Discussion:
why the call for president bush to 'end the war' or 'stop the war' is misconceived.
(too old to reply)
LMC Society
2007-07-24 02:18:42 UTC
Permalink
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
as for cambodia, it turned into a real holocaust.
so, all those liberals who felt soooo good about ending the war didn't
really care what happened to vietnamese or cambodians under
communism.
suppose US was at war with nazi germany. suppose it was hard going for
the US, a kind of a quagmire. suppose americans call for 'ending the
war' and pull out of europe. yes, the war would end for americans.
but, suppose in the aftermath of US pullout, nazi germans murder 10
million 'subhumans'. this is what happened in southeast asia. US
withdrawal didn't end the war. war raged on in vietnam and cambodia.
then it was war between camobia and vietnam. then it was war between
vietnam and china. more people die in the few yrs after US pullout
than during the 8 yrs when US were there. yes, it was good for
american soldiers to come home and be out of harm's way. and maybe
there was no way for US to win and maybe it had to end in this
horrible way. but, those liberals who congratulate themselves for
finally resolving the crisis in southeast asia are liars. as
leftists, they saw US as the aggressor, not the defender. they argued
that the ONLY reason why fighting was going on was because US was
there. if US left, there would be peace. of course, the real
aggressors were the communists. once US left, north vietnam planned
to wage more war and take all of the south. and khmer rouge were out
to take the whole country. US leaving that area only led to more
war.
now, there were naive stupid liberals who believed US was the
aggressor and the problem. these people didn't necessarily want the
commies to win. but, leftist 'peace activists' actually did want
communists to win. they wanted US to pull out so communists could
sweep thru the entire region. indeed, they saw US pullout as the
beginning of world wide communist sweep. thank god that didn't
happen.

anyway, if iraq crisis is unresolvable, then US will have to pull out.
but, let's NOT fool ourselves into thinking that this will 'end the
war'. it will only end the war for us. for people in the region, it
could be the beginning of a real holocaust. also, while pulling out
may end the war for the US in the short term, if things get REAL bad,
it may pull us back in and in a much worse and bigger way.

we can all say bush messed up. it's his war. it's his responsibility
above all. BUT, america went to war under bush. we all did. even most
dems supported the war, no matter how reluctantly. most of the public
backed the war. so, even as we blame bush more than any other, we
should all feel some degree of responsibility for what has happened.
we changed the lives of all those people in iraq. it would be
dastardly to say, 'oops, we messed up, you guys kill eachother by the
bushel, bye!!'.
we can harshly criticize bush for taking us into war and for
mismanaging the war. but, whether we like it or not, the problem of
iraq is OUR problem too. it's not all or mostly our fault as shiites
and sunnis have hated eachother for centuries, and freedom that we
brought only opened the bloodgates of mayhem.
but, we were involved in this and we cannot just shirk our
responsility in the name of 'ending the war' and winning votes in a
very lowdown cheap way.

i say there is really only one solution. partition of iraq. no matter
how painful and complicated this process will be, it is the only one
that will bring any kind of finality to the conflict. if two cats are
fighting, just separate them. if you stand in the middle, they will
scratch you and themselves. if you try to separate them, you will get
scratched during the process but once the process of separation is
complete, the cats will not be scratching one another and won't be
scratching you. they will only be spraying along their territory to
stay apart from one another.
P.Henry
2007-07-24 11:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.

The anti-war movement was right about Vietnam and we're right about Iraq.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
Zeno
2007-07-24 15:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.Henry
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
You are saying that others are "self righteous"?
Post by P.Henry
The anti-war movement was right about Vietnam and we're right about Iraq.
"We" are right?

What about your self righteousness? Should it be ignored ?
Merlin
2007-07-25 19:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
The anti-war movement was right about Vietnam and we're right about Iraq.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?

As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
2007-07-25 20:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
The anti-war movement was right about Vietnam and we're right about Iraq.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
I think that's odd, Iraq didn't have gun control. Most Iraqi households have
guns to this day. Yet with all their personal firepower, how come they didn't
rise up against Saddam? The Iraqis rise up against their occupation, but let
Saddam rule for years! Why is that?
Post by Merlin
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
SueDoeCyAnts
2007-07-26 00:44:15 UTC
Permalink
on Wed 25 Jul 2007 12:57:28p
Post by Merlin
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the
Insane's Dictatorship, weren't they?
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what
you're talking about.
But Saddam's dictatorship was not the stated cause for the War
Upon Iraq initially. This is a revisionary case for the War Upon
Iraq. It is preponderstely immoral for the aggressor in a war to
revise the its rationale for going to war'after the hostilities
have been engaged upon.

Paul Wolfowitz, who was an Deputy Secretary of Defense, was still
denying that Saddam's tyrnannical actions against the Iaqi people
was a valid cause for the war as late as May 09, 2003.

----["
The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with
the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one
issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of
mass destruction as the core reason, but...there have
always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons
of mass destruction, the second is support for
terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the
Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a
fourth overriding one which is the connection between
the first two.

[. . .]

To wrap it up.

The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a
reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put
American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is
the one about which there's the most disagreement within
the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees
that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in
northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've
arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected
to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN
presentation.

Deputy Secretary of State Paul Dundes Wolfowitz
Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair, May 09, 2003
"]----

<http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?
transcriptid=2594>

TinyUrl to file of DoD servers:
<http://tinyurl.com/3bqv6d>

---------------------------------------

Furthermore, even if your claim was correct, it would itself
still be an example of preponderate denial to advance it.

The Weekly Standard in 2004 published an article attempting to
justify7 the Iraq War on freeing the Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny.
In it their high side estimate was 450,000 deaths by Saddam's hand
over 23 year reign. I'll be generous and call it 500,00 over 20
years. Saddam's annulised killing rate using these figures was
25,000 humans a yer. No question he was a butcher.

Gerard Alexander, "A Lifesaving War", The Weekly Standard,
March 29, 2004, Volume 009, Issue 28
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/32yrts>

The John Hopkins Iraq mortality survey, published in The Lancet
estimated last fall that the wxtra deaths from the Iraq war since
March, 2003 had been over 655,000 humans:

---------["

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates
that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since
coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have
died if the invasion had not occurred.

[. . .]

The same group in 2004 published an estimate of roughly
100,000 deaths in the first 18 months after the
invasion. That figure was much higher than expected, and
was controversial. The new study estimates that about
500,000 more Iraqis, both civilian and military, have
died since then -- a finding likely to be equally
controversial.

Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to
estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The
technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to
estimate mortality in famines and after natural
disasters.

While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the
researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons.
The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate
post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives
the researchers confidence in the methods. The great
majority of deaths were also substantiated by death
certificates.

David Brown,
"Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000",
Washington Post, October 11, 2006
<http://tinyurl.com/qgtny>

"]-------------

Many contemporary conservatives have claimed this study is flawed,
although none have been able to explain exactly where the flaw
exists in the scientific methods, which are the same used to
estimate mortality rates from epidemics in 2nd and 3rd world
countries, and has proven to be a proper scientific model of
mortality over many years.

This is the 'truthiness' that Steven Colbert has satirised so
effectivelly. Going with the gut feeling, the facts
notwithstanding.

Still, again I'll be generous, and put the figure at an even
600,000 and the duration from March 2003 to the end of July 2007,
or 52 months.

600000 deaths / 52 months
= 11538.461538461538461538461538462 deaths/months

multiplied by twelve for an annual rate
= 138461.53846153846153846153846154

For the third time, I'll be generous to the US and call it
130,000 extra Iraq deaths a years caused the the Iraq War.

That is 5.52 times Saddam's killing ratio. You are one evil
bastard to promote this as a rationale for a just war.
Curly Surmudgeon
2007-07-26 02:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
The anti-war movement was right about Vietnam and we're right about Iraq.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem. If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out. This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests. Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.

Can you say "blow back?"
Post by Merlin
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
The same can be said for conservative idiots however the poster was
correct. Your failure to comprehend the larger picture doesn't make him
an idiot.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zeno
2007-07-26 05:30:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:07:41 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
The anti-war movement was right about Vietnam and we're right about Iraq.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem. If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out. This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests. Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
No danger?

Here is some reality for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Contents
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Can you say "blow back?"
Post by Merlin
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
The same can be said for conservative idiots however the poster was
correct. Your failure to comprehend the larger picture doesn't make him
an idiot.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SueDoeCyAnts
2007-07-26 17:50:05 UTC
Permalink
on Wed 25 Jul 2007 10:30:01p
Post by Zeno
No danger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Us
e_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Contents
A wikipedia citation pointing to a recent political event is your
reality? Is this some kind of satire, or are you completely
unaware of the problems that wikipedia faces, especially regarding
anything remotely political?

But since you cited the Authorization of the Use of US Military
Force Against Iraq, I offer just a few of the opposing views
which were entered into the Congressional Record during th edebate
and commentary leading up to it.

These are only links to statrements meade by US Senators in direct
opposition to it. It does not include any of the many qualifiers
that many Senators stated in the rationale for voting affirmative,
which Mr. Bush arrogantly ignored. Nor does include any of the
sometimes eloquent dissents which were spoken in the House of
Representatives.

