Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11

 

2006-07-20 20:47:45
gofuyose
Member
+0|6693|My Fortress of Doom
Gator, you are the stupidest fucking person here .... by far. By definition, we are not at "war". First off, learn the definition between war and armed conflict. Then you may speak; there hasn't been a war that we've been engaged in since WW2, dumbass. Second, the Geneva Convention applies to armed uniformed soldiers. Those fucking haji's are in their uniforms ... it's called civilian clothes. It's harder for us to differentiate between them and actual civilians. Hence why they do that. Have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan? I highly doubt it, so shut your whiney bitch ass right the fuck up and let the real men here talk. I served with the United States Marine Corps for 5 years (11 months, of which, were in Iraq). So until you can come up with personal experience, keep your stupid fucking cnn.com bullshit rhetoric to your goddamn self you fucking hippy piece of shit.

"BUSH LIED!!!!!!" /*cry*

And by the way, Hoc| sucks ass at BF2 bitch.

love (yours truly),
gofuyose
2006-07-20 21:40:57
hoc|forever
Member
+2|6693

GATOR591957 wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

I do see us torturing prisoners.  I do see us killing innocent civilians, I do see us holding prisoners without due process.  All done under Saddam's reign.

Perhaps a poor choice of words on your second comment.  If we commit the same crimes as Saddam we are not showing we are there for their freedom, just changing dictators.
I believe if you'll read the entire recount of what Bush said you'll see he's flipped flopped his position since the Supreme Count has clamped down on his ability to do whatever he wants in Guantanamo.  He says all along he's been asking the court for a guideline.  GB has been up and running over 3 years.  Give me a break...

Loses in war: Never said there were wars waged without civilian losses.  My point to put it back in context was that if we continue to commit the same crimes as Saddam (not to the extreme) we are not showing the Iraqi people we are there to free them, we are just changing dictators.
_You_ don't "see" anything! What you see is the news telling you what they want you to "see". What you've failed to see is report after report about Al-Q, the guys you defend in your little comments here, killing civilians by the truck bomb load. After major operations ended, it's been a infrequent event for the US to kill off a bunch of civilians. Conversely, your friends in Al-Q do it daily.

To say that we've swapped dictators would imply that G.W. is now the president of Iraq. Maybe I'm crazy but I thought that the Iraqis elected their government through popular elections that have higher participation than ours do. Even in far left liberal circles that dictator-for-dictator propaganda has died out...get with the times.

Heres another difference: Saddam tortured and killed those who disagreed with him, those he thought were of a lesser race, or those who betrayed him; just to name a few. While Al-Q doesn't agree with Bush they aren't being killed because of their views. Al-Q members that have been "tortured" (oh no, the air conditioner is off) have been done so in the process of stabilizing a country and the national security of many nations. To compare Saddam's kids torturing people because they enjoy it and terrorists being barked at because they know where the next crowd will be attacked is a just too big of a stretch to make.


Now for the fun. Due process? Like the due process afforded to the citizens of the United States? Do you see a problem with this?                  Start with who is a citizen...you'll figure it out.

Simply comparing the absence of Al-Q's due process to Saddam's doesn't actually make a point. What you've said is, those Al-Qaeda members fighting against us in Afghanistan (look into who's in Guantanamo) should be given rights afforded to American citizens. In order to be protected by due process they would need to be signatories to the Geneva Convention, and abide to the rules therein. 

You seem to think that the Supreme Court gave the Bush administration some kind of rebuke for what was happening in Guantanamo. This isn't true. Bush believed, as Congress did, that he had been given the power to determine who had POW status (and he still does) and who can be held. This idea came from the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which granted him such powers. When the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld they said that Congress had left out sufficient language to imply that Hamdan, who filed his case before the DTA, was to have his status reviewed by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT). In short, all that had to be done is a little rewording by Congress, which they are already prepared to do, and Bush has all the authority over the detainees he ever wanted. Including holding them without charge (which is customary for POW's).

Now ask yourself, what was Bush to do with these terrorists? 

Now something for the thinkers out there. Does it bother anyone that a group of unelected judges decided, in a subjective manner, to simply restate the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches in regards to war fighting?

If you follow the case, 6 judges agreed with the gov, 6 didn't.
2006-07-21 03:13:53
joewardog
Member
+6|6893|Great Plains (USA)
Funny how this thread won't die

hoc|forever wrote:

Now something for the thinkers out there. Does it bother anyone that a group of unelected judges decided, in a subjective manner, to simply restate the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches in regards to war fighting?

If you follow the case, 6 judges agreed with the gov, 6 didn't.
The Supreme Court has always bothered me, but that is its fundamental purpose (to be annoying).  Look back to Marbury vs Madison, etc.  When it comes to this latest case, I feel the Supreme Court is just crying for attention by as you put it "simply" restating what everyone should already know (and adding a bit about having to work together). 

What bothers me about the Court is how everyone takes it for the final say on anything, while in the past it has gone against itself before (for instance, Seperate yet Equal). 

Yet, I do admire how the judges are "unelected."  That way they can serve as a pain in the arse (or check) for the other two not-so-perfect branches.
2006-07-21 11:35:30
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6830

gofuyose wrote:

Gator, you are the stupidest fucking person here .... by far. By definition, we are not at "war". First off, learn the definition between war and armed conflict. Then you may speak; there hasn't been a war that we've been engaged in since WW2, dumbass. Second, the Geneva Convention applies to armed uniformed soldiers. Those fucking haji's are in their uniforms ... it's called civilian clothes. It's harder for us to differentiate between them and actual civilians. Hence why they do that. Have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan? I highly doubt it, so shut your whiney bitch ass right the fuck up and let the real men here talk. I served with the United States Marine Corps for 5 years (11 months, of which, were in Iraq). So until you can come up with personal experience, keep your stupid fucking cnn.com bullshit rhetoric to your goddamn self you fucking hippy piece of shit.

"BUSH LIED!!!!!!" /*cry*

And by the way, Hoc| sucks ass at BF2 bitch.

love (yours truly),
gofuyose
It doesn't take a smart person to understand this situation.  I see by your comments you feel you are.  Let's review,  Has or has not GW declared war on terrorism?  Before you go there I know Congress has not declared war.  Are the detainees at GB described as terrorist? 

