IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Chicago "Oklahoma City" type plot thwarted!
This is a plain crook, not a terrierist. A terrierist can be recognized by the portfolio of virgins in his wallet.

Repeat - there are crooks about. Terrierists will go away as long as you drive off all the virgins that attract them.

-drl
New Virgin . . .
. . an ugly 6 year old with no brother.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Sorry, must disagree
To me, anyone who plans to blow up a building, or DOES it, such as Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, ARE terrorists, whether personal, local, or affiliated with a bigger organization, because their purpose is to kill and terrorize people.

Nightowl >8#



"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
New so Bush is a terrorist?
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Yep. Unprovoked attacks on another nation.
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
New Sure why not?
If you ignore the threats that Saddam made against the USA, his support of terrorism, the memo that linked him to Bin Laden, the suicide vests the US military found, the 3 Million Iraqis that Saddam murdered, the money Saddam paid to the families of the suicide terrorists that blew themselves up, the stealing of the Oil for Food program that Saddam stole billions from, and the fact that Saddam helped hide some Al-Quada members from justice that murdered Americans.

If you turn a blind eye to all those facts, and many more, then perhaps you can say that the war in Iraq was unjustified.

I just want you to say it to the families that lost their loved ones to Saddam's cruelness, the 3 million people Saddam snuffed out and the people who loved them. Tell it to the Iraqis who fled their country to the USA to escape Saddam's madness. Tell it to the families of the Americans who were murdered by Al-Quadea members that Saddam helped hide from justice. Tell it to the families of those that the suicide bombers killed, and Saddam rewarded the bombers families. I am sure they will believe you that it was, after all, unjustified. Either that, or they will slap you or punch you in the face for lying. Take your pick.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New 3 million?
I'd heard 300K, but you're claiming an order of magnitude more.

Got a source?


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New From Iraqi immigrants
not every death was officially recorded as Saddam was in power. These numbers are not recent, but since Saddam was in power. Maybe recently 300,000, but over his career apparently there were more. Things like people being thrown into tree shreaders, and the death not being recorded. Their only crime being that they wanted a better government.

I got my information from people who had been there, and lost loved ones, rather than a biased media that puts a spin on things.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New That's close to 15% of the population
-drl
New No such thing as an unbiased source, Norman.
Don't waste your time looking for one :)


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New Even if the numbers are wrong
it still does not change the fact that Saddam is a murderer who murdered his own people. Be it 300,000 or 3,000,000, there are families affected by it.

Should we just tell these families that the war was unjustified and that the costs were too high and we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place?



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Yes we should
Should we just tell these families that the war was unjustified and that the costs were too high and we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place?


THAT was NOT the reasons given to us to go to war.

Saddam was doing these atrocities for the past 20 years. We've known about them back in the Reagan administration, yet he sent Rumsfeld to sell hundreds of millions of dollars to Saddam so he could fight the evil Iranians. The current administration has been running this war "off the books" so that the billions we taxpayers are paying for this doesn't get counted against the over $400 billion in debt that has been added to the national deficit last year alone.

lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
New I think the problem here
is that we have TWO questions, really, not one.

First question: Was Bush justified in sending us to Iraq?
Answer: No, because there were no weapons of mass destruction found, and that was why he said we had to attack.

Second question: Did it do any good to invade Iraq?
Answer: Yes, it toppled Saddam, freed an oppressed people, and gave a country a chance to have a more civilized government.

Was it wrong? Depends. Was what Bush said wrong? Yes. There were no WMDs. Was it wrong for the Iraqi people? They'd probably say no, they are liberated.

But was it RIGHT for Bush to tell us one reason to invade, and then we find that the reason didn't exist?

No.

Nightowl >8#



"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
New So N. Korea is justified in attacking the USA?
After all:

- we have WMDs
- we're the only country to use nuclear bombs against an enemy
- we've been saber rattling about N. Korea, talking diplomacy, and if it fails, our military is going in (to paraphrase Rumsfeld)
- we attacked Iraq in a pre-emptive strike to prevent his using WMDs, so why can't they make the same argument on us?
- getting rid of the current administration would be good for the country and the world (same reasoning to remove Saddam)
- we've proved our unwillingness to respect other country's governments; see our takeovers in Grenada, Nicaragua, Chile, Iran, etc. etc. etc.


lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
New we have been at war with them since 1950's
we are only in a truce, hostilities hav e never ceased by treaty. So yes under International law they can attack us.
thanx,
bill
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Technically that was not a war on our side
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New OTOH, isn't signing a truce=retroactively declaring war? :-)
New The problem with that reasoning...
...is that if that is your foreign policy, then the USA will spend its entire time at war with one tinpot dictator or other, because they're all over the place.

If simple evilness is the criterion used for determining whether country X is invaded, then North Korea and Myanmar should have been further up the list than Iraq, for example.