Senator Byrd's Antiwar
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021008/cr08oc02-142_02.html#byrd0208a42>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021009/cr09oc02-79_01Byrd.html>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_02.html#byrdprotestwar>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_03.html#byrdresvagueoverbroad>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_03.html#byrdresconstaffront>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_08.html#byrdjustifiesopposition>

Senator Wellstone's dissent
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021008/cr08oc02-144_03.html#wellstone08144>

Senatior Kennedy's opposition
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021008/cr08oc02-144_03.html#kennedy08144>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_71.html>

Senator Wyden's doubts
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021008/cr08oc02-144_04.html#wyden08144>

Senator Chafee's Reasons for voting no
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021009/cr09oc02-79_10ChafeeHutchensonThompson.html#chafee>

Senator Milkulski's opposition
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_06.html#mikulski01>

Senator Levin voted no
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_07.html#levin01>

Senator Conrad was against it
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_07.html#conrad01>
Zeno
2007-07-26 18:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by SueDoeCyAnts
on Wed 25 Jul 2007 10:30:01p
Post by Zeno
No danger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Us
e_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Contents
A wikipedia citation pointing to a recent political event is your
reality? Is this some kind of satire, or are you completely
unaware of the problems that wikipedia faces, especially regarding
anything remotely political?
But since you cited the Authorization of the Use of US Military
Force Against Iraq, I offer just a few of the opposing views
which were entered into the Congressional Record during th edebate
and commentary leading up to it.
Your "opposing view" response substantiates my response to Mr. Curly.
Simple, his statement "Iraq posed absolutely no danger..." is false
because of the debate you post.
Post by SueDoeCyAnts
These are only links to statrements meade by US Senators in direct
opposition to it. It does not include any of the many qualifiers
that many Senators stated in the rationale for voting affirmative,
which Mr. Bush arrogantly ignored. Nor does include any of the
sometimes eloquent dissents which were spoken in the House of
Representatives.
Senator Byrd's Antiwar
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021008/cr08oc02-142_02.html#byrd0208a42>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021009/cr09oc02-79_01Byrd.html>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_02.html#byrdprotestwar>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_03.html#byrdresvagueoverbroad>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_03.html#byrdresconstaffront>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_08.html#byrdjustifiesopposition>
Senator Wellstone's dissent
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021008/cr08oc02-144_03.html#wellstone08144>
Senatior Kennedy's opposition
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021008/cr08oc02-144_03.html#kennedy08144>
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_71.html>
Senator Wyden's doubts
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021008/cr08oc02-144_04.html#wyden08144>
Senator Chafee's Reasons for voting no
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021009/cr09oc02-79_10ChafeeHutchensonThompson.html#chafee>
Senator Milkulski's opposition
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_06.html#mikulski01>
Senator Levin voted no
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_07.html#levin01>
Senator Conrad was against it
<http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_07.html#conrad01>
f***@verizon.net
2007-07-29 05:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by SueDoeCyAnts
on Wed 25 Jul 2007 10:30:01p
Post by Zeno
No danger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Us
e_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Contents
A wikipedia citation pointing to a recent political event is your
reality? Is this some kind of satire, or are you completely
unaware of the problems that wikipedia faces, especially regarding
anything remotely political?
True, but if the things on wikipedia can be verified, it's a fast & easy
reference.

(IOW, I am agreeing with you, but defending WIki in general terms)

Susan
SueDoeCyAnts
2007-08-01 02:25:13 UTC
Permalink
on Sat 28 Jul 2007 10:21:22p
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by SueDoeCyAnts
on Wed 25 Jul 2007 10:30:01p
Post by Zeno
No danger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by SueDoeCyAnts
Post by Zeno
_Us e_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Contents
A wikipedia citation pointing to a recent political event is
your reality? Is this some kind of satire, or are you
completely unaware of the problems that wikipedia faces,
especially regarding anything remotely political?
True, but if the things on wikipedia can be verified, it's a
fast & easy reference.
(IOW, I am agreeing with you, but defending WIki in general
terms)
Susan
I have been engaged in many content fights on wikipedia in the
past, and have discovered that there are certain topics which are
closely guarded by recognised editors, who will delete even
questions which are placed on the talk page, dishonestly stating
the reason they were deleted, which is what is viewed by most who
scan the logs. This has happened many times, and in political
matters has been done by both leftyus and rightys. I've seen it
in non-political topics too. Although not involved in it, I
watched the Asperger’s Syndrome topic for a while, and was greatly
amused by it. A subthread of a slashdot article discussions offers
a bit insight. Read the rest of the subthread beginning here.

<http://tinyurl.com/2njad3>

If you move up the thread to the post titled: "Who Decides the
Truth", and then follow it, you can clearly see other wikinesses
exposed. Look for a real ass with the pseudo 'snowspinner', and
his steak and blowjob day comments. In case you're wondering, did
not participate in any part of this slashdot thread.

I like the idea of open-sourced knowledge bases freely accessible.
This does not change the fact that wikipedia has serious problems,
and a seeming inability to honestly face them. There are other
wiki projects that are not yet ensnared, but I advance the
possibility that it is a function of the user-base size; a
criticality of mass. There is a point when the user base becomes
too large to be managed effectively by persons who are motivated
by truth, not ideology, and management duties are passed off to
persons who are driven by their own personal goals.

Then, there are some wikis which began with a tainted control,
which, although amusing, offers nothing else of real value.
If you'vw not seen it yet, try Conservapedia:
<http://www.conservapedia.com/>
And no, it is not a parody, it is the real deal.
Curly Surmudgeon
2007-07-26 23:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeno
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:07:41 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
The anti-war movement was right about Vietnam and we're right about Iraq.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem. If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out. This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests. Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
No danger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Contents
All the Bush Administration excuses have been proven to be lies. Perhaps
you can offer some real world threat where Iraq threatened the USA?
Post by Zeno
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Can you say "blow back?"
Post by Merlin
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
The same can be said for conservative idiots however the poster was
correct. Your failure to comprehend the larger picture doesn't make him
an idiot.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zeno
2007-07-27 02:25:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:57:43 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Zeno
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:07:41 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
The anti-war movement was right about Vietnam and we're right about Iraq.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem. If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out. This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests. Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
No danger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Contents
All the Bush Administration excuses have been proven to be lies. Perhaps
you can offer some real world threat where Iraq threatened the USA?
You are free to enumerate which of the items in the list are what you
claim.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Zeno
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Can you say "blow back?"
Post by Merlin
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
The same can be said for conservative idiots however the poster was
correct. Your failure to comprehend the larger picture doesn't make him
an idiot.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
2007-07-27 05:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeno
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:57:43 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Zeno
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:07:41 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
The anti-war movement was right about Vietnam and we're right about Iraq.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem. If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out. This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests. Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
No danger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Contents
All the Bush Administration excuses have been proven to be lies. Perhaps
you can offer some real world threat where Iraq threatened the USA?
You are free to enumerate which of the items in the list are what you
claim.
You evaded the question.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
2007-08-06 01:12:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:28:38 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

------snip-------
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Zeno
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
All the Bush Administration excuses have been proven to be lies. Perhaps
you can offer some real world threat where Iraq threatened the USA?
You are free to enumerate which of the items in the list are what you
claim.
You evaded the question.
Can't answer the question, can you?

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
2007-08-08 04:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
------snip-------
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Zeno
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
All the Bush Administration excuses have been proven to be lies. Perhaps
you can offer some real world threat where Iraq threatened the USA?
You are free to enumerate which of the items in the list are what you
claim.
You evaded the question.
Can't answer the question, can you?
Still evading the question aren't you?

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merlin
2007-08-08 16:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps you can offer some real world threat where Iraq threatened the USA?
Well let's start with a simple one.

Did Saddam give orders for his military to shoot down the aircraft
patroling the no fly zone by orders of the United Nations?

If you say no, you're a liar.

If you say yes, you'll be honest and also admit that you're wrong.

To attack any of the military forces that were acting on orders of the
UN, is an act of war. Saddam did that not just once, but on countless
occassions.
Zeno
2007-08-08 23:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Perhaps you can offer some real world threat where Iraq threatened the USA?
Well let's start with a simple one.
Did Saddam give orders for his military to shoot down the aircraft
patroling the no fly zone by orders of the United Nations?
If you say no, you're a liar.
If you say yes, you'll be honest and also admit that you're wrong.
To attack any of the military forces that were acting on orders of the
UN, is an act of war. Saddam did that not just once, but on countless
occassions.
He is just trying to shift the argument from himself to someone else
(me). He has already snipped away his original assertion that he
doesn't want to defend. Here it is again:
"
Iraq posed absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for
world domination.
"
Which is not just a false statement - but a stupid one.

I really don't care what he asks me as it doesn't make his assertion
correct. If anything, it makes him my muslim slave - wanting my
approval...
Curly Surmudgeon
2007-08-10 23:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeno
Post by Merlin
Perhaps you can offer some real world threat where Iraq threatened the USA?
Well let's start with a simple one.
Did Saddam give orders for his military to shoot down the aircraft
patroling the no fly zone by orders of the United Nations?
If you say no, you're a liar.
If you say yes, you'll be honest and also admit that you're wrong.
To attack any of the military forces that were acting on orders of the
UN, is an act of war. Saddam did that not just once, but on countless
occassions.
He is just trying to shift the argument from himself to someone else
(me). He has already snipped away his original assertion that he
"
Iraq posed absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for
world domination.
"
Which is not just a false statement - but a stupid one.
I really don't care what he asks me as it doesn't make his assertion
correct. If anything, it makes him my muslim slave - wanting my
approval...
Still can't support your assertions, eh?

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
2007-08-10 23:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Perhaps you can offer some real world threat where Iraq threatened the USA?
Well let's start with a simple one.
Did Saddam give orders for his military to shoot down the aircraft
patroling the no fly zone by orders of the United Nations?
If you say no, you're a liar.
If you say yes, you'll be honest and also admit that you're wrong.
Bullshit. Typical of Bush denyers who wish to limit dialog.

How does warfare between Iraq and the UN threaten the USA?
Post by Merlin
To attack any of the military forces that were acting on orders of the
UN, is an act of war. Saddam did that not just once, but on countless
occassions.
Irrelevant, doesn't threaten the USA.