Knowing the terrorist are in civilian clothing, and let's say you captured a suspected terrorist, doesn't that mean there could be a slight chance they are civilian?  But you wouldn't know you just lock them up and send them to GB.  Guess you didn't think about that one smart guy. 

Hippy, yea I was around in the era.  Not a hippy though.  Just feel everyone is created equal and deserves the right to due process.  Hey if they are terrorist we do what we have to do.  All I'm saying is prove they are terrorist first.

If hoc| sucks so bad, why do you try to pass yourself off as a member?

Military experience, I appreciate you service to the country as I'm sure many others do.  I currently have 2 family members in country.  Just had a neice get out of the Navy after serving several months in GB.  So I may have a little more knowlege of the GB situation than you. 

As for the rest of your comments, well , they just say it all.  But next time you should put it in the chatter catagory because it is definately not debate and serious talk.
2006-07-21 11:45:46
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6830

hoc|forever wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

I do see us torturing prisoners.  I do see us killing innocent civilians, I do see us holding prisoners without due process.  All done under Saddam's reign.

Perhaps a poor choice of words on your second comment.  If we commit the same crimes as Saddam we are not showing we are there for their freedom, just changing dictators.
I believe if you'll read the entire recount of what Bush said you'll see he's flipped flopped his position since the Supreme Count has clamped down on his ability to do whatever he wants in Guantanamo.  He says all along he's been asking the court for a guideline.  GB has been up and running over 3 years.  Give me a break...

Loses in war: Never said there were wars waged without civilian losses.  My point to put it back in context was that if we continue to commit the same crimes as Saddam (not to the extreme) we are not showing the Iraqi people we are there to free them, we are just changing dictators.
_You_ don't "see" anything! What you see is the news telling you what they want you to "see". What you've failed to see is report after report about Al-Q, the guys you defend in your little comments here, killing civilians by the truck bomb load. After major operations ended, it's been a infrequent event for the US to kill off a bunch of civilians. Conversely, your friends in Al-Q do it daily.

To say that we've swapped dictators would imply that G.W. is now the president of Iraq. Maybe I'm crazy but I thought that the Iraqis elected their government through popular elections that have higher participation than ours do. Even in far left liberal circles that dictator-for-dictator propaganda has died out...get with the times.

Heres another difference: Saddam tortured and killed those who disagreed with him, those he thought were of a lesser race, or those who betrayed him; just to name a few. While Al-Q doesn't agree with Bush they aren't being killed because of their views. Al-Q members that have been "tortured" (oh no, the air conditioner is off) have been done so in the process of stabilizing a country and the national security of many nations. To compare Saddam's kids torturing people because they enjoy it and terrorists being barked at because they know where the next crowd will be attacked is a just too big of a stretch to make.


Now for the fun. Due process? Like the due process afforded to the citizens of the United States? Do you see a problem with this?                  Start with who is a citizen...you'll figure it out.

Simply comparing the absence of Al-Q's due process to Saddam's doesn't actually make a point. What you've said is, those Al-Qaeda members fighting against us in Afghanistan (look into who's in Guantanamo) should be given rights afforded to American citizens. In order to be protected by due process they would need to be signatories to the Geneva Convention, and abide to the rules therein. 

You seem to think that the Supreme Court gave the Bush administration some kind of rebuke for what was happening in Guantanamo. This isn't true. Bush believed, as Congress did, that he had been given the power to determine who had POW status (and he still does) and who can be held. This idea came from the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which granted him such powers. When the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld they said that Congress had left out sufficient language to imply that Hamdan, who filed his case before the DTA, was to have his status reviewed by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT). In short, all that had to be done is a little rewording by Congress, which they are already prepared to do, and Bush has all the authority over the detainees he ever wanted. Including holding them without charge (which is customary for POW's).

Now ask yourself, what was Bush to do with these terrorists? 

Now something for the thinkers out there. Does it bother anyone that a group of unelected judges decided, in a subjective manner, to simply restate the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches in regards to war fighting?

If you follow the case, 6 judges agreed with the gov, 6 didn't.
A little clarification,  I never said we were swapping dictators, what I said was: "If we commit the same crimes as Saddam we are not showing we are there for their freedom, just changing dictators."

Due process, not rights afforded to US citizens, a military tribunal or something to that effect.  We need to prove they have committed a crime before we punish them.

My understanding is they cannot be held without charge indefinitely.  I will do some research and get back to you.
2006-07-21 12:06:30
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada

gofuyose wrote:

Gator, you are the stupidest fucking person here .... by far. By definition, we are not at "war". First off, learn the definition between war and armed conflict. Then you may speak; there hasn't been a war that we've been engaged in since WW2, dumbass. Second, the Geneva Convention applies to armed uniformed soldiers. Those fucking haji's are in their uniforms ... it's called civilian clothes. It's harder for us to differentiate between them and actual civilians. Hence why they do that. Have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan? I highly doubt it, so shut your whiney bitch ass right the fuck up and let the real men here talk. I served with the United States Marine Corps for 5 years (11 months, of which, were in Iraq). So until you can come up with personal experience, keep your stupid fucking cnn.com bullshit rhetoric to your goddamn self you fucking hippy piece of shit.

"BUSH LIED!!!!!!" /*cry*

And by the way, Hoc| sucks ass at BF2 bitch.

love (yours truly),
gofuyose
Big words from a little man.   you who need to come on here to express some kind of wrped dominance no doubt you lack that dominance in life. 

You people fucking scare me.  The supreme court's job is to make sure important decisions are made properly.  Not to 'be annoying'  jesus what the hell is in your heads?

I am so sick of sheep like this onethat never ask any questions, and believe everything they're told
What do you think of the situation in Lebanon?  I bet you want to nuke them, I bet you said the US citizens should pay for evacuation.  I bet you'd follow Bush into a burning house and then off a cliff.  How many questiona need to be asked, and answers given before you people realize your stupid hardliner bs attitude isn't impressing anyone but yourselves and when ADULTS in this world need to make decisions they do it in lawful, intelligent due process.  I bet you say that all arabs are sand n*ggers or something. 
Let me be the first to say STFU  it's your kind of stifling don't ask ?s attitude that got your country in this mess, and it doesn't seem to matter what the issue, If you're for it it's right, and everything else is wrong right?  All I'm saying is that you're definitely wrong.   

