RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/6/2006 7:45:56 PM)
Sinergy: Where exactly did he move them to? Rented a storage unit outside of Houston? Anywhere out of Iraq. The fact that where they were stored at can’t be located does not negate the fact that they DO exist. It does not negate the fact that people in the Iraqi military have verified that they were moved out. Sinergy: Considering we had fly-overs and satellite surveillance over Iraq going back to before Desert Storm, I find it amazing that he was able to so handily get rid of them all. Key words, FLY OVER. What happens BEFORE and AFTER the “fly over”? We’ve found buried migs, earth moving equipment, and weapons. Many of these things were not picked up on satellite. It took our being notified by an Iraqi that there was something buried out there. A long time ago, I read a newspaper article on how the Soviets helped a local rebel group determine when it was safe to move - frustrating the use of our satellites. Colonel Stanislav Lunev, senior Ranking GRU officer to defect to the United States, elaborated on the roles played by the Spetznaz (sp) and Soviet Intel agencies in helping our enemies move undetected. They KNEW when our satellites would “fly over”. Sinergy: Not to mention, UN Peacekeepers were there to make sure he destroyed them all. The UN Peacekeepers FAILED that objective. They successfully destroyed the WMD Saddam allowed them to find. The UN inspection teams did not make major headway until the Iraqis themselves screwed up. Oh, and there is the simple matter of mustard and sarin gas being found in Iraq after the invasion. Sarin and mustard gas ARE WMD.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/6/2006 7:49:16 PM)
mnottertail: The highest law enforcement officer in the land would be the attorney general. Negative. The president is in charge of the EXECUTIVE branch of our government. The executive branch is in charge of ENFORCING the law of the land. Who heads the executive branch? The PRESIDENT. HENCE, the PRESIDENT is the senior law enforcement officer of the land. mnottertail: secondly it is cute to quote from the .net site but let us go to the constitution itself. That is the document under which we operate. It is cute to mention the .net site while at the same time failing to address the fact that IT had the text of the U.S. constitution in it. Had you done a search, you would have found the following: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2 quote: Section 4 - Disqualification The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Had the Senate voted Clinton guilty, he would have been removed as president. In fact, the news accounts that I followed the day prior their vote indicated that if the Senate voted him guilty, he would have ben REMOVED from office. You may not trust the definition of impeachment on this site, but no matter where I searched, the same thing kept popping up. No change from when I followed the impeachment process. The house brought him up on charges. THAT is impeachment. The senate ruled on the impeachment: quote: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. That is PRECISELY what happened. Clinton was acquitted because those that voted “guilty” did not reach the two thirds needed to convict: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/06/primer/ quote: Q: Who presides over the trial? A: The Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, presides over the presidential impeachment proceedings. Q: What is required for a conviction? A: Conviction requires a two-thirds majority vote of the senators present. If all 100 are present, that means 67 votes. mnottertail: If by the logic of the rather informal .net site then we would have to say that Andrew JOHNSON was impeached as well as Richard Nixon, at that point you could include Clinton, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/06/primer/ quote: Q: When was the last time the Senate conducted a presidential impeachment trial? A: The Senate has not dealt with the impeachment of a president in 131 years. The last time was the case of Andrew Johnson, a Democrat who became president following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Nixon resigned before impeachment charges could be brought up on him. Funny how other sources back that “informal” .net site. mnottertail: but not in any real legal or liable sense. See above constitution articles. See related real world events. There is a parallel between what the constitution stated and what actually happened. FACT: Clinton was impeached. mnottertail: Your answerto the war of attrition is supposition, April 30, 1969 543,400 troops in Vietnam highest levels of the war. http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmb009.php "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!" - From the memoirs General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese general During the peace negotiations, Kissinger (sp) turned to the Vietnamese and said, “We won every battle”. Vietnamese response? “We know, but that does not matter.” FACT: We won every major battle in Vietnam. mnottertail: May 10th thru 20th was Hamburger Hill. As you say, nuff said. We won that to: http://www.historyinfilm.com/hamhill/real7.htm quote: The 3d Battalion of the 187th suffered 39 killed in action and 290 wounded. The total casualties of the American taking of Dong Ap Bia was 70 dead and 372 wounded. The losses inflicted on the NVA in Dong Ap Bia are debatable. The G2 Section of the 101st estimated the NVA dead at 633, based upon actual body count. But no one could count the NVA running off the mountain, those killed by artillery and air strikes, the wounded and dead carried into Laos or the dead buried in collapsed bunkers and tunnels. They were on the defensive, suffered more casualties, and ended up RUNNING. mnottertail: The terrorists admit we are kicking their asses? Was that on Rush Limbaugh or what, I guess I missed both the Rumsfelt and Bush