But feel free to suit up and ship out.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SueDoeCyAnts
2007-08-13 04:16:14 UTC
Permalink
on Wed 08 Aug 2007 09:05:33a
Post by Merlin
Perhaps you can offer some real world threat where Iraq
threatened the USA?
Well let's start with a simple one.
Did Saddam give orders for his military to shoot down the
aircraft patroling the no fly zone by orders of the United
Nations?
If you say no, you're a liar.
If you say yes, you'll be honest and also admit that you're
wrong.
To attack any of the military forces that were acting on orders
of the UN, is an act of war. Saddam did that not just once, but
on countless occassions.
Actually, you're wrong, and your advancemnt of a forceful claim
that anyone who disagrees with you false assesment is a liar,
makes you an ignorant, domineering asswipe:
One of America's Many Intelligence Failures.

The Iraq No Fly Zones were Not the result of UN Resolutions.
The initiatives were instituted by The Persian Gulf War Coalition,
and were enforced by trilateral US/UK/France military forces.

------------------["
USIA News Report - August 26, 1992
<http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1992/920826-240538.htm>

Coalition aircraft will begin flying surveillance
missions in southern Iraq August 27, President Bush
says, and the coalition "is establishing a no-fly zone
for all Iraqi fixed and rotary-winged aircraft."

Bush announced August 26 that the surveillance will
"provide coverage of the areas where a majority of the
most significant recent violations" by Iraq of U.N.
Resolution 688 have taken place.

He said the no-fly zone will be similar to the one the
coalition imposed on northern Iraq more than a year ago.
"]------------------

Sorry to again be forced to bring into the dialogue, the concepts
which contemporary conservatives believe to be obscene:
FACTS and EVIDENCE

When making a strong claim such as this, didn't you even consider
that it might be proper to at least run down a citation to offer
as substantiation for your arguments?

Now, shall we wait and see if
Post by Merlin
"you'll be honest and also admit that you're wrong"?
Baldin Lee Pramer
2007-08-08 16:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeno
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:07:41 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Irrelevant, not our problem. If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out. This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests. Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
No danger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of...
That is no more reality than a Townhall.com article.

BLP
Merlin
2007-08-08 15:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem.
It is now. Had Saddam not made it our problem, we'd not be there now.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out.
Fuck you with your parroted nonsense. Hey, here's your same stupid
logic turned back to you: If you don't want us in Iraq, why don't you
put a turban on and go fight with the fucking terrorists? Are you too
fucking scared? Ship out asshole. Do it now.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests.
Total parroted bullshit again. Have you ever had a thought of your
own? The one you just parroted is total bullshit.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
For fucks sake man, do you want a fucking cracker Polly? All you're
doing is parroting the same tired bullshit over and over. It's
bullshit spanky.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Can you say "blow back?"
Can you say "Blow me"
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
The same can be said for conservative idiots however the poster was
correct. Your failure to comprehend the larger picture doesn't make him
an idiot.
No, it's actually YOU that can't see beyond your fucking nose. I see
the "larger picture" just fine. Everything that's happened, needed to
happen.

You just don't like it.

Too fucking bad. It's happening, dumbass.
e***@rcn.com
2007-08-08 16:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem.
It is now. Had Saddam not made it our problem, we'd not be there now.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out.
Fuck you with your parroted nonsense. Hey, here's your same stupid
logic turned back to you: If you don't want us in Iraq, why don't you
put a turban on and go fight with the fucking terrorists? Are you too
fucking scared? Ship out asshole. Do it now.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests.
Total parroted bullshit again. Have you ever had a thought of your
own? The one you just parroted is total bullshit.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
For fucks sake man, do you want a fucking cracker Polly? All you're
doing is parroting the same tired bullshit over and over. It's
bullshit spanky.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Can you say "blow back?"
Can you say "Blow me"
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
The same can be said for conservative idiots however the poster was
correct. Your failure to comprehend the larger picture doesn't make him
an idiot.
No, it's actually YOU that can't see beyond your fucking nose. I see
the "larger picture" just fine. Everything that's happened, needed to
happen.
You just don't like it.
Too fucking bad. It's happening, dumbass.
Well reasoned, scholarly argument, dignified presentation...impressive.
Merlin
2007-08-08 20:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem.
It is now. Had Saddam not made it our problem, we'd not be there now.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out.
Fuck you with your parroted nonsense. Hey, here's your same stupid
logic turned back to you: If you don't want us in Iraq, why don't you
put a turban on and go fight with the fucking terrorists? Are you too
fucking scared? Ship out asshole. Do it now.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests.
Total parroted bullshit again. Have you ever had a thought of your
own? The one you just parroted is total bullshit.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
For fucks sake man, do you want a fucking cracker Polly? All you're
doing is parroting the same tired bullshit over and over. It's
bullshit spanky.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Can you say "blow back?"
Can you say "Blow me"
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
The same can be said for conservative idiots however the poster was
correct. Your failure to comprehend the larger picture doesn't make him
an idiot.
No, it's actually YOU that can't see beyond your fucking nose. I see
the "larger picture" just fine. Everything that's happened, needed to
happen.
You just don't like it.
Too fucking bad. It's happening, dumbass.
Well reasoned, scholarly argument, dignified presentation...impressive.
Fuck you. Your reply was ignorant, nonsensical and lacking in any
content. You just don't like what I say, asshole. So each time I post,
you reply with some childish comment like you did above. You never say
anything without resorting to your little slams and childish pouting.

You're boring me. Go play with someone your own age kid.
e***@rcn.com
2007-08-08 20:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem.
It is now. Had Saddam not made it our problem, we'd not be there now.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out.
Fuck you with your parroted nonsense. Hey, here's your same stupid
logic turned back to you: If you don't want us in Iraq, why don't you
put a turban on and go fight with the fucking terrorists? Are you too
fucking scared? Ship out asshole. Do it now.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests.
Total parroted bullshit again. Have you ever had a thought of your
own? The one you just parroted is total bullshit.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
For fucks sake man, do you want a fucking cracker Polly? All you're
doing is parroting the same tired bullshit over and over. It's
bullshit spanky.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Can you say "blow back?"
Can you say "Blow me"
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
The same can be said for conservative idiots however the poster was
correct. Your failure to comprehend the larger picture doesn't make him
an idiot.
No, it's actually YOU that can't see beyond your fucking nose. I see
the "larger picture" just fine. Everything that's happened, needed to
happen.
You just don't like it.
Too fucking bad. It's happening, dumbass.
Well reasoned, scholarly argument, dignified presentation...impressive.
Fuck you. Your reply was ignorant, nonsensical and lacking in any
content. You just don't like what I say, asshole. So each time I post,
you reply with some childish comment like you did above. You never say
anything without resorting to your little slams and childish pouting.
You're boring me. Go play with someone your own age kid.
Another gem of discourse..your teachers must be very proud
Terrorist Killer
2007-08-08 23:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rcn.com
Another gem of discourse..your teachers must be very proud
Is that all you have? Childish back and forth insults?

You're a prize aren't you?

Play in the street kid.
e***@rcn.com
2007-08-09 00:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by e***@rcn.com
Another gem of discourse..your teachers must be very proud
Is that all you have? Childish back and forth insults?
You're a prize aren't you?
Play in the street kid.
Ohh yet another gem....do you guys actually think about anything or do
you just repeat insults.

I'll say it again. All the intelligent rightwingers, with the
exception possibly of Chip Anderson have long ago left this group
leaving these droolers behind. Jeesh
Merlin
2007-08-09 14:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by e***@rcn.com
Another gem of discourse..your teachers must be very proud
Is that all you have? Childish back and forth insults?
You're a prize aren't you?
Play in the street kid.
Ohh yet another gem....do you guys actually think about anything or do
you just repeat insults.
I'll say it again. All the intelligent rightwingers, with the
exception possibly of Chip Anderson have long ago left this group
leaving these droolers behind. Jeesh
You're a real idiot. In your first sentence, you claim that "you guys"
just repeat insults. In your second sentence, you repeat the same
insult you've used dozens of times right in this newsgroup.

Who do you think you're kidding? It's YOU that is the TROLL. With very
rare exceptions, all you do is insult.

You're nothing but a TROLL, asswipe.

A childish troll at that.

Now, you'll post another one of your insults. You're transparent.

In a recent post of yours, you said clearly that YOU love to taunt
others. That's what TROLLS do.