BTW GATOR knows his shit.  You know the first 2 feet of sand pretty well
I have a few vet friends so I know a thing or two about what goes on in a bunch of places.

CIVILIAN CLOTHING IS NOT A UNIFORM
ARMED CONFLICT IS WAR

that's like saying A WATERMELON IS NOT A MELON
STFU

Hoc said:
"Does it bother anyone that a group of unelected judges decided, in a subjective manner, to simply restate the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches in regards to war fighting? "
Yes and it should be more widely known.  Judjes can't be subjective, and when these judges comprise the 'checks and balances' they cease to exist.   It's just a layer of abstraction between those branches (Bush)and the intelligence agencies (homeland) and there are all kinds of benefits to it, Bush still gets his way

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-21 12:16:52)

2006-07-21 15:13:04
hoc|forever
Member
+2|6693

joewardog wrote:

Funny how this thread won't die

hoc|forever wrote:

Now something for the thinkers out there. Does it bother anyone that a group of unelected judges decided, in a subjective manner, to simply restate the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches in regards to war fighting?

If you follow the case, 6 judges agreed with the gov, 6 didn't.
The Supreme Court has always bothered me, but that is its fundamental purpose (to be annoying).  Look back to Marbury vs Madison, etc.  When it comes to this latest case, I feel the Supreme Court is just crying for attention by as you put it "simply" restating what everyone should already know (and adding a bit about having to work together). 

What bothers me about the Court is how everyone takes it for the final say on anything, while in the past it has gone against itself before (for instance, Seperate yet Equal). 

Yet, I do admire how the judges are "unelected."  That way they can serve as a pain in the arse (or check) for the other two not-so-perfect branches.
I don't neccissarily agree that the other branches are worse than the Judiciary. A Justice could rule based on how he felt that day, and it stands. Conversely, the other two branches can have their legislation reworked, and will leave office (one way or another). So, when I see the Justices (especially voting without Roberts) "balancing" the legislature, despite direct wording in the Constitution about war powers, it bothers me deeply.

I agree that this is ruling is simply a fit thrown by the Supreme Court because they're left out of all the fun.

Marbury is a tad frightening as well.
2006-07-21 17:13:15
gofuyose
Member
+0|6693|My Fortress of Doom

Spumantiii wrote:

gofuyose wrote:

Gator, you are the stupidest fucking person here .... by far. By definition, we are not at "war". First off, learn the definition between war and armed conflict. Then you may speak; there hasn't been a war that we've been engaged in since WW2, dumbass. Second, the Geneva Convention applies to armed uniformed soldiers. Those fucking haji's are in their uniforms ... it's called civilian clothes. It's harder for us to differentiate between them and actual civilians. Hence why they do that. Have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan? I highly doubt it, so shut your whiney bitch ass right the fuck up and let the real men here talk. I served with the United States Marine Corps for 5 years (11 months, of which, were in Iraq). So until you can come up with personal experience, keep your stupid fucking cnn.com bullshit rhetoric to your goddamn self you fucking hippy piece of shit.

"BUSH LIED!!!!!!" /*cry*

And by the way, Hoc| sucks ass at BF2 bitch.

love (yours truly),
gofuyose
Big words from a little man.   you who need to come on here to express some kind of wrped dominance no doubt you lack that dominance in life. 

You people fucking scare me.  The supreme court's job is to make sure important decisions are made properly.  Not to 'be annoying'  jesus what the hell is in your heads?

I am so sick of sheep like this onethat never ask any questions, and believe everything they're told
What do you think of the situation in Lebanon?  I bet you want to nuke them, I bet you said the US citizens should pay for evacuation.  I bet you'd follow Bush into a burning house and then off a cliff.  How many questiona need to be asked, and answers given before you people realize your stupid hardliner bs attitude isn't impressing anyone but yourselves and when ADULTS in this world need to make decisions they do it in lawful, intelligent due process.  I bet you say that all arabs are sand n*ggers or something. 
Let me be the first to say STFU  it's your kind of stifling don't ask ?s attitude that got your country in this mess, and it doesn't seem to matter what the issue, If you're for it it's right, and everything else is wrong right?  All I'm saying is that you're definitely wrong.   

BTW GATOR knows his shit.  You know the first 2 feet of sand pretty well
I have a few vet friends so I know a thing or two about what goes on in a bunch of places.

CIVILIAN CLOTHING IS NOT A UNIFORM
ARMED CONFLICT IS WAR

that's like saying A WATERMELON IS NOT A MELON
STFU

Hoc said:
"Does it bother anyone that a group of unelected judges decided, in a subjective manner, to simply restate the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches in regards to war fighting? "
Yes and it should be more widely known.  Judjes can't be subjective, and when these judges comprise the 'checks and balances' they cease to exist.   It's just a layer of abstraction between those branches (Bush)and the intelligence agencies (homeland) and there are all kinds of benefits to it, Bush still gets his way
'First off' let me start by saying you are an idiot, plain and simple. You think you know something because you "know" people who were there? Wow, you are filled with all sorts of knowledge. There's something called first hand experiences, and second hand experiences. Learn the difference before you speak again, and please, please stop being retarded.

You call me a 'sheep' yet "those who do, know." One day you'll know what that one means.... People like me should scare you; we threaten your very way of liberalized life. We can't all throw down our arms and sing "we are the world" while shelling out hugs to everyone who wishes harm to western culture. 

What do I think about Lebanon? Well, like a typical Liberal, you answered for me deciding what you 'think' I'm going to say. I 'think' they finally got what they deserved. It would be like me knocking your fence down to your yard, and releasing one of my dogs on your kids. Then when you retaliate, I expect you to stop and apologize to me because you were in my way for expanding my Olympic sized pool. You should have known better than to be in my way. The US citizens shouldn't have been in Lebanon in the first place. With Hezbollah, a known entity in the region, rampant in that part of the world, they should have stayed clear in the first place. Do I think they should pay to leave? Are you an idiot? Or is this seriously a rhetorical question, and said question by me was?

You bet I would "nuke Lebanon" do you? How do you know? Are you psychic? What's the power ball numbers, I want them. Just like every other country on this Earth, every single one has innocent people in them. (OMG!!!! NFW!!!! Even the United States (as hard as this might possibly be for you to fathom, we do have innocent people in this country))

You bet i would follow Bush into a burning building; huh? Why, because I agree on the very premise on why we should be in Iraq? That would be like me assuming you would follow Michael Moore into Columbine and shoot it up because he is proving how "bad guns are." Please, find a stronger argument than this in the future, that way you don't look a fool.