It's really very difficult not to be cynical about the motivations of the US and UK in invading Iraq rather than, say, Sudan or Zimbabwe.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New I agree, but the USA is remarkably incompetent about it
Our inability to keep oil production at pre-war levels is one of the contributing factors to gas prices: [link|http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html#109160367650493671|http://www.juancole....09160367650493671]

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Zimbabwe cannot be invaded by us, the UK screwed that pooch
with the help of the Rhodesians themselves. Any sign of a English speaking white face in those parts would lead to international ostracism much worse that what we face now. Unfortunately Zimbabwe is a prime example of how to take a rich productive country and turn it into a basket case in 20 years.
thanx,
bill
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Very well so
except we have to pick which countries to invade, and how do we decide? We decided by intelligence that was later proven to be false. PM Blair in your country also agreed to the Iraq invasion, based on intelligence that they gathered as well.

North Korea and Myanmar, while I agree with you are evil, have no apparent ties to Al-Queda that we know of. A memo was found that linked Saddam to Al-Quada, and they had people meet. While we can argue over the credibility of the memo and what Saddam's and Bin Laden's people talked about, it does show a possible link. Saddam was also linked to terrorism, and remember this is a war on terrorism. True other countries in the middle-eat may be tied to terrorism as well, but Saddam has a past history of using WoMD on his own people (1990's?) unlike the other countries.

Still, will there be an invasion of North Korea and Myanmar or other parts of the world? Who knows. I can grant you one thing, whatever the next war is, or whatever the government claims it will be for, there will always be people against it.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Wrong Answer
We do NOT need to choose what countries to invade. We SHOULD NOT invade anyone unless attacked. Iraq did NOT attack. Could NOT attack. Had NO plans to attack.

A "War" on terrorism is just as effective as the "War" on drugs or the "War" on illiteracy. First two are POLICE actions, last is social policy. No troops needed for any of them.

Military power should be used to DEFEND against an attack. And no, were not playing a sports game where a good defense is a strong offense.

Saddam may have been an evil dictator, but we had no justification for invading.
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
New Right answer
We have power, and with that power comes responsibility. We should no longer support tinpot dictators, and instead support freedom and rights. Invading Iraq just cleaned up a big mess that we were responsible for. Or maybe you think we shouldn't take responsibility for the mistakes we made in the past? Saddam should have been taken out of power in 1991 by Bush Sr., but he made a mistake. I see it as no different than cutting out a growing cancer. The war is justified, Iraqi people are free, and that is one less mess to worry about growing out of control later. I imagine if we invaded Germany in 1939 to avoid the holocost and World War II that you would have been just as upset? Germany didn't attack us, why did we attack them? Learn how war works and quit being an Armchair General.

You and JB4 are the ones that need a clue by four.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Lifted 700 Club slogans do not a Statesman make.
Pretty soon your recognition-vocabulary + spell-checker will enable you to quote extensively, the predigested slogans from a number of "unbiased" blogs, born-again and-again. (You get a C+ for remembering the spell-check, this time)

There's another phrase which describes your toddler's-eye view of "the Iraq thing", in this inane encapsulation
The war is justified, Iraqi people are free, and that is one less mess to worry about growing out of control later.
It's a common shorthand for those Yahoos who imagine that the US can and should control whatever it wishes to control, always. That phrase describes the Murican Instant-Solution to any difficult problem which is too hard to actually think about, let alone take the time actually needed to begin solving:

Flush it down the toilet. See? - problem all gone.

Stick to The Office, Norman. (Maybe HR - they adore simple rules to govern complex people, too) Your Boolean logic is invalid beyond VB-class, and away from The Office: that level of thought turns ludicrous fast.


Ludicrous:
Laughable or hilarious because of obvious absurdity or incongruity. See Synonyms at [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foolish| foolish].
New Yet you error again
we are not controlling Iraq anymore, we've set up their own intern government and paid for education to help them learn to run it and rebuild their civilization. It is not about control, it is not about oil either, if it was we simply would have annexed Iraq as a territory as we did Gaum. Thus your fallacies are showing again.

You get a C- for effort, but an F- for concepts.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New So why, then,...
..are we shipping ever more troops to a country "we no longer control"? (As if we ever did control it....)

Doesn't sound like their "interim government" is all that much, does it?

(The rest of you post fell below the noise filter threshold)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Responsibility?
That's a good one.

So, what's Bush doing about Darfur? Is that the sound of crickets?

When is Bush going to apologize to the world for the excesses of former presidents in abusing human rights around the world? That's right, more crickets.

Invade Germany in '39? Sure, I'd have been all for it. While we were at it, we should have taken out Stalin, who killed more of his own people than Hitler ever dreamed he'd be able to. Difference is, Mr. Hussein was not a threat, NOR WAS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE that he could become a threat on the level that Hitler and Stalin posed to the world. Only intelligence sources that were massaged and pipelined to specifically fit the case of invading Iraq were used in generating the case for war with Iraq - and now Bush has the gall to blame the intelligence services FOR DOING WHAT HE DEMANDED OF THEM.