Grow up kid. Open a book, close your PC down and actually learn
something.
e***@rcn.com
2007-08-09 16:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by e***@rcn.com
Another gem of discourse..your teachers must be very proud
Is that all you have? Childish back and forth insults?
You're a prize aren't you?
Play in the street kid.
Ohh yet another gem....do you guys actually think about anything or do
you just repeat insults.
I'll say it again. All the intelligent rightwingers, with the
exception possibly of Chip Anderson have long ago left this group
leaving these droolers behind. Jeesh
You're a real idiot. In your first sentence, you claim that "you guys"
just repeat insults. In your second sentence, you repeat the same
insult you've used dozens of times right in this newsgroup.
Who do you think you're kidding? It's YOU that is the TROLL. With very
rare exceptions, all you do is insult.
You're nothing but a TROLL, asswipe.
A childish troll at that.
Now, you'll post another one of your insults. You're transparent.
In a recent post of yours, you said clearly that YOU love to taunt
others. That's what TROLLS do.
Grow up kid. Open a book, close your PC down and actually learn
something.
ahhhh,,,the hits keep coming, and using words of more than one
syllable now. Keep trying and you may yet impress me.
Merlin
2007-08-09 16:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Merlin
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by e***@rcn.com
Another gem of discourse..your teachers must be very proud
Is that all you have? Childish back and forth insults?
You're a prize aren't you?
Play in the street kid.
Ohh yet another gem....do you guys actually think about anything or do
you just repeat insults.
I'll say it again. All the intelligent rightwingers, with the
exception possibly of Chip Anderson have long ago left this group
leaving these droolers behind. Jeesh
You're a real idiot. In your first sentence, you claim that "you guys"
just repeat insults. In your second sentence, you repeat the same
insult you've used dozens of times right in this newsgroup.
Who do you think you're kidding? It's YOU that is the TROLL. With very
rare exceptions, all you do is insult.
You're nothing but a TROLL, asswipe.
A childish troll at that.
Now, you'll post another one of your insults. You're transparent.
In a recent post of yours, you said clearly that YOU love to taunt
others. That's what TROLLS do.
Grow up kid. Open a book, close your PC down and actually learn
something.
ahhhh,,,the hits keep coming, and using words of more than one
syllable now. Keep trying and you may yet impress me.
As usual, you say nothing. Just more of your TROLL crap.
e***@rcn.com
2007-08-09 18:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Merlin
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by e***@rcn.com
Another gem of discourse..your teachers must be very proud
Is that all you have? Childish back and forth insults?
You're a prize aren't you?
Play in the street kid.
Ohh yet another gem....do you guys actually think about anything or do
you just repeat insults.
I'll say it again. All the intelligent rightwingers, with the
exception possibly of Chip Anderson have long ago left this group
leaving these droolers behind. Jeesh
You're a real idiot. In your first sentence, you claim that "you guys"
just repeat insults. In your second sentence, you repeat the same
insult you've used dozens of times right in this newsgroup.
Who do you think you're kidding? It's YOU that is the TROLL. With very
rare exceptions, all you do is insult.
You're nothing but a TROLL, asswipe.
A childish troll at that.
Now, you'll post another one of your insults. You're transparent.
In a recent post of yours, you said clearly that YOU love to taunt
others. That's what TROLLS do.
Grow up kid. Open a book, close your PC down and actually learn
something.
ahhhh,,,the hits keep coming, and using words of more than one
syllable now. Keep trying and you may yet impress me.
As usual, you say nothing. Just more of your TROLL crap.
Well. someone with your command of language, your grasp of the issues
and insight into the political turmoil could certainly find something
better to do than insulting trolls like me. Lets see,,,what position
are you suited for...oh wait....I got it...Putting Diapers on Piss
Clams!!
Merlin
2007-08-10 22:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rcn.com
Well. someone with your command of language, your grasp of the issues
and insight into the political turmoil could certainly find something
better to do than insulting trolls like me. Lets see,,,what position
are you suited for...oh wait....I got it...Putting Diapers on Piss
Clams!!
As usual, you say nothing. Just more of your TROLL crap.
e***@rcn.com
2007-08-10 23:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by e***@rcn.com
Well. someone with your command of language, your grasp of the issues
and insight into the political turmoil could certainly find something
better to do than insulting trolls like me. Lets see,,,what position
are you suited for...oh wait....I got it...Putting Diapers on Piss
Clams!!
As usual, you say nothing. Just more of your TROLL crap.
Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it. Those clams are cute
Terrorist Killer
2007-08-11 02:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Merlin
Post by e***@rcn.com
Well. someone with your command of language, your grasp of the issues
and insight into the political turmoil could certainly find something
better to do than insulting trolls like me. Lets see,,,what position
are you suited for...oh wait....I got it...Putting Diapers on Piss
Clams!!
As usual, you say nothing. Just more of your TROLL crap.
Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it. Those clams are cute
Well, you've earned my filter.

Like most trolls, you'll of course keep posting to me even after I've
plonked your ass.

Have fun posting to thin air.

<PLONK>
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-10 20:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem.
It is now. Had Saddam not made it our problem, we'd not be there now.
How did Saddam make it a US problem?

He didnt have any WMD did he? when he did have them the Us didnt act and
when he had disposed of them and the UN inspectors had verified that to be
true the US suddenly had a problem with Saddam. What problem did they hgave
that Saddam made? I mean how was the dictator Saddam in 1999 so different
from the one supported and supplied by the US in the early 1980s?
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out.
Fuck you with your parroted nonsense. Hey, here's your same stupid
logic turned back to you: If you don't want us in Iraq, why don't you
put a turban on and go fight with the fucking terrorists? Are you too
fucking scared? Ship out asshole. Do it now.
This isn't logical at all! In fact it is like asking Christ why don't you
come down off your cross and kill all the people who are crusifying you isnt
it? You are stuck in a false dichotomy. you seem to think that there is the
Us and everyone else and if one does not like US policy then they should
join some army which kills young US marines! this is a simplistic analysis.
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests.
Total parroted bullshit again. Have you ever had a thought of your
own? The one you just parroted is total bullshit.
Well "total" is a strong word. You do realise that Dyncorp and other private
security firms operate in the likes of Iraq and columbia. You realise they
get paid maybe three times more than the working class Marines who guard
them? You realise Haliburton was in dire financial straights in 2000 and
possibly looking at bankrupsy? You realise they stand to gain about
7,000,000,000 dollars in US taxpayers money through contracts in Iraq? You
realise other corporate concerns llike Oil companies and tobacco interests
worked underhanded dodgey dealing and the international arms trade is no
slouch in this? Don't you think such circumstances might make you question
their "Patriotic" motivation?
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
For fucks sake man, do you want a fucking cracker Polly? All you're
doing is parroting the same tired bullshit over and over. It's
bullshit spanky.
Okay. So how did Iraq threathen the US?

[snip traded insults with no argument]
Terrorist Killer
2007-08-10 22:48:00 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:43:24 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem.
It is now. Had Saddam not made it our problem, we'd not be there now.
How did Saddam make it a US problem?
He didnt have any WMD did he? when he did have them the Us didnt act and
when he had disposed of them and the UN inspectors had verified that to be
true the US suddenly had a problem with Saddam. What problem did they hgave
that Saddam made? I mean how was the dictator Saddam in 1999 so different
from the one supported and supplied by the US in the early 1980s?
You have a naive outlook. Obviously, you know about 1% of the entire
story.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out.
Fuck you with your parroted nonsense. Hey, here's your same stupid
logic turned back to you: If you don't want us in Iraq, why don't you
put a turban on and go fight with the fucking terrorists? Are you too
fucking scared? Ship out asshole. Do it now.
This isn't logical at all! In fact it is like asking Christ why don't you
come down off your cross and kill all the people who are crusifying you isnt
it? You are stuck in a false dichotomy. you seem to think that there is the
Us and everyone else and if one does not like US policy then they should
join some army which kills young US marines! this is a simplistic analysis.
I was very obviously poking fun at the idiot who I was answering, not
you. The person I was responding to thinks everyone who agrees with
the President should go to Iraq and fight on the front lines. Go tell
him how illogical that thought is.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests.
Total parroted bullshit again. Have you ever had a thought of your
own? The one you just parroted is total bullshit.
Well "total" is a strong word. You do realise that Dyncorp and other private
security firms operate in the likes of Iraq and columbia. You realise they
get paid maybe three times more than the working class Marines who guard
them? You realise Haliburton was in dire financial straights in 2000 and
possibly looking at bankrupsy? You realise they stand to gain about
7,000,000,000 dollars in US taxpayers money through contracts in Iraq? You
realise other corporate concerns llike Oil companies and tobacco interests
worked underhanded dodgey dealing and the international arms trade is no
slouch in this? Don't you think such circumstances might make you question
their "Patriotic" motivation?
That has nothing to do with what the person I was responding to said.
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. That person was attempting to
say that Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton started the war in Iraq. An equally
stupid statement as your answer.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
For fucks sake man, do you want a fucking cracker Polly? All you're
doing is parroting the same tired bullshit over and over. It's
bullshit spanky.
Okay. So how did Iraq threathen the US?
[snip traded insults with no argument]
What are you doing? Grading Usenet? Fuck you.
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-11 02:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrorist Killer
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:43:24 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem.
It is now. Had Saddam not made it our problem, we'd not be there now.
How did Saddam make it a US problem?
He didnt have any WMD did he? when he did have them the Us didnt act and
when he had disposed of them and the UN inspectors had verified that to be
true the US suddenly had a problem with Saddam. What problem did they hgave
that Saddam made? I mean how was the dictator Saddam in 1999 so different
from the one supported and supplied by the US in the early 1980s?
You have a naive outlook. Obviously, you know about 1% of the entire
story.
I suppose you will educate me by backing up this sweeping statwment and bald
assertion?

Any answers to the above questions as opposed to non informative dismissal
and obfuscation would be a start.
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out.
Fuck you with your parroted nonsense. Hey, here's your same stupid
logic turned back to you: If you don't want us in Iraq, why don't you
put a turban on and go fight with the fucking terrorists? Are you too
fucking scared? Ship out asshole. Do it now.
This isn't logical at all! In fact it is like asking Christ why don't you
come down off your cross and kill all the people who are crusifying you isnt
it? You are stuck in a false dichotomy. you seem to think that there is the
Us and everyone else and if one does not like US policy then they should
join some army which kills young US marines! this is a simplistic analysis.
I was very obviously poking fun at the idiot who I was answering, not
you.
So what? My point stands. I dont indulge in personal attack so I will say
nothing personal about you. Please answer the questions. Can you do that?
Post by Terrorist Killer
The person I was responding to thinks everyone who agrees with
the President should go to Iraq and fight on the front lines.
So you speak for that person do you?
Post by Terrorist Killer
Go tell
him how illogical that thought is.
forgive me for coming in late.
So where did the person state "everyone who agrees with
the President should go to Iraq and fight on the front lines"?
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests.
Total parroted bullshit again. Have you ever had a thought of your
own? The one you just parroted is total bullshit.
Well "total" is a strong word. You do realise that Dyncorp and other private
security firms operate in the likes of Iraq and columbia. You realise they
get paid maybe three times more than the working class Marines who guard
them? You realise Haliburton was in dire financial straights in 2000 and
possibly looking at bankrupsy? You realise they stand to gain about
7,000,000,000 dollars in US taxpayers money through contracts in Iraq? You
realise other corporate concerns llike Oil companies and tobacco interests
worked underhanded dodgey dealing and the international arms trade is no
slouch in this? Don't you think such circumstances might make you question
their "Patriotic" motivation?
That has nothing to do with what the person I was responding to said.
"This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton and corporate interests."

seems to encapsulate that idea. How was it not what the person said?
Post by Terrorist Killer
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. That person was attempting to
say that Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton started the war in Iraq. An equally
stupid statement as your answer.
How is my statement stupid? What question in it have you answered? NONE so
far!
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
For fucks sake man, do you want a fucking cracker Polly? All you're
doing is parroting the same tired bullshit over and over. It's
bullshit spanky.
Okay. So how did Iraq threathen the US?
[snip traded insults with no argument]
What are you doing? Grading Usenet? Fuck you.
What are you doing? Refusing to answer simple questions? Do you think people
will realise that if you insult the questioner you might get away with
actually giving an answer?
Terrorist Killer
2007-08-11 02:56:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:24:42 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
<***@nospam.forme> wrote:

For fucks sake man, do you really think someone would answer you when
asked in the manner in which you've done?