From now on, you are called Mr. Assumption seeing as though that's what your previous paragraph of spliced sentences contained. Assumption after assumption, you 'assume' you know what I think before I answer your ridiculous questions. Do I call Arabs 'sand niggers?” No, I call them Arabs. What do you call them?

You refer to the United States as "my Country" if you aren't too busy creating more sentence fragments, answer this: What country are you from? If other than the U.S. than how can you tell us we're wrong for liberating an entire Nation and several cultures? Once you tell me where you're from, I can further my evidence as to why freedom is the ultimate reason for several occasions.

Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again.

Armed conflict is not war, study military history, politics or any subject relating to intelligent though, and you will soon find this out. Again, stop being retarded.

Last edited by gofuyose (2006-07-21 17:14:02)

2006-07-21 18:10:12
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada
I'm not scared of you or conservatives.  You fail to see the point.  I'm afraid of the ignorance you stand for.  You can claim that because you were a marine that you're right but it doesn't make you morally or theoretically right.  Let me tell YOU about first hand experiences.  I've experienced more racial bullshit, more redneckism and ignorance than I care to in my life and as far as I'm concerned from the bs you say is you're no better.  Marine or not.   Even though as one, you sure as shit should be.

You should stop wishing harm on western culture the shit you say is like some shit that could put ppl back 60 years.  You think all people want to do is shell out hugs because of some experience you have?  Let me tell you what I think.  It's harder to put your mind to something to make sure it's legit, than to succumb to your enlistment officer and go shoot people thousands of miles away from home because some stuffy officer told you it was right.  I do my thinking for myself thanks.  The truth is people like you are scared of people like me because it means you'd have to put your head to some use.

I'm not the kind to make rash generalizations but in the face of your first post I couldn't help it.  Go read your constitution if you don't believe me, you have a problem with the constitution?   The reason I accused you of saying those things is because they are about as fallible and idiotic (to quote you so frequently) as what you said.  Pure hate.  You must have seen some severely horrible things, maybe your family was bombed?  ahem o right you live in the states.  First hand experience huh.   I know you have innocent people in your country.  I'm not an America hater otherwise why would I waste as much time writing about it as you spend spewing unjust hate garbage about other real people.   If you've killed, you should know and have a special respect for human life.  I don't need to know that by first hand experience.

I said YOUR country.  I'm not going to bother quoting myself.

"Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again."
instead of just pissing on something first you might want to consider tha LEGAL DEFINITION of this and whether you're right that civvie's clothing is a uniform, especially since you brought up legal definitions.  I don't need to tell you the UN and Geneva say otherwise.    HMM that would make all US citizens militants would it not, and that all of the world are national forces?  If civilian clothing is now a uniform what does that make ppl IN uniform?   Non combatants?  Think about this one.

you can call me what you want but retarted is making you look pretty bad, especially since it's clear that you're fully indoctrinated and have no concept of the moral corectness of having two sides to any argument. 
I don't like mike moore I think he has an agenda too.  What the hell does he have to do with this?  My response is calculated to your typical amoral statements.  I'm not neccessarily liberal.  I have my viewpoints.  Just like conservatives, that medical research is illegal  but not illegal for private companies  (that's what Bush said BTW) that's going to cost your family.  So much for family values.   Please if you want to bash moral thinking go talk to China.



"Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again.

Armed conflict is not war, study military history, politics or any subject relating to intelligent though, and you will soon find this out. Again, stop being retarded."

-You said that
2006-07-21 18:16:45
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada

gofuyose wrote:

By definition, we are not at "war". First off, learn the definition between war and armed conflict. Then you may speak;

gofuyose wrote:

Armed conflict is not war, study military history, politics or any subject relating to intelligent though, and you will soon find this out. Again, stop being retarded.

gofuyose wrote:

Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again.
who can stop talking now?

gofuyose wrote:

You refer to the United States as "my Country" if you aren't too busy creating more sentence fragments, answer this: What country are you from? If other than the U.S. than how can you tell us we're wrong for liberating an entire Nation and several cultures? Once you tell me where you're from, I can further my evidence as to why freedom is the ultimate reason for several occasions.
And I could give you at least as many that say it was over oil

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-21 18:24:31)

2006-07-21 18:44:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spumantiii wrote:

gofuyose wrote:

By definition, we are not at "war". First off, learn the definition between war and armed conflict. Then you may speak;

gofuyose wrote:

Armed conflict is not war, study military history, politics or any subject relating to intelligent though, and you will soon find this out. Again, stop being retarded.

gofuyose wrote:

Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again.
who can stop talking now?

gofuyose wrote:

You refer to the United States as "my Country" if you aren't too busy creating more sentence fragments, answer this: What country are you from? If other than the U.S. than how can you tell us we're wrong for liberating an entire Nation and several cultures? Once you tell me where you're from, I can further my evidence as to why freedom is the ultimate reason for several occasions.
And I could give you at least as many that say it was over oil
Well, I can give You at least as many that say it was over pussy.......Saying it, does not make it a fact. A hard concept for liberals to grasp, I know.
2006-07-21 18:45:42
gofuyose
Member
+0|6693|My Fortress of Doom

Spumantiii wrote:

I'm not scared of you or conservatives.  You fail to see the point.  I'm afraid of the ignorance you stand for.  You can claim that because you were a marine that you're right but it doesn't make you morally or theoretically right.  Let me tell YOU about first hand experiences.  I've experienced more racial bullshit, more redneckism and ignorance than I care to in my life and as far as I'm concerned from the bs you say is you're no better.  Marine or not.   Even though as one, you sure as shit should be.

You should stop wishing harm on western culture the shit you say is like some shit that could put ppl back 60 years.  You think all people want to do is shell out hugs because of some experience you have?  Let me tell you what I think.  It's harder to put your mind to something to make sure it's legit, than to succumb to your enlistment officer and go shoot people thousands of miles away from home because some stuffy officer told you it was right.  I do my thinking for myself thanks.  The truth is people like you are scared of people like me because it means you'd have to put your head to some use.

