0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:53 pm
Bush is not a moron. He is however a new kind of president. Shallow, ignorant of word affairs, of geography, of history, uncultured, uncouth, incapable of understanding complexities, incapable of forming cogent sentences on his own, distrustful, resentful of contrary opinion. It is still baffling to many onlookers why America has chosen him to the highest office again. Was he really the best on offer? I will never doubt the power of advertising again.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:56 pm
McTag wrote:
Bush is not a moron. He is however a new kind of president. Shallow, ignorant of word affairs, of geography, of history, uncultured, uncouth, incapable of understanding complexities, incapable of forming cogent sentences on his own, distrustful, resentful of contrary opinion. It is still baffling to many onlookers why America has chosen him to the highest office again. Was he really the best on offer? I will never doubt the power of advertising again.


Sure says a lot about Kerry. Doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:59 pm
Says that we sure don't elect presidents based upon ability any more.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 04:01 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Says that we sure don't elect presidents based upon ability any more.

Cycloptichorn


Nothing in McTag's laundry list indicates a lack of ability to do the job.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 04:05 pm
It says more about Kerry. Idea His entire campaign could be summed up as "I'm not Bush". What the silly DNC didn't realize is that it could actually be summed up as "I'm not even Bush" :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 04:05 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Says that we sure don't elect presidents based upon ability any more.


Nothing in McTag's laundry list indicates a lack of ability to do the job.


It shows a lack of ability to do the job well. Which is painfully obvious these days.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 05:09 pm
We seem to be walking in a dream.
The President is inept. Well, people judged him to be better that the challenger. What???

I am heartily sorry about the new loss of soldiers' lives in Mosul. They were sitting in their mess tent, and they were bombed. I find I am more sorry about that, than about the daily loss of other lives there, and I don't know why that should be. Maybe because, our TV also had contrasting pictures of the same tent messroom, decorated for Thanksgiving and shown in a peaceful setting.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 05:31 pm
McTag wrote:
We seem to be walking in a dream.
The President is inept. Well, people judged him to be better that the challenger. What???

I am heartily sorry about the new loss of soldiers' lives in Mosul. They were sitting in their mess tent, and they were bombed. I find I am more sorry about that, than about the daily loss of other lives there, and I don't know why that should be. Maybe because, our TV also had contrasting pictures of the same tent messroom, decorated for Thanksgiving and shown in a peaceful setting.


Did you feel the same way when this was happening?

Do you wish it still was?

Were you waiting for the UN to step and do something about it?

These people are still waiting. And dying...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 05:31 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
right.... so then we can look forward to toppling the following for starters;
pakistan
iran
syria
chechnya
the phillipines
suadi arabia
sudan
katar
uae
north ireland
... US ...

I thought everyone understood the obvious difference between al Qaeda located in a country whose government is working to remove and keep them out, and al Qaeda located in a country whose government is working to harbor them and bring them in.

Again, a wise person attempts to remove those governments that harbor and bring in al Qaeda. It is a realistic expectation that if one does that to enough such governments, few if any other governments will harbor and bring in al Qaeda. Perhaps the governments of Syria and Iran will also have to be removed before all of al Qaeda are finally under attack by the governments of every country.[/quote]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought Afganistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, North Ireland, Sudan, and US governments are all working to remove and keep out al Qaeda. Whereas the Iranian, and Syrian governments are both working to harbor and bring in al Qaeda. I'm not adequately informed whether the Chechnya, Katar, and UAE governments are currently working to remove and keep out, or working to harbor and bring in al Qaeda.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
ican, it's not unwise to enforce the existing laws regarding border control. it is unwise to continue soft handling the borders in order to allow illegals to stream across the border to supply cheap and submissive labor.

We are currently enforcing US immigration laws by returning illegal immigrants captured in the act of entering the US, back where they came from. That isn't working well. Nor should any rational person think that such a method would work well. Suppose say 100,000 of the same people try to illegally imigrate into the US each and every month. How many months will it take for say 99% of those illegal imigrants to succeed, if the US continues its present method of capture and return, of say 50% per month? The answer is 7 months. Then suppose another 100,000 try it over the next 7 months ... ?

Those that succeed in getting past our border guards are legally rewarded with driver's licences, healthcare, and other welfare benefits. Perhaps we ought to stop those rewards.

An unwise person puts up walls to keep al Qaeda away from the civilians al Qaeda wants to murder (e.g., an unwise person hides in closets). Historically, such walls have proven to be expensive to build and maintain, ineffective, and relatively easy to circumvent, tunnel under, blast through, or in some cases of decay simply walk through. Worse, the civilians al Qaeda wants to murder cannot survive huddled behind such walls, because to survive those civilians must make their bread and earn their bread in places that either don't have walls or cannot afford walls.[/quote]
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 05:39 pm
ican711nm wrote:
[Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought Afganistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, North Ireland, Sudan, and US governments are all working to remove and keep out al Qaeda.


Yes you're wrong!!!. Al Qaeda in the north of Ireland!!! Would you ever kop on to yerself? -
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 05:44 pm
gav wrote:

Yes you're wrong!!!. Al Qaeda in the north of Ireland!!! ...
Thanks!
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 05:45 pm
Yer welcome!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:20 pm
McGentrix wrote:
McTag wrote:
We seem to be walking in a dream.
The President is inept. Well, people judged him to be better that the challenger. What???

I am heartily sorry about the new loss of soldiers' lives in Mosul. They were sitting in their mess tent, and they were bombed. I find I am more sorry about that, than about the daily loss of other lives there, and I don't know why that should be. Maybe because, our TV also had contrasting pictures of the same tent messroom, decorated for Thanksgiving and shown in a peaceful setting.


Did you feel the same way when this was happening?

Do you wish it still was?

Were you waiting for the UN to step and do something about it?

These people are still waiting. And dying...
You still don't get it McG? Of course the Sudan should be taken care of. As long as the U.S. doesn't do it alone. Alone, which, by the way means absent Russia, France and Germany, any action we take is not only criminal but unnecessary.

Now, only because I'm going to bring it up myself right now, some whiner isn't going to point out that we're not taking care of the Sudan. You see, if you're the United States, you really are damned if you do AND damned if you don't.
(At least as far as the Blame-America-First-Club or BAFC is concerned.)

Ps. In case that was too cryptic to follow: Since we have not as of yet pinpointed the whereabouts of Saddam's WMD, and Russia, France and Germany weren't on board; Uday couldn't possibly be guilty of any of that stuff... and besides, it's irrelevant. Get it? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:24 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Since we have not as of yet pinpointed the whereabouts of Saddam's WMD...



Bill...you are smarter than that. Much smarter.

Give up on the WMD nonsense.

They ain't there...and more than likely, they ain't anywhere.

Hell...even Bush and his toadies have pretty much conceded that!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:34 pm
Eh, Frank... You're right about the smarts... and since you are too, you should realize that that wasn't really the point...
Look again, I'm confident the point won't evade you twice. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:42 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Eh, Frank... You're right about the smarts... and since you are too, you should realize that that wasn't really the point...
Look again, I'm confident the point won't evade you twice. :wink:


I must be dense today, Bill...but I truly do not see what your point was. Obviously you were being sarcastic...and perhaps I've not been involved enough with this thread to understand the background.

I'll withdraw the remark.

And I won't even mention anything about this weeks NFL action, because my team is in the cellar...and your's at least can see daylight.

But I ain't gonna mention it. :wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:48 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
ican wrote:
Ain't that sumpin'?

Yeah, a self-admittedly poor source of evidence.
self-admittedly Question Rolling Eyes Not even, self-admitted. Laughing

From:
1075958:
Quote:
9-11CR = www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report, 8/21/2004, alleged the following:
1. Osama bin Laden in 1998 declared war on both civilian and military Americans with the objective of killing all of them wherever they be found;
2. President George Bush on 9/11/2001 declared to the National Security Council the United States would not just punish the perpetrators of terrorist attacks on Americans but also those who harbored them;
3. President Bush declared to the nation on TV the night of 9/11/2001 that we would make no distinction between the terrorists who committed terrorism against Americans and those who harbor them.
4. President Bush declared to Congress and to the nation on TV the night of 9/20/2001 that our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them… Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but does not end there … Our war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.
5. The al Qaeda are a confederation of multiple terrorist groups led by Osama bin Laden.
6. Osama bin Laden aided a group of Islamic extremists encamped in northern Iraq.
7. The Al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq, suffered major defeats by Kurdish Forces in the late 1990s.
8. In 2001, the Al Qaeda remnant in northern Iraq, with Osama bin Laden’s help, re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam (AaI).
9. There is zero evidence that the Kurd’s again attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq.
10. There is zero evidence that Saddam’s regime attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq.
11. There is zero evidence that the US attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq before 2003.
12. There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein requested the Kurds to attack the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq.
13. There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein requested the US to attack the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq.


Also from 9-11CR
Quote:
In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they [i.e., al Qaeda] re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54


9. There is zero evidence that the Kurd’s again attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq.
10. There is zero evidence that Saddam’s regime attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq.
11. There is zero evidence that the US attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq before 2003.
12. There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein requested the Kurds to attack the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq.
13. There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein requested the US to attack the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq.

Also there is zero evidence that Saddam, after receiving our three requests (including Powell's statement to UN), even so much as cussed and fussed over the fact that the AaI al Qaeda was encamped in his Iraq.

So, I conclude Saddam Hussein probably tolerated AaI al Qaeda in Iraq. Idea Therefore, to remove AaI al Qaeda from Iraq, it was necessary for the US to invade Iraq.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:58 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
But I ain't gonna mention it. :wink:
Appreciated... even though this week's game had zero effect on our positioning anyway (I'll let you define our :wink:).
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 07:04 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes Merry Christmas or whatever you prefer--I think everybody ought to get what they want for Christmas Smile--to everybody. Like Frank I'm cooking for a crowd who will start arriving tomorrow so will probably not be around much for several days. But whatever anyone's personal beliefs, the season is special and I wish you all nothing but happiness.


and a very merry christmas to you and yours, foxy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 07:07 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
I'll withdraw the remark.


Naaa, don't do that. It's important. Lemme guess what Bill had in mind!

The US is repeatedly criticized for not invading Sudan and trying to stop the genocide there.

The US is repeatedly criticized for invading Iraq and among other things trying to stop the genocide there.

By the way:

The US has been repeatedly criticized for its historical proping up of several middle eastern tyrannical governments at the expense of their tyrannized people.

The US has been repeatedly criticized for removing the Iraqi tyrannical government that committed genocide there.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/17/2025 at 12:50:17