I'll repeat myself just this once.

Fuck you.
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-13 10:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrorist Killer
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:24:42 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
For fucks sake man, do you really think someone would answer you when
asked in the manner in which you've done?
So what? My point stands.
Post by Terrorist Killer
I'll repeat myself just this once.
Fuck you.
So for the second time you reply but do not answer any questions. In fact
you contradict yourself by replying. And you will no doubt repeat your
reply. But you wont answer any questions will you?

As for me, I dont indulge in personal attack so I will say
nothing personal about you. Please answer the questions. Can you do that?
Afraid to actually give an answer are you?
Merlin
2007-08-13 16:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Terrorist Killer
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:24:42 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
For fucks sake man, do you really think someone would answer you when
asked in the manner in which you've done?
So what? My point stands.
Post by Terrorist Killer
I'll repeat myself just this once.
Fuck you.
So for the second time you reply but do not answer any questions. In fact
you contradict yourself by replying. And you will no doubt repeat your
reply. But you wont answer any questions will you?
As for me, I dont indulge in personal attack so I will say
nothing personal about you. Please answer the questions. Can you do that?
Afraid to actually give an answer are you?
No, I'm not "afraid" of anything involving you.

I won't, however, waste my time posting any real comment to the pap
and bullshit you post.

You spread nothing but propaganda, lies, innuendo, half-truths and
pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Nothing, and I do mean NOTHING you post is worthy of reply with the
exception of pointing out to anyone who doesn't already know who you
are, that you are a bullshit artist and con.
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-13 21:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Terrorist Killer
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:24:42 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
For fucks sake man, do you really think someone would answer you when
asked in the manner in which you've done?
So what? My point stands.
Post by Terrorist Killer
I'll repeat myself just this once.
Fuck you.
So for the second time you reply but do not answer any questions. In fact
you contradict yourself by replying. And you will no doubt repeat your
reply. But you wont answer any questions will you?
As for me, I dont indulge in personal attack so I will say
nothing personal about you. Please answer the questions. Can you do that?
Afraid to actually give an answer are you?
No, I'm not "afraid" of anything involving you.
I note you broke you promise!

You above said you would repeat yourself just once and cut out of the
discussion.

But you rose to the bait of being called afraid.

How easy you seem to be for others to manipulate.

Readers note: Watch how he replies to this.
Post by Merlin
I won't, however, waste my time posting any real comment to the pap
and bullshit you post.
Which apparently you just did!

But I note you can't answer any of the questions so you try to avoid them.
What is wrong? Afraid to answer simple questions?
Post by Merlin
You spread nothing but propaganda, lies, innuendo, half-truths and
pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Actually almost all of what I do in this group is reply to others who make
unsupported claims and espouse unsupported opinion. all I am asking is for
you to support your own position with something other that opinion. try some
facts for a change why dont you?
Post by Merlin
Nothing, and I do mean NOTHING you post is worthy of reply with the
exception of pointing out to anyone who doesn't already know who you
are, that you are a bullshit artist and con.
Again that is opinion! And it is unsupported by even taking ONE comment from
my posts and supplying evidence to debunk it!
Merlin
2007-08-14 11:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Readers note: Watch how he replies to this.
Yawn! You're as boring as you always have been.
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-14 15:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
Readers note: Watch how he replies to this.
Yawn! You're as boring as you always have been.
Scared of actually dealing with a real discussion so you run away from. it
and resort to insult.

Can you even answer a single question to back up your unsupported opinion?
Merlin
2007-08-14 16:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Scared of actually dealing with a real discussion
No, I'm not. You don't have "real discussions", you have rants.
Nothing ever suits you. I've dealt with your idiocy before. You're not
worth the aggravation. Everyone else knows you in your various guises
and sock-puppet name changes. Like them, I don't want to talk to you.

You bait people. You're a master at it.

A master-baiter.
Post by Mavisbeacon
so you run away from it
No running here, asshole. I just refuse to be drawn into another
pissing contest with you. Call it what you wish.
Post by Mavisbeacon
and resort to insult.
Yes, insulting you is very easy. There's so many that fit you to
choose from.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Can you even answer a single question to back up your unsupported opinion?
With you? No way. As I said above, you're simply not worth the
frustration of trying to talk common sense too. You have none.

So, in summation, go fuck yourself Beacon. I'll go talk to a fucking
tree before entering into any serious discussion with an asshole like
you.
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-14 19:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
Scared of actually dealing with a real discussion
No, I'm not. You don't have "real discussions", you have rants.
and you r eviudence for this is? Or will you stick with your bigoted opinion
in spite of being unbable to supply ANY evidence of ranting as opposed to
discussion?

I asked several questions which anyone can check. For example
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
...Had Saddam not made it our problem, we'd not be there now.
How did Saddam make it a US problem?

He didnt have any WMD did he? when he did have them the Us didnt act and
when he had disposed of them and the UN inspectors had verified that to be
true the US suddenly had a problem with Saddam. What problem did they hgave
that Saddam made? I mean how was the dictator Saddam in 1999 so different
from the one supported and supplied by the US in the early 1980s?

and

You do realise that Dyncorp and other private
security firms operate in the likes of Iraq and columbia. You realise they
get paid maybe three times more than the working class Marines who guard
them? You realise Haliburton was in dire financial straights in 2000 and
possibly looking at bankrupsy? You realise they stand to gain about
7,000,000,000 dollars in US taxpayers money through contracts in Iraq? You
realise other corporate concerns llike Oil companies and tobacco interests
worked underhanded dodgey dealing and the international arms trade is no
slouch in this? Don't you think such circumstances might make you question
their "Patriotic" motivation?


Or short and to the point:

So how did Iraq threathen the US?
Post by Merlin
Nothing ever suits you.
It isn't a question of what suits me! It is a question of whether people can
support their own claims! My OPINION in the matter is as important as
anyones but the ORIGINAL POSTER made the claims he didnt support. I only
asked questions which demanded EVIDENCE to support these claims.
Post by Merlin
I've dealt with your idiocy before.
quite the contrary. you can't show where you did "deal" with me. As I
recollect you ran scared from debate and resorted to personal attack rather
than answer any of the simple questions. You are scared to answer the ones
above arent you? A bit worried because you can either obviously lie or if
you tell the truth you are not certain as to where that might lead. You
can't abide coming to a conclusion which contradicts neocons policyt can
you? So please don't clkaim to follow reason when you avoid it.
Post by Merlin
You're not
worth the aggravation. Everyone else knows you in your various guises
and sock-puppet name changes. Like them, I don't want to talk to you.
I dont have various guises and name changes. I have posted on usenet for at
lease eight years and used the same name with one variarion (which contains
the original). and the reason for that was because of a forger. Not like
Chris (jedi).
Post by Merlin
You bait people. You're a master at it.
REaders note Here are samples of Merlin avioding the discussion:
This is only a sample folks showing Merlin avoiding the issue and resorting
to personal attack.
Thread: SOC.CULTURE.IRAQ Only 340 Subscribers
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
After seeing the pap you post, I can tell your intelligence level
isn't high enough to even find them.
First of all this is plainly ad hominem.
No it isn't. It's fact based on your posting history.
Its ad hoiminem! Look up the definition.
And you gave no examples of my posting history.
For a magician Merlin you don't seem to be able to cite any examples to back
up your claims. Do you think you can win an argument by magic?
...
A few people ranting to a few people.

1. So what? What is a parliament?
2. And if the arguments are well supported and
coherent then what is wrong with posting?
3. Subscribed where? On Google?
4. "im not posting because it wont change the world" isnt a good
reason is it?

And later
Post by Merlin
Internet. I belong to several groups that have more than 5 thousand
members.
5. Really ? Care to list three of them?
Post by Merlin
One has 20 thousand representing more than 15 countries.
6. Really? which one is that?

7. So you resort to spelling flames and become a grammar nazi when you can't
defend your postion and answer the questions you are asked?
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
Third since YOU claim it, it is for YOU to support it and not for others
to
show something you claim to be ture is true. sure based on that I can
claim
leprechauns in my house and ask you to prove it!
My ego doesn't push me to be bothered to prove anything to you. You
can disbelieve it if you want. It does not detract from my main
argument in
any way.
Actually it does. since the point is about you not posting and my questions
about that and comments on it related directly to you ego! The comment about
MY ego which you copied from me was actually part of that argument in that
it illustrates how claims about what I have done in the past or whaqt I am
involved in presently are NOT related to evidence proving anything about my
claims! Your ego however IS related to the issue. So your copying my comment
is only SUPPORTIUNG MY position not yours!
[end excerpts]

...
Post by Merlin
No running here, asshole. I just refuse to be drawn into another
pissing contest with you. Call it what you wish.
Run away if yu owant but yu still havent answered the questions:

So how did Iraq threathen the US?

How did Saddam make it a US problem?