I'm not the kind to make rash generalizations but in the face of your first post I couldn't help it.  Go read your constitution if you don't believe me, you have a problem with the constitution?   The reason I accused you of saying those things is because they are about as fallible and idiotic (to quote you so frequently) as what you said.  Pure hate.  You must have seen some severely horrible things, maybe your family was bombed?  ahem o right you live in the states.  First hand experience huh.   I know you have innocent people in your country.  I'm not an America hater otherwise why would I waste as much time writing about it as you spend spewing unjust hate garbage about other real people.   If you've killed, you should know and have a special respect for human life.  I don't need to know that by first hand experience.

I said YOUR country.  I'm not going to bother quoting myself.

"Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again."
instead of just pissing on something first you might want to consider tha LEGAL DEFINITION of this and whether you're right that civvie's clothing is a uniform, especially since you brought up legal definitions.  I don't need to tell you the UN and Geneva say otherwise.    HMM that would make all US citizens militants would it not, and that all of the world are national forces?  If civilian clothing is now a uniform what does that make ppl IN uniform?   Non combatants?  Think about this one.

you can call me what you want but retarted is making you look pretty bad, especially since it's clear that you're fully indoctrinated and have no concept of the moral corectness of having two sides to any argument. 
I don't like mike moore I think he has an agenda too.  What the hell does he have to do with this?  My response is calculated to your typical amoral statements.  I'm not neccessarily liberal.  I have my viewpoints.  Just like conservatives, that medical research is illegal  but not illegal for private companies  (that's what Bush said BTW) that's going to cost your family.  So much for family values.   Please if you want to bash moral thinking go talk to China.



"Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again.

Armed conflict is not war, study military history, politics or any subject relating to intelligent though, and you will soon find this out. Again, stop being retarded."

-You said that
Actually I shot back at people because they engaged first. Next. It is none of your concern if I have killed or not, but according to you - I should have more respect for human life. Where did I say anything (except to Gator, because he deserves it) anything outside of the lines of not having respect for human life? This is quite amusing. Irrational posts are more than likely irrational, yes, but - none the less, they are much needed from time to time. Basing your opinion off of one post makes you no better than the imbeciles basing opinions on this 'war' off of one opinion (*cough* media). Think about that one. Who cares what the U.N. says? They are the most wasted entity on the entire planet through my eyes. Indoctrinated? HA, do you hear yourself? Mr. Non-conformist is conforming to not conform. I have my own opinions because of what I have done/seen/experienced. You on the other hand are judging based off of internet words. Hilarious.

Not once did I claim I was right, I stated I thought this way through own experiences and things not shown to the general public. "Those who do, know." Or did you already forget this one?

Last edited by gofuyose (2006-07-21 18:51:34)

2006-07-21 18:55:55
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada
you don't care what the UN thinks, Bush's admin and the media have trashed it so badly that people actually believe it's pointless.  The system depends on participation.  As do the NPT that you and others accuse nations of violating, it's been useless for a long time because Israel and other nations went against it.  For the world to be able to be rational the largest countries and smallest need to be able to sit at a common table etc. it's no use saying that Iraq was breaking the UN resolutions if the UN was useless anyway that wouldn't make papers..  For a long time the world has let the situation get out of control, mainly because of all the military aid Israel recieved.  They broke resolutions but the US, the big piece of the pie, supported them, creating a stalemate and breaking the back of the UN.

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-21 18:58:45)

2006-07-21 19:02:10
hoc|forever
Member
+2|6693
[

GATOR591957 wrote:

A little clarification,  I never said we were swapping dictators, what I said was: "If we commit the same crimes as Saddam we are not showing we are there for their freedom, just changing dictators."

Due process, not rights afforded to US citizens, a military tribunal or something to that effect.  We need to prove they have committed a crime before we punish them.

My understanding is they cannot be held without charge indefinitely.  I will do some research and get back to you.
I love it when they openly admit that they didn't know what they were talking about in the first place.

The military does grant them review before a tribunal. It's called the Combatant Status Review Tribunal.  A panel of officers look over the relevant evidence and decide whether the person being held still poses a threat.  The court stepped in and forced a bunch of rules on them, as it stands. But Congress will change that.

POW's on the other hand can be held without charge for long periods of time. If they couldn't that would mean that captured soldiers would just be released back to fight for the other side. On top of which, most of the Al-Q they have in Guantanamo are planners, recruiters, or trainers. These are all critical personnel in the war against you. These guys are guilty of conspiring to commit terrorism. Conspiracy isn't a crime under the Geneva Convention. So, how do we prosecute Al-Q if the court says we can't?
2006-07-21 19:04:45
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada

lowing wrote:

Spumantiii wrote:

gofuyose wrote:

By definition, we are not at "war". First off, learn the definition between war and armed conflict. Then you may speak;

gofuyose wrote:

Armed conflict is not war, study military history, politics or any subject relating to intelligent though, and you will soon find this out. Again, stop being retarded.

gofuyose wrote:

Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again.
who can stop talking now?

gofuyose wrote:

You refer to the United States as "my Country" if you aren't too busy creating more sentence fragments, answer this: What country are you from? If other than the U.S. than how can you tell us we're wrong for liberating an entire Nation and several cultures? Once you tell me where you're from, I can further my evidence as to why freedom is the ultimate reason for several occasions.
And I could give you at least as many that say it was over oil
Well, I can give You at least as many that say it was over pussy.......Saying it, does not make it a fact. A hard concept for liberals to grasp, I know.
then you agree that what he said, that it was over freedom, is said and not fact, is that a hard concept?
both sides are said and not neccessarily fact but among both there ARE facts
2006-07-21 19:05:07
gofuyose
Member
+0|6693|My Fortress of Doom

Spumantiii wrote:

you don't care what the UN thinks, Bush's admin and the media have trashed it so badly that people actually believe it's pointless.  The system depends on participation.  As do the NPT that you and others accuse nations of violating, it's been useless for a long time because Israel and other nations went against it.  For the world to be able to be rational the largest countries and smallest need to be able to sit at a common table etc. it's no use saying that Iraq was breaking the UN resolutions if the UN was useless anyway that wouldn't make papers..  For a long time the world has let the situation get out of control, mainly because of all the military aid Israel recieved.  They broke resolutions but the US, the big piece of the pie, supported them, creating a stalemate and breaking the back of the UN.
Actually, I believed the U.N. was pointless long before the Bush administration existed. The system won't work because it relies on countries who think the only answer is 'sanctions'. As we have seen, those don't do anything to the Middle East. What are we going to cut them off from? They have friends (Russia/China) that will supply them with anything their little heart's desire.

