stratoman Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 well.....if you think the government is lying......how do you know that "U.S. government officials said...."........is true? one would think that the gainsayers among you have a problem believing ANY government statement, not just the ones you disagree with for political reasons....... ain't that the MFing truth!! :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 you're such a caring guy sfrench. too bad that doesn't equate to a plan. too bad that does nothing for the millions who have died in that part of the world; too bad that does nothing for the Kurds gassed in the North and the Kuwaitis tortured to death to the South; too bad that did little for the Israelis subjected to Scud attacks; too bad for the innocent children blown up by Palestinian bombers whose families were charmed by Hussein's largess; too bad for the Afghans who perished at the hands of Arab terrorists who used Iraq for safe transit; too bad for the Syrians who have been tortured by a despot funded with Iraqi oil moneys; too bad for all the ex-Patriot Iraqis we watched on tv countless nights describing the horrors that befell them or their loved ones in Udays little playland; too bad for the folks on Dr Germ's bad side; too bad for my friends who died there who had seen the same things I saw and knew they were doing the right thing. you're such a caring guy....safely ensconced in the flowing fields of middle america. So, now that you're done beating the war drums about WMD's and how we lefties should get out of the way so the "heavy-lifting" people can get to work ... You're back-pedalling by appealing to liberal humanist sentiments for the poor, suffering Iraqis ... ... you know, the Iraqis, the ones Reagan and G. Bush Senior didn't care much about when Saddam was ACTUALLY massacring them en masse? It's so touching that the right wing is suddenly parroting Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch ... really! ... It's really quite entertaining! Please, fansince, give us another bombastic tirade about the left's selective morality .... it would NEVER apply to you, would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 not backpedalling at all...or have you and your offensive body-count, sleep well at night morality forgotten that my posts have been very consistent in this regard? but it is pleasing to note that you reject this line of thought! you and sfrench should move in together and raise little relativists of your own! and it is true that the left is rather inconsistent in its "moral" outrage. and yes.......what have you done if you're such a caring guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 and yes...I have been there many times.........and other places...... we're at an impasse.........let's bring the political battle home and start warring on other fronts. there must be some other things you "care" about that can be undone. lob your verbal grenades so you can feel better. there must be something in my spelling and grammar you folks can flesh out for posterity.......:rotflmao:....I left a few last night to keep you occupied....... end of conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 fan, Thanks for your reply to my last post. I'ts all I'd expect from you and more. Still, as I sit here reading the news I notice that Bush did, in fact, lie about uranium. I know that in your FoxNews version of the world he was justified because Bill Clinton made him do it. I know also that you wrote "end of conversation" but I know your ego will make you look here again. But since your end of the conversation is over, I won't expect a reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 are you French? Why, are the French known for correcting deceptive forum posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 it's time to blow the whistle on the folks advancing all these heartful paens to caring, sensitivity and unfettered angst over spilt American blood. At least it's genuine, unlike your heartful paens to caring, sensitivity and unfettered angst over the plight of the Iraqi people. What the right is doing is obvious. After the fact they are looking for a justification for this invasion because their reasons for going are turning out to be dishonest. You can pretend but it's tranparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Fansince, I no I will regret saying this but the truth is Clinton didn't lie to the grand jury either. He was given a "definition" as to what was ment by the term sexual relations and that specifically did not include oral sex. Bush lied in the SOTU. He admitted as much this week. JackC you are a fool if you think that was the only thing that happened, no one will ever know just those two. Here is the definition: sexual relations: 1.Sexual intercourse. 2.Sexual activity between individuals. Oral sex is a sexual activity between indiviuals. A sexual activity is one where it results in one of the people helping the other produce an orgasim. If clinton didn't do number 3 then it wouldn't have been, but is was all over her dress. WHY they hell are we even talking about Clinton anyway??? This is so old news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma WHY they hell are we even talking about Clinton anyway??? This is so old news. I am wondering about this also. We are talking about a decision that was made that killed American soldiers, killed innocent Iraqi citizens including children, and killed who knows how many Iraqi soldiers for WMD I have yet to see definite proof existed. If the best that someone can contribute is, oh yea, well Clinton got a bj in the White House and lied about it. You lost my respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I will never stop being amazed at the lefties constant defense of Clinton. He lied. That fact is indisputable. I guess for such small minded idealogues I shouldn't expect you to understand the difference between lying and being wrong. Good thing that most of America understands. BTW, which Democrat said that the nuke connection with Niger was the reason they voted for war? Thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I will never stop being amazed at the lefties constant defense of Clinton. He lied. That fact is indisputable. I guess for such small minded idealogues I shouldn't expect you to understand the difference between lying and being wrong. Good thing that most of America understands. BTW, which Democrat said that the nuke connection with Niger was the reason they voted for war? Thought so. Kilmer I am not a leftie, I just think that issue has been beat down enough. I agreed he lied, but we need to get over that and worry about what is happening today. It is not like we are still talking about OJ or something. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma JackC you are a fool if you think that was the only thing that happened, no one will ever know just those two. Here is the definition: sexual relations: 1.Sexual intercourse. 2.Sexual activity between individuals. Oral sex is a sexual activity between indiviuals. A sexual activity is one where it results in one of the people helping the other produce an orgasim. If clinton didn't do number 3 then it wouldn't have been, but is was all over her dress. WHY they hell are we even talking about Clinton anyway??? This is so old news. Who are you Webster or something? The lawyers defined what they ment and it's not what you have there. Why are we talking about Clinton? Because the conservatives refuse to let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Who are you Webster or something? The lawyers defined what they ment and it's not what you have there. Why are we talking about Clinton? Because the conservatives refuse to let it go. Yes I am webster :jk: that is what was in webster, the lawyers were a bunch of idiots paid to make it look better then it was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Conservatives need to let it go? I PROMISE to never bring up his name again if he and his wife go away. But the argument I keep hearing goes like this. "If we impeached a Pres for Oral sex, we should impeach Bush for lying and killing American Soldiers." Sorry, but the left INVITES the Clinton comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Sfrench....don't delude yourself into believing Fan is some right wing nutjob alone in his beliefs....unlike some of you who post so knowingly about 'lying', 'conspiracy', 'offensive wars', and the supposed purposeful plot of our President to get American soldiers killed, some of us have actually been to the Middle East, Kuwait, Iraq and have some idea what we're talking about. I've tried my damnedest to stay out of some of these threads, because the irresponsible, accusing tone of many posters (like you for instance) who know nothing first hand of what they speak pisses me off so much. Has it occurred to you that its precisely because our military and intelligence assets were gutted over the past 10 years that our ability to find and track Iraq's WMD's has been severely limited? Does it dawn on you that the fact we've yet to find mass stores of Sarin, mustard, and other agents does not mean they never existed, even as recently as a year ago? You won't address that because you cannot. As has been pointed out, the very self-serving political whores in Congress who sat in on high level intell meetings, heard the evidence, and voted for removing Saddam at whatever cost now plead ignorance and admonish our President (who received the identical intelligence briefs) as a 'liar' who 'misled' America. They do it because until we know what was done with Saddam's weapons stores, its open hunting season. Its a free shot. So put up or shut up. What is your qualification in determining what Saddam had, when he had it, and what if anything he did with it? I served as a ground combat officer for a decade, fought in the forward most Marine unit in the first gulf war, served as a Marine Infantry NBC (nuclear/biologic/chemical warfare) expert, experienced chemical alarms going of during Desert Storm and SAW chemical warheads in Iraq in 1991. I also experienced the physical effects of the imaginary weapons you claim never existed, and had nervous system problems after Desert Storm so severe I couldn't use my right arm for a year. But you've got it all figured. Ol' Saddam spoke to Jesus and decided all of that bad boy stuff had to go. He turned over a new leaf. How dare we eject him after his miraculous rehabilitation. I've said all along, I have my suspicions about what happened to Iraqs weapons, but I'll admit I don't know and that only time will tell if our intell was wildly inaccurate. But YOU don't KNOW, not a single one of you. And worst of all, you take your limited (and thats being generous) knowledge, garnered mostly from newspaper articles apparently, and smear a sitting US President. Dazzle me with your personal qualifications. I can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Tarhog, I don't delude myself into thinking he's alone. However, unlike him, I "attempt" to not paint a whole political party based on one man's words. Although I'm not always successful. And, unlike you, I don't put words in peoples mouths so I can pound on a strawman. I never said they that they never had chemical/biological weapons (which effectively negates 3/4ths of your post). I said that the argument from our government that led up to THIS war is dishonest. The president was knowingly deceitful. You can argue that, to you, it was worth it. But that doesn't change it. They argued the biological/chemical aspect, which was plausible but not scary enough for most Americans to send their sons and daughters to war. So then they started hyping the nucular aspect. That we were in immediate danger and we must invade now. The evidence they used was bogus. That's it. As for my "qualifications" to combat your strawman. Since it is a strawman, it's not necessary. I will, however, tell you my background. Because, unlike fan, you don't appear to be lying on the floor kicking and screaming as you write. Although you did misrepresent me in your zeal to make a point. I spent 3 years in the Army National Guard, then 4 years in the USAF. After that I spent 10 years in a communication/electronics shop supporting the 1st Infantry Division (before they moved to Ge) and the 24th hq now and 3 battallions. We provided training, technical support and maintenance during the first gulf war and the balkans conflict. Now, I work in a calibration lab that provides TMDE support to the Army, Marine Reserves, USAF, and Army and Air Force