Son, you've drunk the kool-aid. Now kindly shut up and let the adults deal with things.
WANTED: Precognitive Telepath for adventuring Partnership. You know where to apply.
New Yeah sure
not a threat, that is why he had caches of suicide vests and maps of US cities. That is why he gave shelter and protection to Al-Queda members who murdered US citizens in other middle-east countries, and allowed them to recruit his own people. That is why, after 9/11 happened, that he cheered it on, and called for more strikes against the US. That is why his followers danced in the streets on 9/11/01 shouting "Allah Akbar" and wanted to see more attacks on the US. That is why those same Al-Queda members are leading a resistance against US forces since the invasion of Iraq. They are there, and always have been, since Saddam helped them out and supported their leader's attacks on the US and encouraged more to happen. I guess if you ingore that evidence, he was no threat?

We can only do so many invasions at a time, and have to give priority. Darfur can wait, yet I see no other nations helping them out. That is why the US has to do what it can, as no other nation cares enough.

If Bush won't apologize for the excesses of former presidents in abusing human rights around the world, then I will. I apologize for the excesses of former presidents in abusing human rights around the world. Apparently more invasions are in order to straighten out the messes we caused. Everyone take a number. I think Iran may be next. An invasion is a small price to pay for the value one places on having freedoms and rights. Draft me into the military, and I'll go into whatever hellhole and deliver sweet-release from this cruel world to anyone with murder and hate in their heart, because I love them and do not want to see them suffer anymore.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Norm, you wouldn't last an hour.
Draft me into the military, and I'll go into whatever hellhole and deliver sweet-release from this cruel world to anyone with murder and hate in their heart, because I love them and do not want to see them suffer anymore.

Do YOU have the ability to stick a bayonet into someone's gut, pull it out and stab again to make sure he's dead. Even when the "enemy" looks the age of your younger brother? Can you shoot to kill someone who's not looking at you, but watching someone in your unit? Can you kill someone who is walk down the road, unaware of your presence just because he's wearing the wrong uniform?

Norm, you know nothing about war, nothing about combat, and little about politics. When you discuss computers, you're a good read, but this thread you should just drop.
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
New All I know about war I learned in comic books...
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New And that makes Iraq different from Saudi Arabia how?
Saudi Arabia gave material support to the 9/11 hijackers, in the form of finances and personnel, to a much larger extent than Mr. Hussein ever did.

Yet they remain our allies.

When we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban fled to neigbhoring Pakistan, which has only reluctantly made token efforts to shut them down. There are still reports of collusion within Pakistan's military and intelligence services with the Al-Quaeda forces.

Yet they remain our allies.

Mr. Hussein had contact with Al-Quaeda, no question there. However, a LOT of middle eastern leaders had contact with Al-Quaeda - and Mr. Hussein was a convenient punching bag for the United States.

Bush manipulated the intel, and you are deluding yourself if you believe otherwise. The evidence is there, it's been argued to death, and the conclusion is simple: Bush invaded Iraq for his own personal gain, not to secure the U.S. against further attacks.
WANTED: Precognitive Telepath for adventuring Partnership. You know where to apply.
New So volunteer already.
Go Marines. [link|http://www.forcerecon.com/|Force Recon.] Stop whining.
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
New I've forgotten more about war than you've ever known.
Lest you forget, I'm retired military. Went into the Army in '72. Can you say Vietnam? How about 7 day war? Gulf war I?

Why WWII?
Beautiful spies sleeping with high government officials, money laundering, doctored photos along with a complex British plot to involve the United States in a world war. Sounds like a B movie.

Thomas E. Mahl says it's history.

Mahl, who teaches history at Lorain County Community College in Elyria, has just published "Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44" (Brassey's). In it, he details a labyrinth of British counter-intelligence operations aimed at pushing this country into joining the European struggle against the Axis powers in World War II.
...
[link|http://www.sunnews.com/news/1998/1217/wspyplot.htm|Sun News]
or
The book's thesis is that British and U.S. "elites" maneuvered us into WWII to serve the interests of the State. The corrupt Churchill and FDR and their respective intelligence agencies blindfolded the American public into believing that U.S. entrance into the war was justifiable on moral and political grounds.

As usual, the docile masses were swept away in all the rhetoric. Every attempt was made to smear the isolationists as Hitleresque and un-American. More often than not, with such media rhetoricians as Walter Lippman, the attempts were successful. Even today, the uneducated public is convinced that the Old Right, anti-interventionist movement was Communist!
[link|http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/000980.html|Karen DeCoster]
or
On December 7, 1941, while German armies were freezing before Moscow, Japan suddenly pushed the United States into the struggle by attacking the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Four days later Hitler declared war on the United States. President Roosevelt called on Congress for immediate and massive expansion of the armed forces. Twenty years of neglect and indifference, however, could not be overcome in a few days.
[link|http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/United-States.html|WWII History]

GIYF if you want more reasons why we fought WWII.

ANything else you wish to know about war?
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
New Did you really get a beer ration? :)
-drl
New What is the sound of a clue-by-4 hitting Norm's brain?
Much the same as the sound of one hand clapping, for much the same reason!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New OK, so what about Idi Amin? Pol Pot? Etc. etc.?
These people made Saddam looke like a rank amateur. Yet we didn't avenge their families, now did we?