"They're building a nuke" - "Well we can draft together some sanctions that might take months" - "No, you didn't hear me .... they have a NUKE" - "Maybe we can tell them we don't advise this!"

Watch the diplomacy at work ....
2006-07-21 19:09:13
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|6875|Colorado
If you would read the article before you post you would see that this only pertains to one specific part of the structure of the tribunal, & not to all cases.
2006-07-21 19:15:06
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada
yes diplomacy happens when you ask people for facts ie
prove they are building nukes and not a power plant and fuel
nobody could prove anything, there needed to be legit evidence, and US admin gave up plenty of so called evidence etc
it was unfinished when US went in in a diplomatic point of view

Guantanamo may or may not be a case of knowing the facts on their detainees and they also take years it seems to decide what to do with them.  I don't think the US waited long enough to make a just decision,  people know that most of the grounds for it were proven wrong

hence the gitmo problem and detainees all over the world on the grounds of terrorism which may or may not apply to them

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-21 19:17:25)

2006-07-22 05:27:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spumantiii wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spumantiii wrote:

gofuyose wrote:

By definition, we are not at "war". First off, learn the definition between war and armed conflict. Then you may speak;

gofuyose wrote:

Armed conflict is not war, study military history, politics or any subject relating to intelligent though, and you will soon find this out. Again, stop being retarded.

gofuyose wrote:

Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again.
who can stop talking now?

And I could give you at least as many that say it was over oil
Well, I can give You at least as many that say it was over pussy.......Saying it, does not make it a fact. A hard concept for liberals to grasp, I know.
then you agree that what he said, that it was over freedom, is said and not fact, is that a hard concept?
both sides are said and not neccessarily fact but among both there ARE facts
Can't agree.

Democracy is breaking out all over Iraq, they have held free elections for the first time. The only thing that is hindering complete success is the terrorists, ( you know, the side you support) killing Iraqis and making sure the country stays unstable.
2006-07-22 05:49:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spumantiii wrote:

I'm not scared of you or conservatives.  You fail to see the point.  I'm afraid of the ignorance you stand for.  You can claim that because you were a marine that you're right but it doesn't make you morally or theoretically right.  Let me tell YOU about first hand experiences.  I've experienced more racial bullshit, more redneckism and ignorance than I care to in my life and as far as I'm concerned from the bs you say is you're no better.  Marine or not.   Even though as one, you sure as shit should be.

You should stop wishing harm on western culture the shit you say is like some shit that could put ppl back 60 years.  You think all people want to do is shell out hugs because of some experience you have?  Let me tell you what I think.  It's harder to put your mind to something to make sure it's legit, than to succumb to your enlistment officer and go shoot people thousands of miles away from home because some stuffy officer told you it was right.  I do my thinking for myself thanks.  The truth is people like you are scared of people like me because it means you'd have to put your head to some use.

I'm not the kind to make rash generalizations but in the face of your first post I couldn't help it.  Go read your constitution if you don't believe me, you have a problem with the constitution?   The reason I accused you of saying those things is because they are about as fallible and idiotic (to quote you so frequently) as what you said.  Pure hate.  You must have seen some severely horrible things, maybe your family was bombed?  ahem o right you live in the states.  First hand experience huh.   I know you have innocent people in your country.  I'm not an America hater otherwise why would I waste as much time writing about it as you spend spewing unjust hate garbage about other real people.   If you've killed, you should know and have a special respect for human life.  I don't need to know that by first hand experience.

I said YOUR country.  I'm not going to bother quoting myself.

"Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again."
instead of just pissing on something first you might want to consider tha LEGAL DEFINITION of this and whether you're right that civvie's clothing is a uniform, especially since you brought up legal definitions.  I don't need to tell you the UN and Geneva say otherwise.    HMM that would make all US citizens militants would it not, and that all of the world are national forces?  If civilian clothing is now a uniform what does that make ppl IN uniform?   Non combatants?  Think about this one.

you can call me what you want but retarted is making you look pretty bad, especially since it's clear that you're fully indoctrinated and have no concept of the moral corectness of having two sides to any argument. 
I don't like mike moore I think he has an agenda too.  What the hell does he have to do with this?  My response is calculated to your typical amoral statements.  I'm not neccessarily liberal.  I have my viewpoints.  Just like conservatives, that medical research is illegal  but not illegal for private companies  (that's what Bush said BTW) that's going to cost your family.  So much for family values.   Please if you want to bash moral thinking go talk to China.



"Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again.

Armed conflict is not war, study military history, politics or any subject relating to intelligent though, and you will soon find this out. Again, stop being retarded."

-You said that
Personally, I love how you do your "thinking for yourself" without ever taking a side, or take a side for reasons other than trying to solve the problem. You do not support the war on terror because you hate Bush. Now, that is real thinking there. So let me ask you, when you don't get involved in solving any problems, how do you actually get your free thinking information? Oh wait I know, from us veterans that supported and defended our country so you can look up your bullshit conspiracy theories on google, and sit around eating cheetoes and talk about how oppressed you are under Bush.
2006-07-22 13:03:07
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada

lowing wrote:

Spumantiii wrote:

lowing wrote:


Well, I can give You at least as many that say it was over pussy.......Saying it, does not make it a fact. A hard concept for liberals to grasp, I know.
then you agree that what he said, that it was over freedom, is said and not fact, is that a hard concept?
both sides are said and not neccessarily fact but among both there ARE facts
Can't agree.

Democracy is breaking out all over Iraq, they have held free elections for the first time. The only thing that is hindering complete success is the terrorists, ( you know, the side you support) killing Iraqis and making sure the country stays unstable.
let's not start over who supports terrorism here unless you're willing to look at all the actions the US and UK have ever taken to support terrorism in other countries.
2006-07-22 13:50:36
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada

lowing wrote:

Spumantiii wrote:

I'm not scared of you or conservatives.  You fail to see the point.  I'm afraid of the ignorance you stand for.  You can claim that because you were a marine that you're right but it doesn't make you morally or theoretically right.  Let me tell YOU about first hand experiences.  I've experienced more racial bullshit, more redneckism and ignorance than I care to in my life and as far as I'm concerned from the bs you say is you're no better.  Marine or not.   Even though as one, you sure as shit should be.

