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

Welcome to IWETHEY!

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?
     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)

Truthful and transparent is great, but we don’t even have a coherent strategy to obfuscate.
179 ms