whether they are a threat or not? You need to stop watching Walker, Texas Ranger!

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
and you are in favor of allowing Americans to die before you take action.
How was Iraq killing Americans?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
no, im trying to narrow the scope of the argument so you dont have so many outs and ways to dodge the debate. its difficult to keep up with so many topics at once. again, im intelectually inferior to liberals so you will have to allow me this one.
Dodge a debate? You're the one not answering questions, not me.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I must have hit the nail on the head because you didnt dispute my statement.
I think it was your own head you hit. I'll ask you again, what does Iraq have to do with 9/11? You made the statement:
Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I beieve in the concept of protecting Americans from another 9-11 at all costs. I believe in stopping terrorism BEFORE Americans die.
Now I'm asking you to tell me what that has to do with this conversation!

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I beieve in the concept of protecting Americans from another 9-11 at all costs. I believe in stopping terrorism BEFORE Americans die.
you really dont think its possible to find web links that are positive about Fidel Castro?
Don't change the subject. I don't think it is possible for you to post links to back up what you say.
 
When we attack a country, it is irrelevent as to whether they are a threat or not? You need to stop watching Walker, Texas Ranger!
they were a threat.

How was Iraq killing Americans?
nice dodge. before AL QUeda attacked us, they werent killing Americans either.

Dodge a debate? You're the one not answering questions, not me.
of course im answering. look at this wonderful exchange we are having about the actual topic of the thread.

I think it was your own head you hit. I'll ask you again, what does Iraq have to do with 9/11? You made the statement:
common liberal tactic. I never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

again I will point out the very basis of our argument.

I believe in PREVENTING the loss of American life.
you believe in RESPONDING TO the loss of American life.

Now I asking you to tell me what that has to do with this conversation!
everything. and the fact that you refuse to respond to it speaks volumes.

Don't change the subject. I don't think it is possible for you to post links to back up what you say.
you dont think there is information on the internet that speaks positive about Fidel Castro?
 
Billo,

I gotta check out for today. Going deer hunting.

Its been a hoot man. I think its clear that neither of us will ever change the other ones view.

You definately believe in what you say. That is clear.

I think you are wrong. You think Im wrong. Fair enough. I pretty much feel this debate has run its course.

Good job. Enjoyed it!!!!
 
Billo_Really said:
And the fact that you are OK with attacking a country that did nothing to us speaks volumes on the kind of person you are.

Always making it personal.
 
That's not me your replying to, don't know why it's under my post.
 
Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
Billo,

I gotta check out for today. Going deer hunting.

Its been a hoot man. I think its clear that neither of us will ever change the other ones view.

You definately believe in what you say. That is clear.

I think you are wrong. You think Im wrong. Fair enough. I pretty much feel this debate has run its course.

Good job. Enjoyed it!!!!
Same here. You take care. I hope the deer wins.
 
Originally posted by Stinger:
That's not me your replying to, don't know why it's under my post.
Who are you talking to?
 
Billo_Really said:
Same here. You take care. I hope the deer wins.

she lost.

and again, dont make things so personal. its all good!!
 
Back
Top Bottom