You should stop wishing harm on western culture the shit you say is like some shit that could put ppl back 60 years.  You think all people want to do is shell out hugs because of some experience you have?  Let me tell you what I think.  It's harder to put your mind to something to make sure it's legit, than to succumb to your enlistment officer and go shoot people thousands of miles away from home because some stuffy officer told you it was right.  I do my thinking for myself thanks.  The truth is people like you are scared of people like me because it means you'd have to put your head to some use.

I'm not the kind to make rash generalizations but in the face of your first post I couldn't help it.  Go read your constitution if you don't believe me, you have a problem with the constitution?   The reason I accused you of saying those things is because they are about as fallible and idiotic (to quote you so frequently) as what you said.  Pure hate.  You must have seen some severely horrible things, maybe your family was bombed?  ahem o right you live in the states.  First hand experience huh.   I know you have innocent people in your country.  I'm not an America hater otherwise why would I waste as much time writing about it as you spend spewing unjust hate garbage about other real people.   If you've killed, you should know and have a special respect for human life.  I don't need to know that by first hand experience.

I said YOUR country.  I'm not going to bother quoting myself.

"Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again."
instead of just pissing on something first you might want to consider tha LEGAL DEFINITION of this and whether you're right that civvie's clothing is a uniform, especially since you brought up legal definitions.  I don't need to tell you the UN and Geneva say otherwise.    HMM that would make all US citizens militants would it not, and that all of the world are national forces?  If civilian clothing is now a uniform what does that make ppl IN uniform?   Non combatants?  Think about this one.

you can call me what you want but retarted is making you look pretty bad, especially since it's clear that you're fully indoctrinated and have no concept of the moral corectness of having two sides to any argument. 
I don't like mike moore I think he has an agenda too.  What the hell does he have to do with this?  My response is calculated to your typical amoral statements.  I'm not neccessarily liberal.  I have my viewpoints.  Just like conservatives, that medical research is illegal  but not illegal for private companies  (that's what Bush said BTW) that's going to cost your family.  So much for family values.   Please if you want to bash moral thinking go talk to China.



"Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again.

Armed conflict is not war, study military history, politics or any subject relating to intelligent though, and you will soon find this out. Again, stop being retarded."

-You said that
Personally, I love how you do your "thinking for yourself" without ever taking a side, or take a side for reasons other than trying to solve the problem. You do not support the war on terror because you hate Bush. Now, that is real thinking there. So let me ask you, when you don't get involved in solving any problems, how do you actually get your free thinking information? Oh wait I know, from us veterans that supported and defended our country so you can look up your bullshit conspiracy theories on google, and sit around eating cheetoes and talk about how oppressed you are under Bush.
Must I explain myself?

1) I take the side of reason.  I look at both sides and decide what I think is right about one side and agree with it.  You've taken one side and not even looked elsewhere for info. Why take a stance for any reason other than to solve a problem your statement is not only false but makes no sense

2) You do not support the war on terror because you hate Bush
Maybe you've never actually read any of what I wrote.  I don't support terror JUST WATCH WHO YOU CALL A TERRORIST SOMETIMES YOU ARE WRONG  understand now?   Maybe the west are also being terrorists in other places


3) I don't hate Bush he's just as vulnerable as the next guy will be.  I think Bush is an old collegeboy/cowboy and in my opinion has no place in politics, but I don't hate him, for example when he addressed the nation I liked what he said about more jobs, tighter budget and family values.  It looked like it would be good for Canada too with the NAFTA thing getting more say in govt.  I think that on a few of those points he failed and on the rest they are on thin ice.  I don't like Steven Harper either.  You do know who Steven Harper is right.  NO GOOGLING

Bush has alienated his constituents by not being committed to his party policy.  Generally the only people who support him now are those who are in denial over facts that put his govt at the center of several issues.  Instead they love to hang on by the skin on their teeth not using evidence ad logic in their arguments but discrediting those who disagree with them like schoolchildren

4)"Oh wait I know, from us veterans that supported and defended our country so you can look up your bullshit conspiracy theories on google, and sit around eating cheetoes and talk about how oppressed you are under Bush"

what are you a veteran of, I've never seen anything about you being a veteran.  The difference between us is:  I will give information the benefit of the doubt until I DETERMINE IT'S BULLSHIT not when SOMEONE ELSE/ OTHER MEDIA does.  You like to discount anything that goes against what you tragically preach as being golden and untouchable (which it isn't).  I'm not opressed under Bush unless they go off the right wing deep end into a pool of shit and attack Canada.  Therefore my opinions are reasonable as an outsider's perspective.  I don't have the biases that Americans do and I don't watch tv to get information.  You should try it (people in general)

I don't like cheeto's.  I'm in good shape, I go to a gym.  The law of probability states that you're more likely as an American to be overeight than me. 

the word conspiracy means roughly: more than one person in on some agreement.  The word you're looking for is  fallicious (sp) theories.  Those ones are bullshit.  Conspiracies happen all day every day especially within corporations.  Don't be nieve to think the govt isn't more so.

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-22 13:54:12)

2006-07-22 14:36:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spumantiii wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spumantiii wrote:

I'm not scared of you or conservatives.  You fail to see the point.  I'm afraid of the ignorance you stand for.  You can claim that because you were a marine that you're right but it doesn't make you morally or theoretically right.  Let me tell YOU about first hand experiences.  I've experienced more racial bullshit, more redneckism and ignorance than I care to in my life and as far as I'm concerned from the bs you say is you're no better.  Marine or not.   Even though as one, you sure as shit should be.

You should stop wishing harm on western culture the shit you say is like some shit that could put ppl back 60 years.  You think all people want to do is shell out hugs because of some experience you have?  Let me tell you what I think.  It's harder to put your mind to something to make sure it's legit, than to succumb to your enlistment officer and go shoot people thousands of miles away from home because some stuffy officer told you it was right.  I do my thinking for myself thanks.  The truth is people like you are scared of people like me because it means you'd have to put your head to some use.