The world will always have megalomaniacal despots who are willing to abuse their own people. (Shit, look at this country as an example!) But that doesn't mean we have the authority or responsibility to remove said despots from power (except, of course, in this country...where we not only have authority, but responsibility, to do exactly that in some 2000 or so hours).
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Learn how the system works
if a President does something wrong, there is an impeachment process. If what Bush did was wrong, an impeachment process would have been started. They did, after all, start one on Clinton, so why not Bush as well?

Thus we see the big large gaping hole in your argument that you can pass a Death Star through. Why is there no impeachment process or even paperwork to at least look into it? With all you whiners and moaners claiming the war was not justified, where is the impeachment procedings? With charges this serious, there ought to be one.

Yet face facts, there is no impeachment procedings. So are all these people upset at Bush, all talk, and no action? Where is the justice?

They and you, get hit with a reality check. Could it be that they and you are wrong about the Iraq War being unjustified? Oh perish the thought, how can a majority of Americans be wrong?

Thus I issue a challenge to you, if you have not yet registered to vote, do so. Choose who you want to be president in November 2004, it doesn't matter to me who you vote for as long as you do vote. Exercise your right, make the right decsion, and do something about it, or STFU!



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Now THAT's Precious! (new thread)
Created as new thread #168569 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=168569|Now THAT's Precious!]
New ** SHUN **
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New That was stupid when you said it before
And it is still stupid.

For your reference, you made this asinine comment about impeachment back at [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=164820|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=164820]. My response then explaining why it is stupid is still relevant.

Yours,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Your response was invalid back then
and still is invalid. You force me to repeat myself to prove a point. Apparently you've missed it. Your response is illrelevant, not all Republicans support the war in Iraq, and thus you have committed a fallacy. One that you continue to repeat for a second time.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New A Masterpiece of purest digital-'think'__!!__For posterity.
This can't be meds or lack of same: It's *You*
Naked.

Bad Presidents are impeached.
If a President isn't impeached: Good President.


For the genuine silly person, travel (or reading) merely enables them to misunderstand further and then .. abound in absurdities.

Imagining that reiterating doggerel in pseudo-intellectual form .. constitutes something akin to 'proof' of anything but brain dysfuction: probably puts you now beyond further pharm-chem (or most other..) 'help' for your ongoing afflictions.

It's.. simply.. *You* !!
to a fare-thee-well.
New And this is pointless
Your logic is as bad as your spelling.

If you're unable to comprehend that current political reality is such that it is virtually impossible that a Republican President would be impeached, then continuing to point out this fact is pointless.

I'll make my last attempt before exiting this thread.

For an impeachment movement to get off the ground it needs the prospect of commanding majorities in both the House and the Senate. Currently Republicans have those majorities and good enough party organizations to consistently win most votes that they want. That would obviously include the numbers to squelch any criticism of the President.

The existence of Republicans who dislike Bush is irrelevant (feel free to learn how to spell that). This is a numbers game. And right now Bush's organization has the numbers on their side.

If you don't care to understand this, I don't care. Everyone else here does understand this point. I feel no need to further defend what is obvious and won't bother responding again to you in this thread.

Sincerely,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New None of them had a
13 year history of violating UN resolutions and/or invading sovereign neighboring states and/or persuing WoMD (even if in the end they ended up being gone...doubting they were a goal is ignoring reality), et al.

Now, if you add Kim Jong-il to that list it becomes problematic.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New None of them had much [oil] either
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Riiight.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New or had been mean to Dad?
New A war fought on false pretenses ...
.. is not now, nor shall it ever be, justified.

/me washes out your mouth with soap for even suggesting that!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New It's like saying that a rape is justified...
...if the child turns out to be a genius.
WANTED: Precognitive Telepath for adventuring Partnership. You know where to apply.
New OT on rape seattle and children (new thread)
Created as new thread #167999 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=167999|OT on rape seattle and children]
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New The right war for the wrong reasons
We entered World War II because Japan attacked Perl Harbor, yet there were other reasons besides the sneak attack to enter the war. One could argue that we shouldn't fight Germany, because they didn't bomb Perl Harbor, Japan did. Yet another could say that Japan and Germany were allies.

Using that same logic, Saddam and Bin Laden both supported terrorism and attacks on the USA, in that thought they are allies.

Faulty military intelligence said that Saddam had WoMD, based on past data when he had them. Congress and the Senate agreed to the report, the same as the President did. Yet you and others are quick to blame the President, and not anyone else who voted for the war, and not blame the faulty miltary intelligence either.

If Bush said the reason for going to war was because Saddam had WoMD, then that was a fallacy, but it wasn't really known at the time if it was true or not. Yet there were other reasons for going to war as well, like Saddam murdering his own people, etc.

In my eyes, the war is justified, becuase of the bad things that Saddam did. Bush may have had the wrong reasons, but the right idea. I feel that if you disagree with that, then you agree that Saddam did nothing wrong and should have stayed in power and continued to murder his own people, invade Kuwait again, etc. If that is the case, then you support Saddam's brand of terrorism, and feel that we should not fight that brand of terrorism.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Are you THAT fucking stoopud, Norm! (new thread)
Created as new thread #168472 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=168472|Are you THAT fucking stoopud, Norm!]
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Well...
In some ways, I'd say yes.