He didnt have any WMD did he? when he did have them the Us didnt act and
when he had disposed of them and the UN inspectors had verified that to be
true the US suddenly had a problem with Saddam. What problem did they hgave
that Saddam made? I mean how was the dictator Saddam in 1999 so different
from the one supported and supplied by the US in the early 1980s?
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
and resort to insult.
Yes, insulting you is very easy. There's so many that fit you to
choose from.
i.e you prove my point that you use insult and ad hominem - a clear
indication of someone losing anargument.
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
Can you even answer a single question to back up your unsupported opinion?
With you? No way.
With anyone? In fact here again you contraqdict yourself. Since you claim I
have several identities what is there to shop me form asking using another
one you don't know about? In fact I don't do this but clearly you are scared
to anwser the simple questions.
Post by Merlin
As I said above, you're simply not worth the
frustration of trying to talk common sense too. You have none.
You cant even answer what Iraq did to threathen the Us and you claim Im not
sensible? LOL
Post by Merlin
So, in summation, go fuck yourself Beacon. I'll go talk to a fucking
tree before entering into any serious discussion with an asshole like
you.
run away if you want but people can slearly see when some is running scared
from answering a simple question like - what did Iraq do to threathen the
US?
Merlin
2007-08-15 10:33:18 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 14, 3:55 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <***@nospam.forme> wrote:

Since you seem to be mentally impaired, I'll repeat myself again to
you:

"So, in summation, go fuck yourself Beacon. I'll go talk to a fucking
tree before entering into any serious discussion with an asshole like
you."
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-15 14:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Since you seem to be mentally impaired, I'll repeat myself again to
"So, in summation, go fuck yourself Beacon. I'll go talk to a fucking
tree before entering into any serious discussion with an asshole like
you."
It is Monthy Python.

Run away! Run away! LOL! Merlin is afrain to answer simple questions like:

So how did Iraq threathen the US?

How did Saddam make it a US problem?

Run away if you want but you still havent answered the questions and anyone
reading this can easliy see that.
Merlin
2007-08-15 15:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Since you seem to be mentally impaired, I'll repeat myself again to
"So, in summation, go fuck yourself Beacon. I'll go talk to a fucking
tree before entering into any serious discussion with an asshole like
you."
It is Monthy Python.
So how did Iraq threathen the US?
How did Saddam make it a US problem?
Run away if you want but you still havent answered the questions and anyone
reading this can easliy see that.
No, YOUR WRONG.

Everyone can easily see that I don't want to discuss anything with a
fucking idiot such as yourself.

No running is involved. I see why you try to make it look that way,
but it's simply not the case.

Let me try to get it into your stupid fucking head:

"So, in summation, go fuck yourself Beacon. I'll go talk to a fucking
tree before entering into any serious discussion with an asshole like
you."
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-15 20:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Since you seem to be mentally impaired, I'll repeat myself again to
"So, in summation, go fuck yourself Beacon. I'll go talk to a fucking
tree before entering into any serious discussion with an asshole like
you."
It is Monthy Python.
So how did Iraq threathen the US?
How did Saddam make it a US problem?
Run away if you want but you still havent answered the questions and anyone
reading this can easliy see that.
No, YOUR WRONG.
Really?

So whgere are your answers to the above simple questions?
Post by Merlin
No running is involved. I see why you try to make it look that way,
but it's simply not the case.
You havent answered the question and resort to personal attack. Why won't
you answer a simple question? You know you wil have to admit you were wrong
about Saddam moaking it a US problem and about Iraq being a threat to the US
don't you?
What is clear in my head (and no doubt to others who read this) is you
haven't asnwered simple questions asking you to back up claims about Iraq
being a threath and Saddam making the US attack Iraq.

Run away from that if yu want. People readong this will know you hisd from
the answers to two simple questions like these.
Merlin
2007-08-17 00:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
No, YOUR WRONG.
Really?
So whgere are your answers to the above simple questions?
Are you really that stupid or are you pretending?
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
No running is involved. I see why you try to make it look that way,
but it's simply not the case.
You havent answered the question and resort to personal attack. Why won't
you answer a simple question? You know you wil have to admit you were wrong
about Saddam moaking it a US problem and about Iraq being a threat to the US
don't you?
Yes, it appears that you ARE that fucking stupid.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
What is clear in my head (and no doubt to others who read this) is you
haven't asnwered simple questions asking you to back up claims about Iraq
being a threath and Saddam making the US attack Iraq.
You're a total idiot man.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Run away from that if yu want. People readong this will know you hisd from
the answers to two simple questions like these.
Once again, dumbass, I won't talk about anything serious with you
because you're a fucking idiot.

I'll talk to almost anyone, but not you. You've earned it.

Now, as I've suggested, go fuck yourself.
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-17 10:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
No, YOUR WRONG.
Really?
So whgere are your answers to the above simple questions?
Are you really that stupid or are you pretending?
How did Iraq threathen the US?
How did Saddam make it a US problem?

If you are claiming that they are simple questions then you should have no
problem answering them.
Why won't you answer them and why do you run away from answering?
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
No running is involved. I see why you try to make it look that way,
but it's simply not the case.
You havent answered the question and resort to personal attack. Why won't
you answer a simple question? You know you wil have to admit you were wrong
about Saddam making it a US problem and about Iraq being a threat to the
US
don't you?
Yes, it appears that you ARE that fucking stupid.
Scared to answer the simple questions and anyone reading this can see how
you are trying to avoid answerint the questions. You lose all credability
when you run away from answering simple queswtions like those.
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
What is clear in my head (and no doubt to others who read this) is you
haven't asnwered simple questions asking you to back up claims about Iraq
being a treath and Saddam making the US attack Iraq.
You're a total idiot man.
See! You are avoiding answering and can only resort to personal attack. You
can't even back up your own opinion and resort to personal attack because
you are scared to answer. you can not show how Saddam threatned the US
and/or how the US were forced to attack invade and occupy Iraq.
Anyone can see that when someone runs scared they try to divert the issue by
throwing insults and name calling - but they won't answer simple questions
which probe their basic UNSUPPORTED claims.
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Run away from that if yu want. People reading this will know you hid from
the answers to two simple questions like these.
Once again, dumbass, I won't talk about anything serious with you
because you're a fucking idiot.
Cowards run scared from answering. Calling someone an idiot is just an
avboidance tactic when you can't even back up your claims that Iraq were a
threat to the US. Isn't it?
Post by Merlin
I'll talk to almost anyone, but not you. You've earned it.
You can't answer the simple question asking you to back up yout bald
assertion that Iraq forces the US to invade and threathned the security of
the American population. You havent one whit of supporting evidence. All you
can do is obfuscate evade and windbag you insulting evasions. You are all
bluster and cant even stand up to support your own claims . LOL! What a
fine example of running scared you are. Can't support even the simplest of
claims.
Merlin
2007-08-17 19:37:32 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 17, 6:04 am, "Mavisbeacon" <***@nospam.forme> wrote:

Are you really that stupid or are you pretending?
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-18 13:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Are you really that stupid or are you pretending?
How did Iraq threaten the US?
How did Saddam make it a US problem?

If you are claiming that they are simple questions then you should have no
problem answering them.
Why won't you answer them and why do you run away from answering?

What's the matter? Cat got your tongue?

A coward would reply with:

Are you really that stupid or are you pretending?
Merlin
2007-08-18 14:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
What's the matter? Cat got your tongue?
What part of "I won't discuss anything with you" don't you understand,
you stupid motherfucker?
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-18 19:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
What's the matter? Cat got your tongue?
What part of "I won't discuss anything with you" don't you understand,
you stupid motherfucker?
The part that has you replying to every message I post in this thread but at
the same running from the truth because you are to scared to be caught out
by exposing the fact that you can't back up your own claims?
Merlin
2007-08-19 01:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
What's the matter? Cat got your tongue?
What part of "I won't discuss anything with you" don't you understand,
you stupid motherfucker?
The part that has you replying to every message I post in this thread but at
the same running from the truth because you are to scared to be caught out
by exposing the fact that you can't back up your own claims?
No, again you're wrong. I'm not replying to you. I'm denying your
accusations and telling you that I won't talk to you about anything
serious if you were the last fucking person on the planet. I'd rather
talk to a fucking dog than to you. Hell, I'd talk to a maggot before
talking to your stupid motherfucking ass.

Now, keep posting back to me you retarded offspring of a goat. All
you'll get from me is what you have already.

I don't think you're smart enough to quit trying, so perform your
mental masterbation and I'll keep telling you exactly what type of
asshole you are.
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-19 18:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
Post by Mavisbeacon
What's the matter? Cat got your tongue?
What part of "I won't discuss anything with you" don't you understand,
you stupid motherfucker?
The part that has you replying to every message I post in this thread but at
the same running from the truth because you are to scared to be caught out
by exposing the fact that you can't back up your own claims?
No, again you're wrong. I'm not replying to you.
Could have fooled me. LOL
Post by Merlin
I'm denying your
accusations
Yes you are. But I am not accusing you. YOU are the one making ! Im only
asking you to show some evidence.

By stating things which are like "im not going to supply any evidence to
support my own claims"

Claims like Saddam made Iraq a US problem or that Iraq was a threath to the
US.

You cant even back up the simplest of claims and all you can do is resort to
insult to try to divert attention that you can't back up what you claim to
believe.
Zeno
2007-08-11 17:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrorist Killer
You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Yeah, I've seen others that way too. I don't understand what drives
them to act (inappropriately) this way. A need for attention ?
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-13 15:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeno
Post by Terrorist Killer
You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Yeah, I've seen others that way too. I don't understand what drives
them to act (inappropriately) this way. A need for attention ?
Do you really believe that if you keep making claims and provide no support
for them that people will believe them?

Well maybe they did in the case of WMD but we know better now. You know
better too but you can't admit that can you?
Merlin
2007-08-19 02:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeno
Post by Terrorist Killer
You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Yeah, I've seen others that way too. I don't understand what drives
them to act (inappropriately) this way. A need for attention ?
I think that's exactly what it is. A shrink would probably have a name
for it, but with people like the idiot Beacon that keeps harping on
the same old tired line over and over like a broken record, it's just
a form of mental masturbation. He's jerking off in his head. Have you
ever seen anyone that is so much of an ass?