quotes. http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2005/zawahiri-zarqawi-letter_9jul2005.htm quote: ORIGINAL: al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us. That is NOT the speech of someone that is tactically “winning” the war. Someone militarily winning the war would not over emphasize the media aspects of the war over that of the military. That is a tactic of the side LOSING the war. But you don’t have to just take his word for it. The new leader in Iraq complained that they have lost 4,000 fighters since the start of the war. According to his predecessor, thousands of Arab sons died (during the battle of Fallujah (sp) while the Arabs did nothing. Osama Bin Laden places Al-Qaeda casualties in the tens of thousands. So far, both Afghanistan and Iraq are doing what WE planned for them to do. They have yet to do what the terrorists plan for them to do. And then there is this: http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp quote: And our successes at urban combat (which, scandalously, are mostly untold stories in the U.S.) made it crystal clear to both the terrorists and the millions of moderate Iraqis that the insurgents simply cannot win against today’s U.S. Army and Marines. mnottertail: I can go on and on, the Tet offensive by example............ We also won that… http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/vietnam/tet.htm TET OFFENSIVE DEATH TOLL: US, Australia, Korea killed: 1,536 South Vietnam killed: 2,788 North Vietnam and Vietcong killed: 45,000 They took heavy losses, they were repelled, and their leader failed to accomplish his objectives. Result? North Vietnam and the Vietcong got their assess handed to them many times over during the Tet Offensive. mnottertail: .but you have yet to provide a cite or fact, only dogmatic diatribe. Actually, the only person that is presenting dogmatic diatribe is YOU. Look at this post for instance. I’ve proven my points correct - and yours wrong. My statements have backing. You’ve failed to back your statements. mnottertail: Leaving it to the democrats to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory is probably why the subsequent cambodian campaigns and withdrawls is why the Democratic dupes Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger comedic duo went to the peace table and ended the deal. You’ve got that backwards. Richard Nixon cut the military in Vietnam down to 20,000 troops, cut the portion of the defense budget intended for Vietnam by up to 80%, and launched a massive bombing campaign that forced the North Vietnamese to the peace table. In fact, if you read the passage above, had we continued the bombing, they were willing to surrender unconditionally. But Nixon rightfully did not trust communists. He was willing to resume the bombing if they double crossed him. The Democrat controlled congress tied his hands behind his back and cut funding to the South Vietnamese. They could have held the North back. Without funding, that was impossible. It is a fact that we pulled the last of our combat units out of Vietnam months before the fall of Saigon. It was part of the peace agreement. The South Vietnamese had the controls for both the war effort and running the country after we pulled out. Financial aid was cut off by the democrats and the North violated their agreement and invaded the south. Without adequate funding, the south could not hold up. With his hands tied behind his back, Nixon could not resume the massive bombing campaign that brought the North Vietnamese to the table in the first place. So yes, the Democrats pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory. mnottertail: I have seen no facts you have presented and have addressed the void in the only way possible. Or you REFUSE to see the facts. But the fact of the matter is that I have presented you with the facts. And you have failed to address the facts with nothing other than drivel.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/6/2006 7:51:16 PM)
Sinergy: So what you are saying is that Monkeyboy is perfectly in his rights to break the law repeatedly as long as he doesnt encourage other people to? You are wrong on two counts. One, I am not saying that. Two, he is not breaking the law. Sinergy: He issues signing statements which indicate he is not bound to follow laws passed in Congress on things like torture, detainment, etc. The signing statements that he issued where statements that the law permitted him to issue. And they were CONSISTENT with the laws that we had. Sinergy: Snooping on private phone conversations is simply one law that he authorized to be broken. Wait, authorizing the NSA and DHS to snoop on private phone conversations is technically encouraging other people to break the law! http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html quote: (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; 1801 (a)(1): quote: (a) “Foreign power” means— (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments; (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. They are not just snooping on ANY conversation that takes place. Just conversations from people in the US to members of Al-Qaeda overseas. Calls from Al-Qaeda members to the United States are monitored. I don’t know about you, but if someone is plotting an attack on the U.S., or may be doing so, and is calling a cell member in our borders, I sure as hell would want the government to be monitoring them. Sinergy: So by your own arguments, the Simian In Chief both broke the law AND encouraged other people to do so. WRONG. That is not what I am saying. I recommend that you do some research if you are going to accuse the President of the United States of breaking the law and violating our rights. Sinergy: The motto I try to live up to on message boards is "Think twice, post once." Perhaps you should live by another motto on these message boards - “Do as you preach”. Here is another motto you should live up to: UNDERSTAND what the other poster wrote before you INSINUATE what they are saying.

meatcleaver -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/7/2006 2:14:11 AM)
The US lost in Vietnam because they had no strategy, there was little support at home and didn't have a clue as to what to do with the place should they win. Exactly the same reasons why Britain lost the American war of independence. As for Iraq, the US has no strategy, there is little support at home and are clueless as to what to do with the place should they win. Unless you call getting an Iraqi government in place as quick as possible and run like hell a strategy.

UtopianRanger -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/7/2006 2:40:02 AM)
quote: No, it is reality. The radicals have stated repeatedly that they intend to unite the world under the banner of Islam. The threats that I have mentioned are true and have been reported in the news and have been written about. George Bush did not lie. For example, if weapons are reported in location A, someone reports said weapons in location A, launches a war after weapons were moved from location A to location B, that does not make the first report a lie. As far as your assumption about what I thought about Clinton's BJ, please read the post I made on the subject. THAT reflects what I think about that matter. There's a thread going on over in the ''Mistress'' section about ''Brainwashing'' - By any chance, did you volunteer to be their Guinea pig a while back? - R

krys -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/7/2006 3:45:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair No, it is reality. The radicals have stated repeatedly that they intend to unite the world under the banner of Islam. The threats that I have mentioned are true and have been reported in the news and have been written about. The stated purpose of most world religions is to bring the entire world into the fold of their belief. It doesn't mean I can go out on my front porch and start shooting Jehovah's Witnesses, does it? But hey - if you're still gonna buy the whole WMD thing even AFTER they said they screwed that up, why not buy the Islamofascism line too. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Sinergy -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/7/2006 5:11:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Anywhere out of Iraq. The fact that where they were stored at can’t be located does not negate the fact that they DO exist. It does not negate the fact that people in the Iraqi military have verified that they were moved out. There is an interesting book by the comedian Steve Martin called "Pure Drivel." One of the stories he relates in this book is his certainty that the bird bath in his yard was a long last statue carved in antiquity by the great sculpture Raphael. He shoots down things like historical evidence, expert opinions, the fact that Raphael never carved bird baths, the fact that the bird bath is made out of concrete. The fact that it has the stamp of the company that made it on the base. He says that it was carved by Raphael because "I have a deep down certainty that permeates my being with the knowledge that Raphael made my bird bath." I would ask you "did he hire a u-haul to move them?" or even "where the hell did he move them?" but I can see that I am dealing with somebody who believes Raphael sculpted their bird bath, so I will simply smile and say that "No, you must be correct because you feel so strongly about it." The traces of Sarin and Mustard gas found in Iraq were sold to Saddam Hussein by Monkeyboy's father, The Wimp. As you have no doubt learned in your extensive research into Iraqi WMDs, both of those substances have a shelf life less than 10 years. So any Sarin or Mustard Gas found wouldnt even work IF he tried to use it. As an aside, Mustard Gas is created when you burn the chemical known as freon, if I remember my chemistry and WW1 history correctly. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:01:00 AM)
meatcleaver: The US lost in Vietnam because they had no strategy, there was little support at home The only part of your statement that came close to the truth. The war dissenters succeeded in getting us to lose the will to fight. Read the statement by the Vietnamese General. He credited the disunity caused by stateside protests. Without that, Vietnam would have surrendered unconditionally. meatcleaver: and didn't have a clue as to what to do with the place should they win. After World War II, we suffered insurgency attacks in Germany. They employed the similar terrorist tactics employed by the insurgents in Iraq. Yet we plowed on and never lost sight of our main objective for the area. Look at where Germany is today. That knowledge is absent from people that like to make assumptions about Iraq. Immediately after World War II, questions and doubts were also placed on the US and allied forces on their ability to handle post war countries. In fact, take a look at this Post World War II article, “AMERICANS ARE LOSING THE VICTORY IN EUROPE”: http://united-states-of-earth.com/article.asp?MenuID=1223 After reading this article, one would think the same thing you are thinking about how we handled post World War II Europe. meatcleaver: Exactly the same reasons why Britain lost the American war of independence. Apples and oranges comparison would not be enough to describe this comparison. Britain lost its chance crush our bid for independence because of theater commander lapse of judgement on the ground as well as being overwhelmed with fighting the European powers that fought on our side. For example, calling the Hessians back when they were on the verge of capturing the core of our independence movement was not a bright move. And here, at least the British won battles. Something the insurgents in Iraq can’t claim. meatcleaver: As for Iraq, the US has no strategy, Actually, we do have a strategy. And it is working. Don’t be fooled by news reports only reporting the negative going on in Iraq. Troops returning from Iraq complain about the lack of reporting of the good that is happening over there. For example, for every road side bomb that goes off, far more road side bombs are successfully neutralized. Recently, I saw a segment where Secretary Rice was walking in the Baghdad airport. You had two Americans in business attire - no bullet proof vest, helmets, no protective gear. You had a military guy in fatigues. No bullet proof vest either. I’ve seen way to many news correspondents reporting over there in short sleeve t-shirts. No armor. Not the kind of dress code for US personnel in an area that is supposedly in a war torn quagmire. The fact of the matter is that we are succeeding over there. This despite the fact that reports are skewed toward the violence. Terrorists are taking advantage of this knowing full well that they could fool people into thinking that the coalition is failing in Iraq. meatcleaver: there is little support at home Actually, there is allot of support at home. In my area, anti war activists that try to do their thing in public would get laughed at by the majority that do support the war. Even people that are questioning the war are saying that now that we are there, we should stay until we complete the mission. meatcleaver: and are clueless as to what to do with the place should they win. Actually, we’ve winning militarily. Notice how the terrorists rely heavily on roadside bombs and mortar attacks. Attacks that could be carried out from a distance. So far, Iraq has done what we wanted them to do. They have yet to do what the terrorists want them to do. meatcleaver: Unless you call getting an Iraqi government in place as quick as possible and run like hell a strategy. A strategy that many on the left are calling for. Something being rejected by the majority of the conservatives.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:05:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: No, it is reality. The radicals have stated repeatedly that they intend to unite the world under the banner of Islam. The threats that I have mentioned are true and have been reported in the news and have been written about. George Bush did not lie. For example, if weapons are reported in location A, someone reports said weapons in location A, launches a war after weapons were moved from location A to location B, that does not make the first report a lie. As far as your assumption about what I thought about Clinton's BJ, please read the post I made on the subject. THAT reflects what I think about that matter. There's a thread going on over in the ''Mistress'' section about ''Brainwashing'' - By any chance, did you volunteer to be their Guinea pig a while back? - R I’ve kept your quote AS IS - instead of dismantling you - for a reason. You insinuate that I have been “brainwashed” while at the same time failing to logically address anything that I stated in that quote. Now, on the first point about the radicals: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null quote: We have ruled the world before And by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again The day will come when we will rule America The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world… As a 42 year old, should be able to see the significance of my second point. Let me break this down to you… “if weapons are reported in location A, someone reports said weapons in location A, launches a war after weapons were moved from location A to location B, that does not make the first report a lie.” A. Weapons are reported in location A B. Someone says that these weapons are in location A C. This someone launches a war. D. Prior to the war being started, weapons are moved from location A to location B. E. Weapons are no longer in location A Does this automatically make - whoever reported weapons being in location A - a liar? YES, or NO? On the third point, I indicated how I truly saw the Clinton fiasco. I indicated that it was not about the BJ but about his encouraging others to break the law. What I pointed out in the post that you quoted was a reflection of observable facts. That is not a product of brainwashing. However, your giving me the typical playground response which sounds eerily similar to that given by many leftists does point you out as someone who SHOULD be the recipient of the question that you asked me.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:10:08 AM)
krys: The stated purpose of most world religions is to bring the entire world into the fold of their belief. It doesn't mean I can go out on my front porch and start shooting Jehovah's Witnesses, does it? (red herring statement) Tell that to this guy… http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null quote: We have ruled the world before And by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again The day will come when we will rule America The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world… But you don’t just have to take his word for it… http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html quote: ORIGINAL: Osama Bin Laden "Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39] "Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76] That is a call to arms to fight a religious war. Between whom? The believers (Islam) and non believers (non Islam). Not quite the same thing as Mormon missionaries on bicycles, isn’t it? Keep in mind that Islamic radicals believe that God promised them the land of the infidels. This is NOT an attempt to send missionaries to all four corners of the globe to try to convert people to Islam. This is a plan to convert by the “sword”. krys: But hey - if you're still gonna buy the whole WMD thing even AFTER they said they screwed that up, First, I’ve heard the comments that they said relating to that. And NO, it does NOT mean that the WMD does not exist. WMD that we THOUGHT were there is not saying that they “DON’t” exist. “if weapons are reported in location A, someone reports said weapons in location A, launches a war after weapons were moved from location A to location B, that does not make the first report a lie.” A. Weapons are reported in location A B. Someone says that these weapons are in location A C. This someone launches a war. D. Prior to the war being started, weapons are moved from location A to location B. E. Weapons are no longer in location A Person A THOUGHT that they were in location A. Unfortunately, emergency evacuation procedures moved them to location B. Besides: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html quote: An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday. Nerve agents ARE WMD. Note three types of WMD - nuclear CHEMICAL and biological. krys: why not buy the Islamofascism line too. In for a penny, in for a pound. From the horse’s mouth: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html (i) “These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.” - UBL quote: ORIGINAL: Osama Bin Laden (Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? (1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. “It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions.” - Osama Bin Laden

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:12:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Synergy There is an interesting book by the comedian Steve Martin called "Pure Drivel." One of the stories he relates in this book is his certainty that the bird bath in his yard was a long last statue carved in antiquity by the great sculpture Raphael. He shoots down things like historical evidence, expert opinions, the fact that Raphael never carved bird baths, the fact that the bird bath is made out of concrete. The fact that it has the stamp of the company that made it on the base. If you are trying to compare this to my situation, then you are comparing apples to oranges. I have both academic and professional experience in the topic that I am debating. The sources that I rebut are results of journalistic miscarriages. Or misinterpretation of what is being written and said. Or people’s failure to read between the lines - seeing what they WANT to see instead of WHAT IS. Synergy: He says that it was carved by Raphael because "I have a deep down certainty that permeates my being with the knowledge that Raphael made my bird bath." Galileo had a deep down certainty that permeated his being that it was fact that the Earth went around the sun, not the other way around. As “proof” he presented the fact that Jupiter’s moons orbited Jupiter, and not Earth. He also pointed out the fact that Venus had “faces” the corresponded with a planet going around the sun. Circumstantial evidence at the time he presented this. He had no smoking gun evidence that the Earth itself went around the Sun. Yet, he had this deep down certainty that permeated his being that the Earth went around the sun. Was his deep down certainty wrong? THAT describes my standpoint. However, I do see Steve Martin’s standpoint in those that argue against Saddam’s having WMDs. Synergy: I would ask you "did he hire a u-haul to move them?" or even "where the hell did he move them?" Again, not having answers to those questions does not negate the fact that Saddam’s WMD were subjected to emergency destruction and evacuation. The fact that people don’t know where he moved them to shows how effective these procedures were. However, General Georges Sada, one of Saddam’s former generals, knows for a fact that they were moved out of Iraq. To this day, I don’t know where the hell my Brazilian coins went. I know for a fact that I brought them back from Brazil. I placed them in a specific location. When I came back to retrieve them months later, they were not there. Does the fact that I don’t know where they are RIGHT NOW prove that they “NEVER” existed? Synergy: but I can see that I am dealing with somebody who believes Raphael sculpted their bird bath, so I will simply smile and say that "No, you must be correct because you feel so strongly about it." WRONG. You are arguing with a Galileo. You are perfectly filling the role of the side of the argument that stated that the SUN orbited the EARTH because there was no “smoking gun” evidence that the Earth went around the Sun. Just as Galileo felt strongly about his position as logical reasoning lead him to, I feel strongly about the WMD issue as logical reasoning leads me to. Synergy: The traces of Sarin and Mustard gas found in Iraq were sold to Saddam Hussein by Monkeyboy's father, The Wimp. That is a MYTH. Saddam’s WMD program needed no help from the US. He started work on it long before the Iran Iraq War. Synergy: As you have no doubt learned in your extensive research into Iraqi WMDs, both of those substances have a shelf life less than 10 years. So any Sarin or Mustard Gas found wouldnt even work IF he tried to use it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html Washington Post - An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday. As you were saying? Or do you have this strong feeling that they would not work? The fact of the matter is that nerve agents ARE WMD. People on your side of the argument claim that NO WMD were found. The fact that this incident occurred proves your argument wrong. This also serves as a double edged sword for you. IF this was from the first Gulf War, it only shows how INEFFECTIVE the UN weapons inspectors were. However, the idea that no WMD were found in Iraq is nothing but a MYTH. Believed only by people who have this deep down certainty that permeates their being with the “knowledge” that no WMD were found in Iraq. Synergy: As an aside, Mustard Gas is created when you burn the chemical known as freon, if it is a chemical agent designed to inflict multiple casualties, it is a weapon of mass destruction. No matter which way you try to spin this. Synergy: if I remember my chemistry and WW1 history correctly. Do you see the irony of your statement? In this same post, you assume that the United States sold WMD to Iraq. Then point out to the fact that this technology was around the period of World War 1. Iraqi science and technology of the 70’s and 80’s was more advanced than the early 20th century science and technology possessed by the nations holding WMD during World War 1. Synergy: Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. It is not just you. I’ve debated this issue for three years with others that tried to argue the same points that posters on this thread tried arguing. And yes, those that I’ve debated with over the years on this issue ARE wrong.

meatcleaver -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:12:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair meatcleaver: The US lost in Vietnam because they had no strategy, there was little support at home The only part of your statement that came close to the truth. The war dissenters succeeded in getting us to lose the will to fight. Read the statement by the Vietnamese General. He credited the disunity caused by stateside protests. Without that, Vietnam would have surrendered unconditionally. meatcleaver: and didn't have a clue as to what to do with the place should they win. After World War II, we suffered insurgency attacks in Germany. They employed the similar terrorist tactics employed by the insurgents in Iraq. Yet we plowed on and never lost sight of our main objective for the area. Look at where Germany is today. After WWII there were no significant German resistance. As my father said (who was there), the biggest danger in 1946 Germany was from the Poles pinching cigarettes out of the NAFFI. That knowledge is absent from people that like to make assumptions about Iraq. Immediately after World War II, questions and doubts were also placed on the US and allied forces on their ability to handle post war countries. In fact, take a look at this Post World War II article, “AMERICANS ARE LOSING THE VICTORY IN EUROPE”: http://united-states-of-earth.com/article.asp?MenuID=1223 It implies the US is losing the peace to chaos and the Russians not the Germans who were well and truely defeated. However, I have no argument with what the US did after WWII. In the end they did a job that was appreciated through the whole of western Europe (Hmm maybe not France). However, then there seemed to be sophisticated, intelligent and wiley people in charge of Washington. One can't say that about the current administration which don't appear to show any intelligence, an inability to communicate and absolute arrogance towards people it wants to cooperate with them. After reading this article, one would think the same thing you are thinking about how we handled post World War II Europe. You make the same mistake many Americans make, you think you won the war when you were only on the winning side. If the accolade of winning WWII in Europe goes to any one country, it is Russia. meatcleaver: Exactly the same reasons why Britain lost the American war of independence. Apples and oranges comparison would not be enough to describe this comparison. Britain lost its chance crush our bid for independence because of theater commander lapse of judgement on the ground as well as being overwhelmed with fighting the European powers that fought on our side. For example, calling the Hessians back when they were on the verge of capturing the core of our independence movement was not a bright move. And here, at least the British won battles. Something the insurgents in Iraq can’t claim. As I said, no strategy, no support at home and not a clue with what to do with the place should they have won. meatcleaver: As for Iraq, the US has no strategy, Actually, we do have a strategy. And it is working. Don’t be fooled by news reports only reporting the negative going on in Iraq. Troops returning from Iraq complain about the lack of reporting of the good that is happening over there. For example, for every road side bomb that goes off, far more road side bombs are successfully neutralized. Recently, I saw a segment where Secretary Rice was walking in the Baghdad airport. You had two Americans in business attire - no bullet proof vest, helmets, no protective gear. You had a military guy in fatigues. No bullet proof vest either. I’ve seen way to many news correspondents reporting over there in short sleeve t-shirts. No armor. Not the kind of dress code for US personnel in an area that is supposedly in a war torn quagmire. The fact of the matter is that we are succeeding over there. This despite the fact that reports are skewed toward the violence. Terrorists are taking advantage of this knowing full well that they could fool people into thinking that the coalition is failing in Iraq. OK Peter Pan really exists and living in Neverland. I really can't argue with that. meatcleaver: there is little support at home Actually, there is allot of support at home. In my area, anti war activists that try to do their thing in public would get laughed at by the majority that do support the war. Even people that are questioning the war are saying that now that we are there, we should stay until we complete the mission. Maybe the opinion polls really are so far out. meatcleaver: and are clueless as to what to do with the place should they win. Actually, we’ve winning militarily. Notice how the terrorists rely heavily on roadside bombs and mortar attacks. Attacks that could be carried out from a distance. So far, Iraq has done what we wanted them to do. They have yet to do what the terrorists want them to do. Road side bombs are terrorist tactics, not proof the terrorists are losing! Well there is a civil war going on which is exactly what the terrorists wanted. doh! meatcleaver: Unless you call getting an Iraqi government in place as quick as possible and run like hell a strategy. A strategy that many on the left are calling for. Something being rejected by the majority of the conservatives. Well the conservatives wouldn't call for it because it would be seen as defeat. They are probably hoping the Democrats get in and they do it so the neocons can accuse them of capitulation when really getting out is the only sensible option for the US.

sissifytoserve -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:16:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Oh, and there is the simple matter of mustard and sarin gas being found in Iraq after the invasion. Sarin and mustard gas ARE WMD.[/color] Ummmmm.... Those traces of Sarin and Mustard were over 10 years old. Totally ineffective. Probably would hurt you if you ingested it...but no where near as deadly as it was. It DOES haave a shelf life. You have to wonder if it was some of the same Batches that the US sold to Saddam.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:20:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair meatcleaver: The US lost in Vietnam because they had no strategy, there was little support at home The only part of your statement that came close to the truth. The war dissenters succeeded in getting us to lose the will to fight. Read the statement by the Vietnamese General. He credited the disunity caused by stateside protests. Without that, Vietnam would have surrendered unconditionally. meatcleaver: and didn't have a clue as to what to do with the place should they win. After World War II, we suffered insurgency attacks in Germany. They employed the similar terrorist tactics employed by the insurgents in Iraq. Yet we plowed on and never lost sight of our main objective for the area. Look at where Germany is today. After WWII there were no significant German resistance. As my father said (who was there), the biggest danger in 1946 Germany was from the Poles pinching cigarettes out of the NAFFI. That knowledge is absent from people that like to make assumptions about Iraq. Immediately after World War II, questions and doubts were also placed on the US and allied forces on their ability to handle post war countries. In fact, take a look at this Post World War II article, “AMERICANS ARE LOSING THE VICTORY IN EUROPE”: http://united-states-of-earth.com/article.asp?MenuID=1223 After reading this article, one would think the same thing you are thinking about how we handled post World War II Europe. You make the same mistake many Americans make, you think you won the war when you were only on the winning side. If the accolade of winning WWII in Europe goes to any one country, it is Russia. meatcleaver: Exactly the same reasons why Britain lost the American war of independence. Apples and oranges comparison would not be enough to describe this comparison. Britain lost its chance crush our bid for independence because of theater commander lapse of judgement on the ground as well as being overwhelmed with fighting the European powers that fought on our side. For example, calling the Hessians back when they were on the verge of capturing the core of our independence movement was not a bright move. And here, at least the British won battles. Something the insurgents in Iraq can’t claim. As I said, no strategy, no support at home and not a clue with what to do with the place should they have won. meatcleaver: As for Iraq, the US has no strategy, Actually, we do have a strategy. And it is working. Don’t be fooled by news reports only reporting the negative going on in Iraq. Troops returning from Iraq complain about the lack of reporting of the good that is happening over there. For example, for every road side bomb that goes off, far more road side bombs are successfully neutralized. Recently, I saw a segment where Secretary Rice was walking in the Baghdad airport. You had two Americans in business attire - no bullet proof vest, helmets, no protective gear. You had a military guy in fatigues. No bullet proof vest either. I’ve seen way to many news correspondents reporting over there in short sleeve t-shirts. No armor. Not the kind of dress code for US personnel in an area that is supposedly in a war torn quagmire. The fact of the matter is that we are succeeding over there. This despite the fact that reports are skewed toward the violence. Terrorists are taking advantage of this knowing full well that they could fool people into thinking that the coalition is failing in Iraq. OK Peter Pan really exists and living in Neverland. I really can't argue with that. meatcleaver: there is little support at home Actually, there is allot of support at home. In my area, anti war activists that try to do their thing in public would get laughed at by the majority that do support the war. Even people that are questioning the war are saying that now that we are there, we should stay until we complete the mission. Maybe the opinion polls really are so far out. meatcleaver: and are clueless as to what to do with the place should they win. Actually, we’ve winning militarily. Notice how the terrorists rely heavily on roadside bombs and mortar attacks. Attacks that could be carried out from a distance. So far, Iraq has done what we wanted them to do. They have yet to do what the terrorists want them to do. Road side bombs are terrorist tactics, not proof the terrorists are losing! Well there is a civil war going on which is exactly what the terrorists wanted. doh! meatcleaver: Unless you call getting an Iraqi government in place as quick as possible and run like hell a strategy. A strategy that many on the left are calling for. Something being rejected by the majority of the conservatives. Well the conservatives wouldn't call for it because it would be seen as defeat. They are probably hoping the Democrats get in and they do it so the neocons can accuse them of capitulation when really getting out is the only sensible option for the US. From discussions with my fellow conservatives, and reading literature from other conservatives, your premise is wrong. Your first sentence come closer to what we think. But your intentions does not reflect our position. We call for staying until we complete the mission because to do other wise would be defeat. Many on the left are actually serious about our pulling out before we complete our mission. Pulling out is NOT a sensible option. It's suicide. If we do that, they will undo what we did both in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will see that as a victory on their side, and start working on destabilizing the Arab governments. Their ultimate goal is to take their jihad to the rest of the world until we are all united under the banner of Islam.