Nightowl >8#



"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
New In no way
You are confusing aims with abilities. As President he can order the strongest military force on the planet to take actions that do cause loss of civilian lives as a byproduct of his political aims. A terrorist does not have military power so he attacks civillian targets deliberately not to acheive a political aim directly such as a surrender but to change the political will of the targeted group so it destroys itself.

Bin Laden knows we will not surrender to Saudi Arabian Clerics but he attempts to change our way of life by the government treating the citizens in a harsh draconian fashion which if pushed too far will result in a civil war in America not much different than what we are seeing in Iraq. Bush is happily leading us down that path with Ashcroft using the Patriot act and other executive powers to impose their will upon us. On the sidelines this causes economic fallout which directly assists Bin Laden by destroying our economy aided of course by large corporations who dont have the country's interest at heart but can only see short term financial gain.
thanx,
bill
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Let me clarify
Bush is only a terrorist to me in the sense that the things he advocates and does "terrify" me.

Nuff said?

Nightowl >8#



"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
New well that makes you a terrorist as well
the fact that you and others as well informed will be choosing our next leader terrifies me :-)
thanx,
bill
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New That's why opinion
is all in the eye of the beholder or perceiver.

Edit: And everyone is entitled to their own. :)

Nightowl >8#



"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
Expand Edited by Nightowl Aug. 6, 2004, 02:28:26 PM EDT
New What does that make Kerry?
He and others had voted to support the war in Iraq. If the war was unjustified, then not only Bush, but Kerry, and members of congress and the senate are all terrorists by your definition. If they had voted no majority, there would have been no war. How myoptic are you, I wonder?



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Re: What does that make Kerry?
More likely it makes Kerry (and Co.) a dupe for being led astray by the false intelligence being proffered by the administration and its "Office of Special Plans." BushCo picked the intelligence it wanted to paint a false picture of the real situation and offered it as conclusive evidence.

Makes them terrorists _AND_ liars.

Makes Kerry a fool for believing.

thanks
mx.
"I'm man enough to tell you that I can't put my finger on
exactly what my philosophy is now, but I'm flexible."
-- Malcolm X
New This is the same as the suicide bomers
they too where mislead by intelligence from Bin Laden, and they too felt they did the right thing. The leaders under Bin Laden that helped plan the attacks, also were mislead. Yet we call these people terrorists, even though they were obviously mislead, and yet those of us who were mislead were not terrorists, mearly fools for believing.

Then I guess that makes Nightowl a fool for believing, rather than a terrorist. I too also at one time believed the inteligence, and I am a fool too. It makes most of American fools, as a majority of Americans supported the war according to surveys.

So the line between a terrorist and a fool is a very blurry one?

Do you still think that we should have left Saddam in power and never entered Iraq? If so, then you support a brutal terrorist dictator, and feel that men like him should be left alone to mismanage and misrule their own parts of the world.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Loaded question, with a bad answer
Do you still think that we should have left Saddam in power and never entered Iraq?

Yes. During the past decades the US supported his regime. We had no reason for the unprovoked attack. We ignored the brutality of his regime and supplied him with the necessary tools to BE a brutal dictator. Bad intelligence or good intelligence. Doesn't matter. We had pledged to WAIT until consenses was built. Meaning UN. Bush saw that he wasn't going to get the ok to attack, so he did it ON HIS OWN. IT WAS WRONG to attack.

If so, then you support a brutal terrorist dictator, and feel that men like him should be left alone to mismanage and misrule their own parts of the world.

Do I support Saddam, nope. But he is the ruler of his country. Does any country support Bush? Nope, but none will attack just because he is a raging lunatic bent on destroying his own country. When will any country attack to save us from Bush?

Lastly, get off the old, tired, wrong, thread that Saddam and OBL were buddies in planning. The two of them have as much in common as Tim McVeigh and Saddam. McVeigh and OBL have more in common, both attacked the US.

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
New Well, I rather relish a French Liberation force!
/me puts tongue in cheeck and ducks!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Yes, it seems that you are fools
But not just in regard to applying the logic of puppy-dog sentimentality to all things - your foolishness extends to plucking a couple tired cliches, regarding some massive, intractible worldwide Problem .. doing a little Boolean IF this THEN that and announcing..

See? It's simple!

No, It Isn't Simple - but for the simplistic, everything Seems So. To you no thought ever rises above the simplistic. Misleading such as you, doesn't need a master propagandist [read Liar] like Karl Rove; some slogan from any old blog will do nicely. Til you forget what it was you thought you thought.. yesterday.

Obv you haven't paid more than a cursory glance at the machinations of this Admin since Day One; your naive questions and 'proposals' betray your near-complete ignorance of hundreds of events, reported across dozens of media. You haven't even sorted out yet: the 9/11 - Saddam Non-connection!



Do us all a long-term favor; neither you nor Owlet vote this time, OK?
Just get your Bachelors of Bizneess Maladroitness, buy a suit and go fuck up some small company.. for a while.


Simpler yet?

Gehabt Kindern
You've been Had, Children.
New Sorry, already planning to vote
But not just in regard to applying the logic of puppy-dog sentimentality to all things - your foolishness extends to plucking a couple tired cliches, regarding some massive, intractible worldwide Problem .. doing a little Boolean IF this THEN that and announcing..