If I was in front of him, in person, he'd be doing some hospital time.
I can say sincerely that I'd beat that stupid motherfucker within an
inch of his sorry life as long as I could do so without legal
consequences. He's not worth a second of jail time, but hell, I can
dream can't I?

Have you been following his asinine replies to me? The guy hasn't
enough sense to get out of the rain. I've met many kinds of fool in
my life, but he's a true work of art. A total fool.
Zeno
2007-08-19 07:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Zeno
Post by Terrorist Killer
You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Yeah, I've seen others that way too. I don't understand what drives
them to act (inappropriately) this way. A need for attention ?
I think that's exactly what it is. A shrink would probably have a name
for it, but with people like the idiot Beacon that keeps harping on
the same old tired line over and over like a broken record, it's just
a form of mental masturbation. He's jerking off in his head. Have you
ever seen anyone that is so much of an ass?
I think so.
Post by Merlin
If I was in front of him, in person, he'd be doing some hospital time.
I can say sincerely that I'd beat that stupid motherfucker within an
inch of his sorry life as long as I could do so without legal
consequences. He's not worth a second of jail time, but hell, I can
dream can't I?
Have you been following his asinine replies to me? The guy hasn't
enough sense to get out of the rain. I've met many kinds of fool in
my life, but he's a true work of art. A total fool.
The person I've seen it in before was from a broken home and was the
youngest (baby) of the family. Which is why I am wondering if it is a
need for attention. Denied attention in childhood maybe...
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-19 20:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
If I was in front of him, in person, he'd be doing some hospital time.
Getting to you am I?
It seems the reaction of you threathening violence on me is showing I am.
Mind yo it is a wonder you can call anyone an idiot when you wish you live
in a country where violence against people you don't like is legal! maybe
you would havbe done ok in pre WWII Germany where such a thing was
allowed. Mind you in Jed Bushes florida you can shoot people trespassing on
your property can't you?

All you can do it threathen violence and run from supporting your own
claims.
And I don't think you would be so lippy or try to beat me up if you were in
front of me in person.
Post by Merlin
I can say sincerely that I'd beat that stupid motherfucker within an
inch of his sorry life as long as I could do so without legal
consequences. He's not worth a second of jail time, but hell, I can
dream can't I?
I don't think you could do so period! So sorry but your idle threaths and
baosts only serve to fule your own misguided ego.
Merlin
2007-08-20 09:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Merlin
If I was in front of him, in person, he'd be doing some hospital time.
Getting to you am I?
It seems the reaction of you threathening violence on me is showing I am.
Mind yo it is a wonder you can call anyone an idiot when you wish you live
in a country where violence against people you don't like is legal! maybe
you would havbe done ok in pre WWII Germany where such a thing was
allowed. Mind you in Jed Bushes florida you can shoot people trespassing on
your property can't you?
All you can do it threathen violence and run from supporting your own
claims.
And I don't think you would be so lippy or try to beat me up if you were in
front of me in person.
Post by Merlin
I can say sincerely that I'd beat that stupid motherfucker within an
inch of his sorry life as long as I could do so without legal
consequences. He's not worth a second of jail time, but hell, I can
dream can't I?
I don't think you could do so period! So sorry but your idle threaths and
baosts only serve to fule your own misguided ego.
Have another drink, Beacon. You're a drunk. Your posts show it.

<PLONK> (Go bother someone else)
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-20 14:26:56 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Merlin
<PLONK> (Go bother someone else)
The classic stance of those who make unsupportable claims about Iraq!

they may as well say

"The sky is falling on our heads and the world is flat. I will produce no
evidence but be assured it is true and loads of neocons flat earthers will
support me in that. Usenet is only here to abuse those who say the world is
not flat. If they ask for any proof just ignore them."
Curly Surmudgeon
2007-08-10 23:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
Yeah, the Iraqis were really "moving on" under Saddam the Insane's
Dictatorship, weren't they?
Irrelevant, not our problem.
It is now. Had Saddam not made it our problem, we'd not be there now.
Nope, still not our problem.
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
If you're interested in educating the
barbarians though feel free to suit up and ship out.
Fuck you with your parroted nonsense. Hey, here's your same stupid
logic turned back to you: If you don't want us in Iraq, why don't you
put a turban on and go fight with the fucking terrorists? Are you too
fucking scared? Ship out asshole. Do it now.
Whoa, you'd do well in a 5th grade debate class. However you'd get your
ass kicked in the 6th year.

Evidently you support this war, why are you not fighting it? Chickenhawk?
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This was was brought
to you by Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton nad corporate interests.
Total parroted bullshit again. Have you ever had a thought of your
own? The one you just parroted is total bullshit.
Hit home, eh?
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Iraq posed
absolutely no danger to the US prior to Bush's quest for world
domination.
For fucks sake man, do you want a fucking cracker Polly? All you're
doing is parroting the same tired bullshit over and over. It's
bullshit spanky.
Please tell us in your own words how Iraq threatened America.
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Can you say "blow back?"
Can you say "Blow me"
Sorry, I don't swing that way. Do you even comprehend the term?
Post by Merlin
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Merlin
As all other liberal idiots, you haven't a fucking clue what you're
talking about.
The same can be said for conservative idiots however the poster was
correct. Your failure to comprehend the larger picture doesn't make him
an idiot.
No, it's actually YOU that can't see beyond your fucking nose. I see
the "larger picture" just fine. Everything that's happened, needed to
happen.
I asssume that you believe that to be cute, it certainly isn't inteligent
but please tell us, exactly how does a nose fuck?

Really? How has Bush's foreign policy made America safer? Do you consider
the destruction of the Constitution "safer?"
Post by Merlin
You just don't like it.
It took you this long to realize that simple truth? No wonder you still
fail to comprehend the depth of damage done to our country.
Post by Merlin
Too fucking bad. It's happening, dumbass.
Make it worthwhile and I'll gladly compare IQ with you. Put any amount in
escrow, I'll match it.

Chickenhawk.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorist Killer
2007-08-11 02:58:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:27:46 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Please tell us in your own words how Iraq threatened America.
Why? So I can debate with a childish motherfucker like you?

Dream on asshole.

I wouldn't waste more than 30 seconds posting to you.

28, 29....

bye
Mavisbeacon
2007-08-20 18:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrorist Killer
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:27:46 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Please tell us in your own words how Iraq threatened America.
Why? So I can debate with a childish motherfucker like you?
Dream on asshole.
I wouldn't waste more than 30 seconds posting to you.
In other words you can't answer the simple question based on YOUR CLAIM?
i.e.. how Iraq threatened the US?

Sad.

Next you will no doubt claim the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of
cheese but you won't waste your time supporting that either eh? ;|
Zeno
2007-07-26 18:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
You are saying that others are "self righteous"?
Post by P.Henry
The anti-war movement was right about Vietnam and we're right about Iraq.
"We" are right?
What about your self righteousness? Should it be ignored ?
Post by P.Henry
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
When Russia pulled out of Afghanistan the remaining Islamo-fascists
took residence there and is now known as al Qaeda.

If the US pulls out of Iraq you are thinking al Qaeda won't take up
residency there because?
John Graeme
2007-07-26 20:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeno
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
When Russia pulled out of Afghanistan the remaining Islamo-fascists
took residence there and is now known as al Qaeda.
If the US pulls out of Iraq you are thinking al Qaeda won't take up
residency there because?
1. It was the U.S. support of the insurgents against the USSR in
Afghanistan that eventually led to their victory and the establishment
of the Taliban and an aL-Qaeda sanctuary there.

2. Iraq is not Afghanistan. It was a secular nation with a secular
government before the U.S. started interfering. If the U.S. pulled
out, there would be factional fighting, but there is little support
for al-Qaeda among Iraqis in general. Indeed, most resent the
interference of those foreigners just as they rightly resent the
interference of the U.S.

3. In case the point is not obvious, let me point out how the
interference of the U.S. in foreign situations led to more problems
for us. In any case, one has to consider the COST of any intervention
against the benefits. It's currently about $560 billion for Iraq and
growing.

4. Here is a better idea: Stop getting involved in other peoples'
affairs all over the world--thus saving hundreds of billions of
dollars in direct costs and removing the reasons why terrorists target
us.
Zeno
2007-07-27 02:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Graeme
Post by Zeno
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
When Russia pulled out of Afghanistan the remaining Islamo-fascists
took residence there and is now known as al Qaeda.
If the US pulls out of Iraq you are thinking al Qaeda won't take up
residency there because?
1. It was the U.S. support of the insurgents against the USSR in
Afghanistan that eventually led to their victory and the establishment
of the Taliban and an aL-Qaeda sanctuary there.
2. Iraq is not Afghanistan. It was a secular nation with a secular
government before the U.S. started interfering. If the U.S. pulled
out, there would be factional fighting, but there is little support
for al-Qaeda among Iraqis in general. Indeed, most resent the
interference of those foreigners just as they rightly resent the
interference of the U.S.
You are thinking that the lack support of al Qaeda by the Iraqi people
will cause al Qaeda to vaporize into thin air if the US leaves. If
so, that's pretty funny...
Post by John Graeme
3. In case the point is not obvious, let me point out how the
interference of the U.S. in foreign situations led to more problems
for us. In any case, one has to consider the COST of any intervention
against the benefits. It's currently about $560 billion for Iraq and
growing.
I would suggest that you are wrong - and not just a little wrong.
Here are a few hints why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

It's easy to make a longer list here...
Post by John Graeme
4. Here is a better idea: Stop getting involved in other peoples'
affairs all over the world--thus saving hundreds of billions of
dollars in direct costs and removing the reasons why terrorists target
us.
I see that you don't understand what drives Islamo-fascist. Perhaps
one of these will get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares#Part_1_-_Baby_It.27s_Cold_Outside