sissifytoserve -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:24:36 AM)
Pulling out IS the most sensible option. Its a direct shot to the corrupt businesses profitting off of human misery and death. All those who brought us to this war based on lies should be tried for constitutional treason.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:25:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sissifytoserve quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Oh, and there is the simple matter of mustard and sarin gas being found in Iraq after the invasion. Sarin and mustard gas ARE WMD. Ummmmm.... Those traces of Sarin and Mustard were over 10 years old. Totally ineffective. Probably would hurt you if you ingested it...but no where near as deadly as it was. It DOES haave a shelf life. You have to wonder if it was some of the same Batches that the US sold to Saddam. What I said earlier... quote: Synergy: Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. It is not just you. I’ve debated this issue for three years with others that tried to argue the same points that posters on this thread tried arguing. And yes, those that I’ve debated with over the years on this issue ARE wrong. Without further ado.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html Washington Post - An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday. As you were saying? Or do you have this strong feeling that they would not work? The fact of the matter is that nerve agents ARE WMD. People on your side of the argument claim that NO WMD were found. The fact that this incident occurred proves your argument wrong. This also serves as a double edged sword for you. IF this was from the first Gulf War, it only shows how INEFFECTIVE the UN weapon’s inspectors were. However, the idea that no WMD were found in Iraq is nothing but a MYTH.

sissifytoserve -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:26:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Their ultimate goal is to take their jihad to the rest of the world until we are all united under the banner of Islam. LIE LIE LIE LIE FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR. Thats all Neo-Conservatives have to go on in their platform.

sissifytoserve -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:31:37 AM)
Yup..INJURED them...not poisoned them. Innefective WMD ..WE probably sold to saddaam in the first place. Most of the WMD's were BLOWN UP in Gulf War #1......which our troops got SICK from breathing and got Gulf War Syndrome. WHICH your beloved US GOV denies the existance of...despite many of those Vets are DROPPING DEAD LIKE FLIES. Thanx to DADDY Skull-and-Bones, Ex-CIA director, Opium Poppy Bush SR. Speaking of which...Afganistaan is having RECORD opium crops since our little "revenge" invasion. The Taliban....as repressive to women as they were...HALTED the majority of Opium production. DEPLETED URANIUM poisoning (from all those bombs and rounds we dropped) of our troops and the Iraqi people will be JUNIOR'S legacy as far as I am concerned. That place is now a toxic DU wasteland thanks to Bushie Boy. If you wanted enemies....the US GOV has certainly created them. Well...gotta keep the military-industrial complex from going broke.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:47:17 AM)
sissifytoserve: Pulling out IS the most sensible option. WRONG! If we pull out of Iraq, the terrorists would claim victory. They would undermine what we did in Iraq. Then they would undermine what we did in Afghanistan. BINGO. Taliban Afghanistan times two. Together with Iran, they would work on illiminating Israel and undermining the “insufficiently Islamic” countries. Their main goal here is to re-establish the Moorish Caliphates. From here, wage jihad against the west. This is no secret among their radicals. Pulling out of the US would be DISASTER to us in the long run. sissifytoserve: Its a direct shot to the corrupt businesses profitting off of human misery and death. Again you are wrong. Here is someone that DOES understand what we are doing: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html quote: For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy—because everything is at stake sissifytoserve: All those who brought us to this war based on lies should be tried for constitutional treason. You’ve stated your assumption, now try to prove it by answering this question: “if weapons are reported in location A, someone reports said weapons in location A, launches a war after weapons were moved from location A to location B, that does not make the first report a lie.” A. Weapons are reported in location A B. Someone says that these weapons are in location A C. This someone launches a war. D. Prior to the war being started, weapons are moved from location A to location B. E. Weapons are no longer in location A Does this automatically make - whoever reported weapons being in location A - a liar. YES, or NO?

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 9:49:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sissifytoserve quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Their ultimate goal is to take their jihad to the rest of the world until we are all united under the banner of Islam. LIE LIE LIE LIE FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR. Thats all Neo-Conservatives have to go on in their platform. Is the following a lie? http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null quote: We have ruled the world before And by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again The day will come when we will rule America The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world…

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625