I'm not the kind to make rash generalizations but in the face of your first post I couldn't help it.  Go read your constitution if you don't believe me, you have a problem with the constitution?   The reason I accused you of saying those things is because they are about as fallible and idiotic (to quote you so frequently) as what you said.  Pure hate.  You must have seen some severely horrible things, maybe your family was bombed?  ahem o right you live in the states.  First hand experience huh.   I know you have innocent people in your country.  I'm not an America hater otherwise why would I waste as much time writing about it as you spend spewing unjust hate garbage about other real people.   If you've killed, you should know and have a special respect for human life.  I don't need to know that by first hand experience.

I said YOUR country.  I'm not going to bother quoting myself.

"Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again."
instead of just pissing on something first you might want to consider tha LEGAL DEFINITION of this and whether you're right that civvie's clothing is a uniform, especially since you brought up legal definitions.  I don't need to tell you the UN and Geneva say otherwise.    HMM that would make all US citizens militants would it not, and that all of the world are national forces?  If civilian clothing is now a uniform what does that make ppl IN uniform?   Non combatants?  Think about this one.

you can call me what you want but retarted is making you look pretty bad, especially since it's clear that you're fully indoctrinated and have no concept of the moral corectness of having two sides to any argument. 
I don't like mike moore I think he has an agenda too.  What the hell does he have to do with this?  My response is calculated to your typical amoral statements.  I'm not neccessarily liberal.  I have my viewpoints.  Just like conservatives, that medical research is illegal  but not illegal for private companies  (that's what Bush said BTW) that's going to cost your family.  So much for family values.   Please if you want to bash moral thinking go talk to China.



"Civilian clothing is a type of uniform for this new war we are fighting, just as I.E.D. attacks are a new form of engagement. Please try thought process before speaking yet again.

Armed conflict is not war, study military history, politics or any subject relating to intelligent though, and you will soon find this out. Again, stop being retarded."

-You said that
Personally, I love how you do your "thinking for yourself" without ever taking a side, or take a side for reasons other than trying to solve the problem. You do not support the war on terror because you hate Bush. Now, that is real thinking there. So let me ask you, when you don't get involved in solving any problems, how do you actually get your free thinking information? Oh wait I know, from us veterans that supported and defended our country so you can look up your bullshit conspiracy theories on google, and sit around eating cheetoes and talk about how oppressed you are under Bush.
Must I explain myself?

1) I take the side of reason.  I look at both sides and decide what I think is right about one side and agree with it.  You've taken one side and not even looked elsewhere for info. Why take a stance for any reason other than to solve a problem your statement is not only false but makes no sense

2) You do not support the war on terror because you hate Bush
Maybe you've never actually read any of what I wrote.  I don't support terror JUST WATCH WHO YOU CALL A TERRORIST SOMETIMES YOU ARE WRONG  understand now?   Maybe the west are also being terrorists in other places


3) I don't hate Bush he's just as vulnerable as the next guy will be.  I think Bush is an old collegeboy/cowboy and in my opinion has no place in politics, but I don't hate him, for example when he addressed the nation I liked what he said about more jobs, tighter budget and family values.  It looked like it would be good for Canada too with the NAFTA thing getting more say in govt.  I think that on a few of those points he failed and on the rest they are on thin ice.  I don't like Steven Harper either.  You do know who Steven Harper is right.  NO GOOGLING

Bush has alienated his constituents by not being committed to his party policy.  Generally the only people who support him now are those who are in denial over facts that put his govt at the center of several issues.  Instead they love to hang on by the skin on their teeth not using evidence ad logic in their arguments but discrediting those who disagree with them like schoolchildren

4)"Oh wait I know, from us veterans that supported and defended our country so you can look up your bullshit conspiracy theories on google, and sit around eating cheetoes and talk about how oppressed you are under Bush"

what are you a veteran of, I've never seen anything about you being a veteran.  The difference between us is:  I will give information the benefit of the doubt until I DETERMINE IT'S BULLSHIT not when SOMEONE ELSE/ OTHER MEDIA does.  You like to discount anything that goes against what you tragically preach as being golden and untouchable (which it isn't).  I'm not opressed under Bush unless they go off the right wing deep end into a pool of shit and attack Canada.  Therefore my opinions are reasonable as an outsider's perspective.  I don't have the biases that Americans do and I don't watch tv to get information.  You should try it (people in general)

I don't like cheeto's.  I'm in good shape, I go to a gym.  The law of probability states that you're more likely as an American to be overeight than me. 

the word conspiracy means roughly: more than one person in on some agreement.  The word you're looking for is  fallicious (sp) theories.  Those ones are bullshit.  Conspiracies happen all day every day especially within corporations.  Don't be nieve to think the govt isn't more so.
1. I take the side of reason as well, for a full decade before Bush the US was targeted for several successful terror attacks with no response. After 911 the fight was taken to them. Nothing else to say there.

2. Terrorist target civilians and civilian common area, the US spends a ton of money to develop technology that surgically removes intended, legit targets. Sometimes we have killed civilians but never intentionally.

3. That is Stephen Harper if I am not mistaken........NOT Steven Harper

second paragraph.....popular or not, once again I must point to the fact that the US has not been attacked since 911 and has successfully foiled numerous attempts. THAT is the bottom line.

4. I am a 4 year veteran of the USAF. '85-89

I do not discount what anyone says I only challenge anyone to  back up their opinions with facts and not some bullshit, google searched, conspiracy theory video. Lets face it, people will go against Bush's' efforts because it came from Bush and NOT because it isn't sound.

You got me on being over weight. I am 40, I work out as well, but could still stand to drop a few pounds.
2006-07-22 16:50:30
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada
noone knows for sure who was responsible for what though.  There was McVeigh but he was american, and how many terrorist act attempt have there been?  It's fine to say they were stopped but only 9/11 and the wtc 93 bombing come to mind..  And there haven't been since because of tighter security, in my opinion, not the war itself.
2006-07-22 18:11:13
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spumantiii wrote:

noone knows for sure who was responsible for what though.  There was McVeigh but he was american, and how many terrorist act attempt have there been?  It's fine to say they were stopped but only 9/11 and the wtc 93 bombing come to mind..  And there haven't been since because of tighter security, in my opinion, not the war itself.
tighter security, yup, and taking the offensive in the war. You can't single out 1 thing..The big picture is...No attacks, and foiled attempts again bottom line....you have a hard time accepting this I know, since Bush is the reason for it. McViegh was American, and he was a terrorist...what is the point. I assign blame to Al Queda for the terror attacks because they took responsibility for them...What do you mean you don't know who did what??

 

Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard