THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican wrote:
"...like yourself to conclude that all the US military are criminals ..."

Where did I say that? Go fxxk yourself ticomaya.

My first statement was a quote except I replaced in it you by I.

My second statement in that same post was not a quote; it was a paraphrase. That paraphrase was the result of my inferences from all that you have posted regarding alleged US military crimes and criminals.

I think both my inferences and my paraphrase of those inferences are valid. If you think my inferences and my paraphrase invalid, all you need do to correct my inferences and paraphrase is state what you actually were trying to communicate about the alleged criminality of the US military.

Your response to ticomaya, absent a statement of what you actually do believe, only increases my confidence in the validity of my inferences and paraphrase of what you have been posting.

Go lxxk (i.e., look) at yourself. Laughing

0 Replies

At best, inferences are still assumptions - subject to verification.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican wrote:
"...like yourself to conclude that all the US military are criminals ..."

Where did I say that? Go fxxk yourself ticomaya.

Go "fxxk" myself?

You know, if you would pause, c.i., and perhaps inject a little thought into your postings, rather than just toss-off knee-jerk missives, you might have a little less trouble communicating with others on this board.

You asked Ican to:

C.I. wrote:

Quit quoting words for me I never spoke; you righties are good at speaking for us even though we never speak the words. Where in the world did you get your education? Republican school? LOL

In case you're struggling with the definition:

Quote:

quote
v. quot·ed, quot·ing, quotes
v.tr.
1. To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
2. To cite or refer to for illustration or proof.
3. To repeat a brief passage or excerpt from: The saxophonist quoted a Duke Ellington melody in his solo.

The "quoting" of you by Ican was done accurately; he correctly replicated the words you used.

However, the words of Ican of which you are now complaining ("...like yourself to conclude that all the US military are criminals ...") do not constitute a quote of your words. They constitute a conclusion/inference he made, based on your words.

Words have meaning, c.i. Perhaps you should spend a little extra time pondering your word choices when responding to other posters on this board?

0 Replies

well i dunno whats been going on here, but C.I. is right

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Ican wrote:
Quote:
I think your analysis about what is inadequate about the current plan is reasonable. I differ only in that there is indeed a central power, but it is too weak at present to do what is required.

It is too weak because of the way we set up the way the government would work requiring a super majority rather than a simple majority the way our elections work.

Well, as I posted the Iraqi government is too weak. However, I don't think the "super majority" requirement has anything to do with Iraqi government weaknesses. As I understand it, the super majority requirement is merely a requirement for more than 50% of the members of the Iraqi legislature, whereas a plurality requirement is for more than 50% of those members in attendance at a legislature session. In other words, a majority of the members of their legislature is required to pass certain legislation, instead of a mere plurality of those legislators voting.

Perhaps my copy of the Iraqi Constitution is out of date. Here's what it says on the subject:

Quote:

Article (58): 1st - Quorem for sessions of the Council of Representatives shall be reached by the attendance of the absolute majority of the members.
2nd - Decisions shall be made in the Council of Representatives by simple majority, as long as it has not been stated otherwise.
...
8th - (a) The Council of Representatives may withdraw confidence from a minister by absolute majority ...

I think the major cause of Iraqi government weaknesses is the current lack of an effective Iraqi military. I think the the cause of that is the current significant strength of the itm. I think that the current significant strength of the itm is due principally to the failure of Bush to agree with what I define the itm to be and establish a US policy to exterminate the itm.

itm = inhuman terrorist malignancy = those who murder civilians + those who abet the murder of civilians + those who advocate the murder of civilians + those who are silent witnesses to the murder of civilians + those who allow the murderers of civilians sanctuary. itm have declared war on civilians worldwide; waged war on civilians worldwide; and murdered civilians worldwide.

0 Replies

I think the A2K Bushpeople work for the state department.

0 Replies

ticomaya, I don't need anybody to make conclusions about my statements; I'll do that all by myself. That's called "projection;" something conservatives do all the time. We don't need conservatives to translate our statements - you friggin dummy! You're an arse that wouldn't understand what I'm talking about if it slapped you in the groin.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Bush's fight for democracy.