See? It's simple!


I did no such thing, Ashton, all I did was break the combined argument into two question, because they are inherently different.

Most people agree with me here that it was wrong to invade Iraq on the premise that Bush gave us.

Most people also agree with me here that Saddam was a bad evil man, and the people of his country are better off without him.

I never at any point justified Bush's invasion.

Obv you haven't paid more than a cursory glance at the machinations of this Admin since Day One; your naive questions and 'proposals' betray your near-complete ignorance of hundreds of events, reported across dozens of media. You haven't even sorted out yet: the 9/11 - Saddam Non-connection!


I'm not sure what this refers to, but I've never made a 9/11 Saddam connection, not even once.

Do us all a long-term favor; neither you nor Owlet vote this time, OK?


Sorry Ashton, I'm definitely planning to vote this November, because I can't stand the thought of another four years of this.

Nightowl >8#



"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
New OK, you're excused.
It is, after all unfair to lump you two into the same comingled brain-pan {ugh}
As to
I did no such thing, Ashton, all I did was break the combined argument into two question, because they are inherently different.

Most people agree with me here that it was wrong to invade Iraq on the premise that Bush gave us.

Most people also agree with me here that Saddam was a bad evil man, and the people of his country are better off without him.

I never at any point justified Bush's invasion.


Of course, selecting these two of a myriad of Questions.. is as arbitrary as any other simple assessment always is. I doubt there is any consensus 'here' that - from moment-to-moment every day since the first death: the people of his country are better off without him.

This proposition could be approached coldly - from the estimation of Saddam-killings/month VS the present tally (then throw in US casualties for an aperitif). Or it could be approached from the guesswork of Religio-schisms: the number of sects within Iraq, each determined to wipe out the other - because Each One is Possessed-by The One True God. These were held in check by Saddam, but now they are free to inflict whatever chaos seems to feed a chance for Winner-Take-All.
(Possibly for another quarter-century?)

Could also plot the $-drain, what that means for limiting future US ability to inflict its in-house political machinations upon the world via invasion-at-will, or our ability next: even to take care of our Own infrastructure and pay off our indebtedness [to many in the world who finance our balance-of-payments annual deficit -- these Expect to be paid their Interest; some may choose to take back their Principle as well. Ugly - that]. Then too: everything we Blew Up we have to Rebuild at *Your* expense and mine. And there are several more angles-of-view one might choose re

US <--> Iraq in 8/04.

So no.. I don't believe there is consensus here (or most places) about the overall tradeoffs \ufffd of this ill-planned, deceptively packaged Neoconman Riot -- which was on the PNAC Things-To-Do list since the early '90s.

Other than these little problems - by all means help vote-out! this bunch of maniacs, while there's still, just-now a reasonable probability of elections being held in the US.


Ashton

PS - it doesn't matter what most think here, of course. Many spouses don't really know which levers their SOs actually pull .. behind that curtain. As it should be, no?
New Glad to clear it up.
And okay, I concur, there may not be a consensus about Iraq being better off without Saddam, but I think most people here believe he was a bad evil man, and shall I edit that to say that many people here probably think Iraq is better off without him.

And I'm sure we probably ALL agree that all the lives lost there by Americans and others, was more or less senseless and unneccessary, as well as sad.

PS - it doesn't matter what most think here, of course. Many spouses don't really know which levers their SOs actually pull .. behind that curtain. As it should be, no?


I agree, I only have made my position on Bush clear because it came about in other posts before now. I've learned not to let what other people think bug me all that much for the most part. :)

Have a good day, Ashton!

Nightowl >8#



"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
New I will still vote
your babbling has not convinced me of anything other than you too are a fool.

I can see that you still do not know how this country works, nor do you understand the events that happened and the results that took place. Yet I cannot tell you to not vote, because you have a right to vote wether if I agree with your views or not. That is a true difference between me and you, I support the right to vote, while you want to take away that right and other rights from people you do not agree with. I find that fact to reflect very poor on your character, and the character of others that support that view. It goes against everything that the United States stands for, and thus I find you a AntiPatriot or Hatriot. I will vote, just to spite you, because you told me not to. Yet I refuse to tell you how I will vote or who I will vote for, because I feel that information is meant to be secret.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New When brooks babble.. it's music. When you babble, it snot
New Been listening to Rush again, I see...
"Hatriot"...Puh-LEEEZE!

You couldn't have made that up...so turn off Rush and try jump starting your brain again.
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New I don't listen to Rush
and you own me an apology.

Rush must have copied it from this guy:
[link|http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3714|http://christdot.org...=article&sid=3714]

"Former Muslim, turned born-again Christian, Dr. Ergun Caner was born in Stockholm, Sweden and raised as the son of an Islamic leader. In 1982, he converted to the Christian faith. As a result, his father disowned him. But that same day, both of his brothers accepted Christ. Dr. Caner has authored eight books on Islam, and is currently a Professor of Theology and Church History at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Recently he spoke to Lee Webb on The 700 Club to discuss his latest book, Michael Moore, and the growing phenomenon he calls 'Hatriotism.'"

