The Heroic Iraqi Insurgents

kuvasz wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I've never met Cindy Sheehan or Mr. Moore, and have no inclination to do so. I don't massage my Sweetiepie's feet, let alone those of a stranger.

Interesting visual there, though--one suspects that Tico yearns to massage the feet of his hero, the Shrub. Or maybe it's Tricky Dick Cheney who is the focus of Tico's sexual fantasies . . .

more likely the desire is to insert his tongue into our Dear Leader's rectum.

Be careful Kuv, nikki may judge this to be a feeble attempt to smear posters who have a firm grasp on reality.

On second thought....naaah.

So let me take up a version of her standard. This comment is not only a feeble attempt, but a sophomoric one to insult a poster with whom you not only disagree, but whom you can not equal in fair debate.

0 Replies

To choose another relatively recent war, there were undoubtedly Japanese war atrocities in WW2 which would not have occurred had we not declared and implemented a war with Japan. Yet, that doesn't mean that those atrocities were our fault. The atrocities were the fault of the people who committed them. The same is true for every war that has ever been fought. If you engage an enemy in a war, he may later commit atrocities, but this certainly is not proof that you shouldn't have engaged him. That is a completely separate issue. If a policeman tries to stop a bank robber, the bank robber may take a hostage and kill someone, but that doesn't mean that the policeman is responsible for the dead hostage.

The insurgents bombed a hospital because it didn't offend their sensibilities as a means to an end. They are responsible. This act proves yet again that they are the sort of people who ought to be opposed.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
Setanta wrote:
I've never met Cindy Sheehan or Mr. Moore, and have no inclination to do so. I don't massage my Sweetiepie's feet, let alone those of a stranger.

Interesting visual there, though--one suspects that Tico yearns to massage the feet of his hero, the Shrub. Or maybe it's Tricky Dick Cheney who is the focus of Tico's sexual fantasies . . .

more likely the desire is to insert his tongue into our Dear Leader's rectum.

Be careful Kuv, nikki may judge this to be a feeble attempt to smear posters who have a firm grasp on reality.

On second thought....naaah.

So let me take up a version of her standard. This comment is not only a feeble attempt, but a sophomoric one to insult a poster with whom you not only disagree, but whom you can not equal in fair debate.

finn, how nice that you are out on work release for the holidays. just remember what your parole officer said about staying away from little boys this time out.

btw if tico can accuse others of being twisted enough to want to massage cindy sheehan's and michael moore's feet it is apropos to ask the same about tico massaging his hero's ass with his tongue. after all, his posts are typical brown-nosing attempts to turn shitt into gold.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
Setanta wrote:
I've never met Cindy Sheehan or Mr. Moore, and have no inclination to do so. I don't massage my Sweetiepie's feet, let alone those of a stranger.

Interesting visual there, though--one suspects that Tico yearns to massage the feet of his hero, the Shrub. Or maybe it's Tricky Dick Cheney who is the focus of Tico's sexual fantasies . . .

more likely the desire is to insert his tongue into our Dear Leader's rectum.

Be careful Kuv, nikki may judge this to be a feeble attempt to smear posters who have a firm grasp on reality.

On second thought....naaah.

So let me take up a version of her standard. This comment is not only a feeble attempt, but a sophomoric one to insult a poster with whom you not only disagree, but whom you can not equal in fair debate.

finn, how nice that you are out on work release for the holidays. just remember what your parole officer said about staying away from little boys this time out.

btw if tico can accuse others of being twisted enough to want to massage cindy sheehan's and michael moore's feet it is apropos to ask the same about tico massaging his hero's ass with his tongue. after all, his posts are typical brown-nosing attempts to turn shitt into gold.

And yours are just garbage. The world is a worse place because you make posts here.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

A difference between today's Iraq and the Iraq of Saddam is that in today's Iraq the killings are trumpeted by the world's news media, while in Saddam's Iraq, the killings were largely ignored.

Three years ago children in Iraq were imprisoned, starved, abused and slaughtered in Saddam's Iraq. They were tortured in the presence of their parents just to keep the folks in line.

Today, the children are targeted with "doll bombs" and we have to listen to people saying this wouldn't be happening if Bush had just not invaded.

Iraq had almost no immunization programs for children three years ago, but there were children's prisons. How is it possible anyone could make any excuses whatsoever for those who purposely target kids?

Disgusting.

0 Replies

All of you are saying "what threat was Iraq to the US".

Let me ask this question...
What threat was Bosnia before we invaded?
What threat was Haiti before we invaded?
What threat was Italy and Germany before we invaded?

All of those are countries we invaded at the order of a Democrat President.

My point is that in each case the admin saw a threat,real or imaginary,and they took action.
Italy and Germany cost us humdreds of thousands of casualties,other invasions less.
Now,we can sit here till doomsday and debate the legality or the casualty count or anything else you want,but that does not change the fact that we are there.