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5240138297636645366
e***@rcn.com
2007-08-08 17:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeno
Post by John Graeme
Post by Zeno
Post by P.Henry
Post by LMC Society
some democrats and even republicans are calling for president bush to
'end the war' or 'stop the war'. they call for withdrawing US troops
out of iraq. now, if that would end the war, i'm all for it. never
mind building a beacon of democracy. the killings in iraq are so
horrifying that any end of this conflict would be welcome.
but, those calling for 'ending the war' are disingenuous. if US pulls
out, the war will end for americans. it will NOT end for people in
iraq. indeed, the REAL war of horrendous proportions may begin just
then. for all the talk of love of humanity around the world, liberals
don't seem to care.
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves on
the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but not in
southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state. it would know nothing but oppression and
extreme poverty for two decades. even today, it is very poor and
moving up only thanks to free markets.
Exactly, Vietnam, like Iraq will have to do, solved it's own problems. The
US has no right to impose our beliefs ,or our form of government on others.
The self righteous arrogance of conservatives amazes me.
The only solution , is to get out and allow them the self determination
that they need to move on.
When Russia pulled out of Afghanistan the remaining Islamo-fascists
took residence there and is now known as al Qaeda.
If the US pulls out of Iraq you are thinking al Qaeda won't take up
residency there because?
1. It was the U.S. support of the insurgents against the USSR in
Afghanistan that eventually led to their victory and the establishment
of the Taliban and an aL-Qaeda sanctuary there.
2. Iraq is not Afghanistan. It was a secular nation with a secular
government before the U.S. started interfering. If the U.S. pulled
out, there would be factional fighting, but there is little support
for al-Qaeda among Iraqis in general. Indeed, most resent the
interference of those foreigners just as they rightly resent the
interference of the U.S.
You are thinking that the lack support of al Qaeda by the Iraqi people
will cause al Qaeda to vaporize into thin air if the US leaves. If
so, that's pretty funny...
Post by John Graeme
3. In case the point is not obvious, let me point out how the
interference of the U.S. in foreign situations led to more problems
for us. In any case, one has to consider the COST of any intervention
against the benefits. It's currently about $560 billion for Iraq and
growing.
I would suggest that you are wrong - and not just a little wrong.
Here are a few hints why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwaithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
It's easy to make a longer list here...
Post by John Graeme
4. Here is a better idea: Stop getting involved in other peoples'
affairs all over the world--thus saving hundreds of billions of
dollars in direct costs and removing the reasons why terrorists target
us.
I see that you don't understand what drives Islamo-fascist. Perhaps
one of these will get you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares#Part_1_-_Baby_It...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5240138297636645366
meaningless wikipedia links don't make an argument. Reason, logic and
facts do.
Terrorist Killer
2007-08-08 23:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rcn.com
meaningless wikipedia links don't make an argument. Reason, logic and
facts do.
But then, you never post anything but insults.

Post your logic and facts, asshole.

No, you'll come back with nothing but another childish "nothing"
comment.
e***@rcn.com
2007-08-09 18:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by e***@rcn.com
meaningless wikipedia links don't make an argument. Reason, logic and
facts do.
But then, you never post anything but insults.
Post your logic and facts, asshole.
No, you'll come back with nothing but another childish "nothing"
comment.
I've yet to see you do anything but post insults...are you as full of
virtual testosterone as your buddt Merlin? Do you feel somehow "manly"
by bearing a handle like "Terrorist Killer"? You must sit in front of
the compute in a colorful tinfoil hat with matching propellor
impressing yourself and your buddies with your ascii bound courage
Terrorist Killer
2007-08-10 22:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by e***@rcn.com
meaningless wikipedia links don't make an argument. Reason, logic and
facts do.
But then, you never post anything but insults.
Post your logic and facts, asshole.
No, you'll come back with nothing but another childish "nothing"
comment.
I've yet to see you do anything but post insults...are you as full of
virtual testosterone as your buddt Merlin? Do you feel somehow "manly"
by bearing a handle like "Terrorist Killer"? You must sit in front of
the compute in a colorful tinfoil hat with matching propellor
impressing yourself and your buddies with your ascii bound courage
Fuck, you really are that stupid.

"Terrorist Killer" and "Merlin" are simply two ID's I use. What do you
care what I call myself, asshole?

You never say ANYTHING that matters.

Just little childish TROLL comments.

Fuck you again, Edy.
e***@rcn.com
2007-08-10 23:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by e***@rcn.com
Post by Terrorist Killer
Post by e***@rcn.com
meaningless wikipedia links don't make an argument. Reason, logic and
facts do.
But then, you never post anything but insults.
Post your logic and facts, asshole.
No, you'll come back with nothing but another childish "nothing"
comment.
I've yet to see you do anything but post insults...are you as full of
virtual testosterone as your buddt Merlin? Do you feel somehow "manly"
by bearing a handle like "Terrorist Killer"? You must sit in front of
the compute in a colorful tinfoil hat with matching propellor
impressing yourself and your buddies with your ascii bound courage
Fuck, you really are that stupid.
"Terrorist Killer" and "Merlin" are simply two ID's I use. What do you
care what I call myself, asshole?
You never say ANYTHING that matters.
Just little childish TROLL comments.
Fuck you again, Edy.
Do you eat with those fingers?
SueDoeCyAnts
2007-07-25 17:46:07 UTC
Permalink
on Mon 23 Jul 2007 07:18:42p
Post by LMC Society
when US pulled out of southeast asia, liberals patted themselves
on the back for 'ending the war'. well, it ended for the US but
not in southeast asia. communists still waged war and in 1975,
they called for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south
vietnam would turn into a communist slave state. it would know
nothing but oppression and extreme poverty for two decades. even
today, it is very poor and moving up only thanks to free
markets. as for cambodia, it turned into a real holocaust.
so, all those liberals who felt soooo good about ending the war
didn't really care what happened to vietnamese or cambodians
under communism.
The ignorance within just this excerpt is enough
to realise the exiguity of this poster's content.

First, the Vietnam War Opposition was not in anyway excusively a
'liberal' movement. There were more in the antiwar movement who
considered themselves to be on the left side of the political
bipolarity, but then again, it was more of them and theirs who
were getting fucked by the draft, thereby getting their assess
ezxposed to enemy fire in an urighteous war, as far too many
conservatives, due to the expression of double recessive genes
within their inbred populations, were deferred from the draft for
being afflicted with weak knees, jaundiced stomachs,
alabaster-hued livers, involuntary spchinters, under-developed
spinal cords, and uncontrollable bladders. It's always easy to
support war, when it is neither your blood nor personal treasure
being put at risk. Thus speaks the rectitude of their intent.

Kidding aside though...

As you seem to suffer from guilianitis, evidenced by your
preponderate sloth in an ongoing process of education, I've
developed a reading assignment list to help bring you up to speed
regarding American historical facts from The Vietnam War Era.

[--------------------------------------------------]

The primary document list used for citations in
The Miller Miller Center of Public Affairs'
formerly online presentation:
The Nixon Presidency - 30 Years After
Seeking a ‘Decent Interval’ Exit From Vietnam.
By Ken Hughes
---
H. R. 'Bob' Haldeman Diary Entry on Vietnam, December 21, 1970
Oval Office Conversation #451-23 Transcript - February 18, 1971
Oval Office Conversation #456-5 Transcript - February 23, 1971
Oval Office Conversation #465-8 Transcript - March 10, 1971
Oval Office Conversation #456-12 Transcript - March 11, 1971
Oval Office Conversation #471-2 Transcript - March 19, 1971
Oval Office Conversation #474-8 Transcript - March 26, 1971
Oval Office Conversation #475-16 Transcript - April 8, 1971
Oval Office Conversation #760-6 Transcript - August 3, 1972

------------
From The National Security Archives
--
Memorandum of Henry Kissinger's Secret meeting
with Chinese Prime Minister Chou Enlai,
Beijing, china, June 22, 1972
(also in attendence, NSA staffer John D. Negroponte)
Available from the NSA Archiuves for 3.1mb PDF file download
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB193/HAK%206-20-72.pdf>
--
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 66
The Beijing Washington Back-Channel
and Henry Kissinger's Secret Trip to China
September 1970-July 1971,
Edited by William Burr, Published February 27, 2002
<http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB66/>
--
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 70
Negotiating U.S.-Chinese Rapprochement
New American and Chinese Documention
Leading Up to Nixon's 1972 Trip
William Burr, editor, with Sharon Chamberlain (GWU)
Gao Bei, and Zhao Han (UV), May 22, 2002
<http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB70/>
--
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 135
The Kissinger State Department Telcons
Edited by Tom Blanton, William Burr and Peter Kornbluh,
October 1, 2004
<http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB135/index.htm>
--
Kissinger Transcripts and Related Material
<http://www.gwu.edu/%
7Ensarchiv/nsa/publications/DOC_readers/kissinger/docs/index.html>
Record of Historic Richard Nixon-Zhou Enlai Talks
in February 1972 Now Declassified
<http://www.gwu.edu/%
7Ensarchiv/nsa/publications/DOC_readers/kissinger/nixzhou/>

------------
Two books by Jeffrey P. Kimball Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Miami University Department of History
--
"Nixon's Vietnam War",
University Press of Kansas (November 1998), ISBN #: 0700609245
--
"The Vietnam War Files:
Uncovering the Secret History of Nixon Era Strategy"
University Press of Kansas (November 2003), ISBN #: 0700612831

[--------------------------------------------------]

Please refrain from discussing the causes for South Vietnam's fall
to North Vietnam until you finish this reading assignment.
I look forward to your further comments on this subject
after completion of this reading sometime in 2014.
Baldin Lee Pramer
2007-08-08 16:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by LMC Society
communists still waged war and in 1975, they called
for an all-out attack on south vietnam. south vietnam would turn into
a communist slave state.
And how did that work out, pal?

BLP
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...