Also this link:
[link|http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/0407012a.asp|http://www.cbn.com/C...News/0407012a.asp]

Perhaps, if you have an open mind, you will read and find out about another point of view. I look at as many points of view as I can.

One day, maybe you and others, will learn that hate is not a good thing to have. We won't win anything by using hate.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New No one here hates you, Norm
Loathing, exasperation, contempt...well, them's each a whole other ball of earwax. But we don't hate you, you pathetic git.
New Ah but you do
I am, after all, the second most hated user next to Marlowe. I think I'll make an attempt at the #1 spot.

Your feeble attempts at lying are pathetic.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Hated?
You're kidding, right? Mostly we pity you.
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
New "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner"
Or have you forgotton that already?
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Only if you believe in it
and I do not think that you do. You haven't shown me any evidence that you do. I speak out of love, not hate, but I won't hesitate to defend myself or my views or my beliefs, and I can only turn the other cheek so much before I attack back, yet the attack is out of love for a dicipline, and not hate. Yet I do believe that even people who hate me, or call me wrong, or an idiot, or try to knock down anything I have to say, still have the rights and freedoms that they should have. That is the difference between me and some others, I am often told by those here that I should not vote, as I have no right to vote. All I see are some would-be tinpot dictators who speak out of hate, and want to take away my rights because my opinions and views differ from their. I see no difference between them and Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, the KKK, and other hate groups that want to take away people's rights who have different views or opinions than theirs. I feel that taking away of rights and freedoms goes against civilized society, and goes back to Tyranny.



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New What I believe doesn't mean sh*t to a tree
(5 points for the first poster to correctly attribute the reference in the title.)

I'm not the one jumping up and down yelling the WASP equivalent of "Jihad" at the top of his lungs in this thread, while subserviently whining his Christian proselytism in others. Besides spouting gibberish here, you're spouting hypocricy. Which is yet another sin.

Wash your hands, little man....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Why, that's "Eskimo Blue Day"!
You call it loud
But the human crowd
Doesn't mean shit to a tree.
—from Jefferson Airplane's exhilarating (if perhaps not artistically first-rate and, in the edition I have, at any rate, atrociously engineered CD) 1969 album Volunteers. (For what it's worth I count After Bathing at Baxters their masterpiece: the best and most authentic acid album of all times. Er, I rely on the testimony of my cousin Ernie, of course, in asserting this.)

I must say, though, that the anarchistic smash-the-state sentiments running through the work were a lot more exhilarating when I heard them ringing from the left in my late teens than they were a quarter of a century later coming from the Montana Militia and their various fellow travelers.

cordially,

Oh, and Norm—now that we've seen you in your insult-and-invective mode I exhort you, as a friend, not to quit your day job in the unlikely event you ever secure one. Your particular gifts, assuming these exist, do not include the ability to compose and convey devastating ripostes.

[edit: typo]
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Expand Edited by rcareaga Aug. 11, 2004, 11:11:18 PM EDT
New what! no blue cheer? King Crimson?
also second hand, hey might even have been Earnie if he was around Santa Monica circa 1971.
thanx,
bill
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Just checked with Ernie
—and he avers that while no disrespect is intended to either Blue Cheer (a plausible contender) or King Crimson (less so, though of course gifted in their way*), any acidhead who was paying attention during the specified period knows that ABaB quintessentially captures the indole alkaloid Zeitgeist.

cordially,

*I have a sentimental fondness for KC, whose In the Wake of Poseidon constituted part of the soundtrack of my abortive freshman year in 1970, but the overproduced "art rock" style they pioneered, and which began to dominate popular music until the punk rebellion, drove me away from rock for a long time thereafter.

[edit edit: repetitititition]
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Expand Edited by rcareaga Aug. 11, 2004, 11:38:35 PM EDT
Expand Edited by rcareaga Aug. 11, 2004, 11:39:10 PM EDT
New Re: Why, that's "Eskimo Blue Day"!
Ding!

I'd accuse you of Googling, but you're old enough to actually know this... ;-)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Kerry and Bush are both terrorists
The thought that our nation, in the time of need, can't come up with a better leader fills me with terror indeed.
--

"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."

-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
New No more quips on Boxlish from moi..
Boffo!

That's the best 2-\ufffd summary I've seen, encapsulating the plan, strategy and accomplishment of: bin-L playing Shrub for the sap he knew him (and much of 'US') to be.