0 Replies

Non-sequitur

Bosnia was a NATO mission.

Haiti was a threat as streams of refugees were landing in Florida. It was not an invasion, merely a police action and if I recall, it was a UN effort.

Gemany declared war on us! Italy was their ally.

Got any more really stupid non-sequiturs?

0 Replies

twin_peaks_nikki wrote:

Non-sequitur

Bosnia was a NATO mission.

Haiti was a threat as streams of refugees were landing on our land. It was not an invasion, merely a police action and if I recall, it was a UN effort.

Gemany declared war on us! Italy was their ally.

Got any more really stupid non-sequiturs?

Bosnia was an invasion that did NOT have UN approval.
If it was ok since NATO approved it,then you MUST use the same logic and say the Iraq war is legal and ok,since more countries supported and aided in the Iraq war then there are countries in NATO.

Haiti was no threat to us.
We didnt have to accept those refugees.We could have turned them around,allowed them to die at sea,sent them to another country,or done a number of other things.

Germany and Italy did declare war,but we didnt have to attend.
They are to far away,and they didnt have the power to reach us or attack us.
We could have just ignored them.Instead,Roosevelt CHOSE to go to war.

So I ask again,what IMMEDIATE threat were they to us?

0 Replies

MM
If you don't understand the threat that Germany posed to us and the world circa WW2 you must be living in a vacuum.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

And yours are just garbage. The world is a worse place because you make posts here.

you guys can dish it out but you can't take it.

typical bullies.

tell you what, when your side begins to enter debates with the facts and not propagandistic fictions, without calling your opposition stupid or traitors or perverts and ceases going out of its way in attempt to malign the personal habits of your opposition, I'll put down my venomous keyboard.

I would relish an adult discussion from you mcgentrix, where your side would admit inconvenient facts instead of your typical arm-waving away of things that undermine your ideologies, which are nonetheless true, factual, and germane to the topic.

how many times have there been discussions on george bush lying where your side responds with remarks about bill clinton's blowjob affair? as if there is some sort of moral equivalence in your mind between a private sexual act and lying about the reasons for taking this country to war? there has been presented on-site too may factually proven incidences of Bush lying and the nefarious behavior of him and his followers which your side simply ignores for your side to be taken seriously as intellectually honest adversaries who seek an honest evaluation of such topics. your side, because of rank ideology has already reached your conclusions on such matters and all you do is throw frass into the discussion in an attempt legitimize preordained positions.

my use of some graphic metaphors is nothing compared to your side's assaults and raping of the truth.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
And yours are just garbage. The world is a worse place because you make posts here.

you guys can dish it out but you can't take it.

typical bullies.

tell you what, when your side begins to enter debates with the facts and not propagandistic fictions, without calling your opposition stupid or traitors or perverts and ceases going out of its way in attempt to malign the personal habits of your opposition, I'll put down my venomous keyboard.

I would relish an adult discussion from you mcgentrix, where your side would admit inconvenient facts instead of your typical arm-waving away of things that undermine your ideologies, which are nonetheless true, factual, and germane to the topic.

how many times have there been discussions on george bush lying where your side responds with remarks about bill clinton's blowjob affair? as if there is some sort of moral equivalence in your mind between a private sexual act and lying about the reasons for taking this country to war? there has been presented on-site too may factually proven incidences of Bush lying and the nefarious behavior of him and his followers which your side simply ignores for your side to be taken seriously as intellectually honest adversaries who seek an honest evaluation of such topics. your side, because of rank ideology has already reached your conclusions on such matters and all you do is throw frass into the discussion in an attempt legitimize preordained positions.

my use of some graphic metaphors is nothing compared to your side's assaults and raping of the truth.

I usually reply to "discussions on george bush lying" by asking which lies he told... The administration was wrong about a lot of things, but last I heard, one can be wrong without lying. Hell, you are wrong quite often, but I have never accused you of lying.

When the left decides to be honest and open about their appraisal of the Bush administration, perhaps open lines of communication can be had, but as long as they come off as blithering idiots, that will not happen.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

finn, how nice that you are out on work release for the holidays. just remember what your parole officer said about staying away from little boys this time out.

Boy, that's really lame kuvie.

You're slipping fast.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

finn, how nice that you are out on work release for the holidays. just remember what your parole officer said about staying away from little boys this time out.

Boy, that's really lame kuvie.

You're slipping fast.

How odd of you to post a response only after 5pm on a Friday; a time after work release cons are let out past the gates for the weekend.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
kuvasz wrote:

finn, how nice that you are out on work release for the holidays. just remember what your parole officer said about staying away from little boys this time out.

Boy, that's really lame kuvie.

You're slipping fast.

How odd of you to post a response only after 5pm on a Friday; a time after work release cons are let out past the gates for the weekend.

If possible, even lamer.

0 Replies

The Heroic Iraqi Insurgents

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know