Quote:
U.S. Plants Seeds of Disaster in Kazakhstan

By Ted Rall

07/06/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Each summer, America's financial elite head for the Hamptons. But bold men who lust for power have an agenda far more ambitious than the seduction of Botox babes at cocktail parties where grown men wear pastels. They go where the real action is: the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, home to the world's largest untapped oil reserves.

Dick Cheney has been spending a lot of time in the huge Central Asian republic
...
Ted Rall is the author of "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East? ," an analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge. www.tedrall.com

Your post is more liebral pseudology.

If liebrals are opposed to our invasion of Iraq to remove a tyrannical governent, I should think they would be opposed to our invading Kazakhstan to remove a tyrannical governent. As the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq prior to their invasions, and are doing with North Korea, we are first trying diplomatic means to de-tyrannize Kazakhstan.

But then, one should never look for consistency from liebrals.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

I think the A2K Bushpeople work for the state department.

I think the A2K liebrals are volunteers for the itm. Mad

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ticomaya, I don't need anybody to make conclusions about my statements; I'll do that all by myself. That's called "projection;" something conservatives do all the time. We don't need conservatives to translate our statements - you friggin dummy! You're an arse that wouldn't understand what I'm talking about if it slapped you in the groin.

Considering their record, nobody is even listening to them. In fact you can take what they say believe the opposite and you'd be ahead of the game.

They are crazy people.

They do provide an outlet though. Laughing

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ticomaya, I don't need anybody to make conclusions about my statements;
I make conclusions from your statements whether you need me to or not. You make conclusions from my statements whether I need you to or not.

I'll do that all by myself. That's called "projection;" something conservatives do all the time.
And something liebrals do all the time.

We don't need conservatives to translate our statements - ...
Yes, you do need conservatives to translate your statements when you address your statements to or about conservatives, else why do you make statements to or about conservatives.

But back to the original question.

Do you or do you not judge the US military to be criminal? If you do, why do you judge the US military to be criminal?

If you don't answer these questions of mine, then I will indeed need to translate your statements, and you will indeed need me to translate your statements (whether you want me to or not).

0 Replies

ican, You dumm shet, it doesn't matter what I think; it matters a whole lot what Arabs/Muslims think.

All my brothers and I served in the armed forces of the US. Our older son served for over 12 years in the US Air Force.

Try to project that you dimwit arse.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

...
Considering their record, nobody is even listening to them. In fact you can take what they say believe the opposite and you'd be ahead of the game.
...

What's your game? Confused

0 Replies

I feel an ad hominem coming on.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, ... it doesn't matter what I think; it matters a whole lot what Arabs/Muslims think.
...

I think you posted that the Iraqis (e.g., Arabs/Muslims) think the US military is criminal. Do you think the Iraqis (e.g., Arabs/Muslims) think the US military is criminal? Or should I think "it doesn't matter what [you] think" about that or anything else?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Amigo wrote:

...
Considering their record, nobody is even listening to them. In fact you can take what they say believe the opposite and you'd be ahead of the game.
...

What's your game?

Truth Vs. Bull$hit.

In the long run we win.

(please don't come back and say "Then your Bull$hit, Har har har.")

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ticomaya, I don't need anybody to make conclusions about my statements; I'll do that all by myself. That's called "projection;" something conservatives do all the time. We don't need conservatives to translate our statements - you friggin dummy! You're an arse that wouldn't understand what I'm talking about if it slapped you in the groin.

If I ever get to the point where the best response I can muster is to call the person I'm arguing with a "dummy" repeatedly, someone just shoot me.

0 Replies

It's cause you're a dummy!

0 Replies

The bottom line is any reasonable logical right-winger know better then to try to defend Bush and this war. They ducked out a long time ago. We are left with these people, the Bushpeople.

The whole thing is pathetic.

If Bush said 2+2=5. Sure enough we would be here arguing that 2+2=4 and not 5 the next day and the argument would go the same way intill in the end we would be reduced to screaming "Your an impossible idiot !"

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
...
What's your game?
Truth Vs. Bull$hit.

In the long run we win.

(please don't come back and say "Then your Bull$hit, Har har har.")

OK! I wouldn't have come back with that. I would have merely responded Laughing

Besides you already said that. Laughing

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know