You Da Man
(I Knew ya knew 'bout Caps n'stuff, but just getsinahurryalot)

Well, for Today.. anyway


:-\ufffd
New No
Terrorism, like it or not, has a political motive that distinguishes it from plain crime. Compare "psycho". A psycho is someone with an obsession leading to crime. So, to summarize

Crook - money
Terrierist - politics
Psycho - obessions, often with sex or toilet training
Republican - all the above
-drl
New Agree with your definition except /politician/republican
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
     Chicago "Oklahoma City" type plot thwarted! - (Nightowl) - (84)
         Re: Chicago "Oklahoma City" type plot thwarted! - (deSitter) - (83)
             Virgin . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
             Sorry, must disagree - (Nightowl) - (81)
                 so Bush is a terrorist? -NT - (boxley) - (78)
                     Yep. Unprovoked attacks on another nation. -NT - (jbrabeck) - (47)
                         Sure why not? - (orion) - (46)
                             3 million? - (pwhysall) - (40)
                                 From Iraqi immigrants - (orion) - (39)
                                     That's close to 15% of the population -NT - (deSitter)
                                     No such thing as an unbiased source, Norman. - (pwhysall) - (37)
                                         Even if the numbers are wrong - (orion) - (36)
                                             Yes we should - (lincoln) - (5)
                                                 I think the problem here - (Nightowl) - (4)
                                                     So N. Korea is justified in attacking the USA? - (lincoln) - (3)
                                                         we have been at war with them since 1950's - (boxley) - (2)
                                                             Technically that was not a war on our side -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                                                 OTOH, isn't signing a truce=retroactively declaring war? :-) -NT - (CRConrad)
                                             The problem with that reasoning... - (pwhysall) - (17)
                                                 I agree, but the USA is remarkably incompetent about it - (ben_tilly)
                                                 Zimbabwe cannot be invaded by us, the UK screwed that pooch - (boxley)
                                                 Very well so - (orion) - (14)
                                                     Wrong Answer - (jbrabeck) - (12)
                                                         Right answer - (orion) - (11)
                                                             Lifted 700 Club slogans do not a Statesman make. - (Ashton) - (2)
                                                                 Yet you error again - (orion) - (1)
                                                                     So why, then,... - (jb4)
                                                             Responsibility? - (inthane-chan) - (5)
                                                                 Yeah sure - (orion) - (4)
                                                                     Norm, you wouldn't last an hour. - (jbrabeck) - (1)
                                                                         All I know about war I learned in comic books... -NT - (admin)
                                                                     And that makes Iraq different from Saudi Arabia how? - (inthane-chan)
                                                                     So volunteer already. - (Silverlock)
                                                             I've forgotten more about war than you've ever known. - (jbrabeck) - (1)
                                                                 Did you really get a beer ration? :) -NT - (deSitter)
                                                     What is the sound of a clue-by-4 hitting Norm's brain? - (jb4)
                                             OK, so what about Idi Amin? Pol Pot? Etc. etc.? - (jb4) - (11)
                                                 Learn how the system works - (orion) - (6)
                                                     Now THAT's Precious! (new thread) - (Ashton)
                                                     ** SHUN ** -NT - (jb4)
                                                     That was stupid when you said it before - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                                         Your response was invalid back then - (orion) - (2)
                                                             A Masterpiece of purest digital-'think'__!!__For posterity. - (Ashton)
                                                             And this is pointless - (ben_tilly)
                                                 None of them had a - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                     None of them had much [oil] either -NT - (jb4) - (2)
                                                         Riiight. -NT - (bepatient)
                                                         or had been mean to Dad? -NT - (Ashton)
                             A war fought on false pretenses ... - (jb4) - (4)
                                 It's like saying that a rape is justified... - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                                     OT on rape seattle and children (new thread) - (boxley)
                                 The right war for the wrong reasons - (orion) - (1)
                                     Are you THAT fucking stoopud, Norm! (new thread) - (jb4)
                     Well... - (Nightowl) - (29)
                         In no way - (boxley) - (28)
                             Let me clarify - (Nightowl) - (26)
                                 well that makes you a terrorist as well - (boxley) - (25)
                                     That's why opinion - (Nightowl)
                                     What does that make Kerry? - (orion) - (22)
                                         Re: What does that make Kerry? - (xtensive) - (21)
                                             This is the same as the suicide bomers - (orion) - (20)
                                                 Loaded question, with a bad answer - (jbrabeck) - (1)
                                                     Well, I rather relish a French Liberation force! - (jb4)
                                                 Yes, it seems that you are fools - (Ashton) - (17)
                                                     Sorry, already planning to vote - (Nightowl) - (2)
                                                         OK, you're excused. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                             Glad to clear it up. - (Nightowl)
                                                     I will still vote - (orion) - (13)
                                                         When brooks babble.. it's music. When you babble, it snot -NT - (Ashton)
                                                         Been listening to Rush again, I see... - (jb4) - (11)
                                                             I don't listen to Rush - (orion) - (10)
                                                                 No one here hates you, Norm - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                                                     Ah but you do - (orion) - (1)
                                                                         Hated? - (Silverlock)
                                                                 "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" - (jb4) - (6)
                                                                     Only if you believe in it - (orion) - (5)
                                                                         What I believe doesn't mean sh*t to a tree - (jb4) - (4)
                                                                             Why, that's "Eskimo Blue Day"! - (rcareaga) - (3)
                                                                                 what! no blue cheer? King Crimson? - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                     Just checked with Ernie - (rcareaga)
                                                                                 Re: Why, that's "Eskimo Blue Day"! - (jb4)
                                     Kerry and Bush are both terrorists - (Arkadiy)
                             No more quips on Boxlish from moi.. - (Ashton)
                 No - (deSitter) - (1)
                     Agree with your definition except /politician/republican -NT - (boxley)

Inside, they're not answering.
517 ms