guard and reserve units from New Mexico to North Dakota. I work with these young soldiers every day. And, yes, I do care about them and what happens to them. Of course, none of that qualifies me to answer your strawman any more than your background (which I salute) does. My qualifications to back the argument that I AM making are simple. The ability to watch and comprehend events. The abilty to not be cowed when some right-winger tries to browbeat me into submission with dishonest arguments. The FACT that as an American I can call a president a liar if he lies to me. I don't need any other qualifications and neither do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I guess the discovery of underground nuke labs, buried centrifuges and testimony from Iraqi scients that they were to restart the Nuke program once the UN left is inconsequential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Jack if he will go away, then conservatives will stop talking about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I guess the discovery of underground nuke labs, buried centrifuges and testimony from Iraqi scients that they were to restart the Nuke program once the UN left is inconsequential. Are you saying that we discovered as a result of this war a previously unknown underground nuke lab? Rusted parts of one centrifuge buried 12 years ago? Where are the parts for the other hundred that it takes to do the job? The UN left when? Where's the program. Where's the ability to have a bomb "in six months", as the president said? Where is the reconstituted nuclear program that the VP said they had? Again, who's saying they never tried. That's right, nobody. The reasoning for this war wasn't prefaced on what they did 12 years ago. We were told that they were an imminent nucular threat to the United States. Now. And we were given dishonest evidence to back that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Yes we did. It was hidden beneath a lab that the UN inspected and declared safe. I know this is hard for libs to understand, but sometimes you need to connect the dots. If one scientist had a centrifuge hidden and the plans on how to restart the program, doesnt it stand to reason that there are others? Also, does it not bother you that Saddam didnt disclose this as required? If he truly didnt want to restart the program, why hide it? I like how you add adjectives like "rusted" to try and bolster your point, but I dont remember any legit reports say it was rusted or unusable. And finally, Saddams imminent threat was 1 part of the reason for war. A reason that most Dems agreed with, but now want to make political hay by questioning. So exactly why DID John Kerry and Lieberman and Edwards etc agree to war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by sfrench Are you saying that we discovered as a result of this war a previously unknown underground nuke lab? Rusted parts of one centrifuge buried 12 years ago? Where are the parts for the other hundred that it takes to do the job? The UN left when? Where's the program. Where's the ability to have a bomb "in six months", as the president said? Where is the reconstituted nuclear program that the VP said they had? Again, who's saying they never tried. That's right, nobody. The reasoning for this war wasn't prefaced on what they did 12 years ago. We were told that they were an imminent nucular threat to the United States. Now. And we were given dishonest evidence to back that up. sfrench, the reason for the war is because of all the lies from Saddam the last 12 years. The WMD was only put into such focus to try to get the backing of the UN and the international community. We are finally doing what we should have done 12 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Actually, I think what they discovered were parts which they say could have been used to make a centrifuge. (I gotta admit, I have trouble figuring out how you can use a centrifuge to seperate a metal, anyway. Do they melt it? (And, keep it melted while spinning it?) Guess that's why I'm not designing nukes.) (I've also seen an article here, in the last few days, about what are described as "aluminum tubes" which the pentagon says could be used for a U-seperating centrifuge, but which the DOE says conclusively could not be used for that purpose. Don't know if these are the same parts.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I guess the guy COULD put a sheet of glass on it and call it a coffee table as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 So Tarhog...fansince...you guys going to call out and question your fellow conservatives here on the board too? I mean..the ones who haven't served..I mean...what's their qualifications for espousing on the military and its war plans. Yeah...I didn't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Yes we did. It was hidden beneath a lab that the UN inspected and declared safe. That's interesting. Could you provide a cite for this information. Never heard that one. Was it operational? If one scientist had a centrifuge hidden and the plans on how to restart the program, doesnt it stand to reason that there are others? Also, does it not bother you that Saddam didnt disclose this as required? If he truly didnt want to restart the program, why hide it? I'm not basing my argument on what Saddam was thinking. I have no idea. Nor do you. A lot of things about Saddam "bother" me but what Saddam was "thinking" has nothing to do with my point. Which you keep avoiding. I like how you add adjectives like "rusted" to try and bolster your point, but I dont remember any legit reports say it was rusted or unusable. Metal buried in the ground for twelve years. I "connected the dots". It's obviously unusable without a hundred more just like it. And finally, Saddams imminent threat was 1 part of the reason for war. A reason that most Dems agreed with, but now want to make political hay by questioning. So exactly why DID John Kerry and Lieberman and Edwards etc agree to war? You'd have to ask them. They didn't tell me. I figure one of two things. Either they were given bogus information like we were or they're cowards who don't have the balls to stand up to the administration. Or a combination of the two. Oops, that's three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.