N.O.W. says Ted Kennedy guilty of "the ultimate betrayal"!!!

Darla said:
I'm far less upset about being wrong, than I am that NY NOW published that thing. I'm pretty shocked about that. As for Acorn - I guess when you go from right wing blog to right wing blog, posting gossip and rumors, eventually one of the stories will turn out to be true. I mean, even The Globe gets it right now and then.
Click to expand...

law of averages.

it was bound to happen.
 
Superfreak said:
Dumbshit... how many times must it be explained to you?

The second Saddam thought we weren't serious about going in he would have continued the shell game. You completely ignore the fact that he played the UN for fools for 12 fucking years. Yet act as though THIS time it would have been different.

You also continue to ignore those Iraqis we were killing via the sanctions. But you really don't care about them do you baby killer? Who gives a fuck how many of them starve due to the sanctions? As long as you can sit back in the good ole USA and bitch about Bush.... fuck the kids.... let em starve.

But I know.... "it would have all worked out in the greatest of all miracles.... all sunshine and roses because Michael Moore told you how nice it was in Iraq prior to the evil Bush invading".

You have yet to actually DISCUSS this lorax... you simply continue with your Cypress trained one liners about nothing.

Blix and the UN failed. They had 12 years. For you to act as though they were suddenly going to be functional is pathetic at best. But again, with your head up the Dems ass, you are forced to eat the shit they produce for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for doing your Iraq song and dance.
 
"The second Saddam thought we weren't serious about going in he would have continued the shell game. You completely ignore the fact that he played the UN for fools for 12 fucking years. Yet act as though THIS time it would have been different."

You are super-retarded.

It WAS different, because troops were amassed at the border. Did you miss that? I can dig up some articles if you'd like. You see, Saddam saw those troops, realized we were serious, and he allowed UN inspectors UNFETTERED ACCESS to ALL suspected sites. This was early March, 2003. You should read Hans Blix's report to Congress from that time. No shell game was going on, and none would have transpired as long as we had troops on the border; they were carrying out inspections and no one was stopping them.

But, I forget, you're a fucking idiot who would rather that 150,000 people die than allow that to continue. Smart move, Bush lover; you're a brilliant strategist. That really worked out well, too....
 
Superfreak said:
Dumbshit... how many times must it be explained to you?

The second Saddam thought we weren't serious about going in he would have continued the shell game. You completely ignore the fact that he played the UN for fools for 12 fucking years. Yet act as though THIS time it would have been different.

You also continue to ignore those Iraqis we were killing via the sanctions. But you really don't care about them do you baby killer? Who gives a fuck how many of them starve due to the sanctions? As long as you can sit back in the good ole USA and bitch about Bush.... fuck the kids.... let em starve.

But I know.... "it would have all worked out in the greatest of all miracles.... all sunshine and roses because Michael Moore told you how nice it was in Iraq prior to the evil Bush invading".

You have yet to actually DISCUSS this lorax... you simply continue with your Cypress trained one liners about nothing.

Blix and the UN failed. They had 12 years. For you to act as though they were suddenly going to be functional is pathetic at best. But again, with your head up the Dems ass, you are forced to eat the shit they produce for you.
Click to expand...


I wish you lived in NY, i would love for you to come to an event we are having and watch a documentary we are showing.

you are correct about the sanctions, but wrong about the war. Both killed an unfathomable amount of children. And why? Why? What reason on God's green earth can there be for any of this?

There are no WMD's, but even if there were, if you could see what we have done, through three adminstrations now, in that country, you would know in your heart that there could never be any reason for such a monstrosity, never.
 
Onceler said:
"The second Saddam thought we weren't serious about going in he would have continued the shell game. You completely ignore the fact that he played the UN for fools for 12 fucking years. Yet act as though THIS time it would have been different."

You are super-retarded.

It WAS different, because troops were amassed at the border. Did you miss that? I can dig up some articles if you'd like. You see, Saddam saw those troops, realized we were serious, and he allowed UN inspectors UNFETTERED ACCESS to ALL suspected sites. This was early March, 2003. You should read Hans Blix's report to Congress from that time. No shell game was going on, and none would have transpired as long as we had troops on the border; they were carrying out inspections and no one was stopping them.

But, I forget, you're a fucking idiot who would rather that 150,000 people die than allow that to continue. Smart move, Bush lover; you're a brilliant strategist. That really worked out well, too....
Click to expand...


Really, because it seems what you forgot is the fact that I said quite clearly that Bush should not have gone in when he did. That he should have waited until we were done in Afghanistan. Hence the whole "bad timing" argument.

Again, yes the troops on the border were what pushed Saddam to allow the UN back in. Yes, it likely would have worked for a while longer. But to act as though it would have worked indefinitely is naive. Saddam could have come clean at any point... yet he did not..... WHY lorax? Because he wanted to continue to make people believe that he had WMDs. Yet YOU think that was somehow going to change. That eventually he would have said..... "I was just messing with y'all.... I don't have any WMDs"

You continue to act as though our searching suspected sites would have done anything but confirm that there were no WMDs at suspected sites. Big fucking deal.... those sanctions were not going to be lifted and given the fradulent oil for food fiasco, we were never going to get UN Sec Council approval to go in.

Yes, we could have sat on the border and "contained" Saddam for the next fifty years. The loss of US lives would not have been as high. But the cost of Iraqi lives would have been.

Please, continue to ignore the chants of "millions of Iraqis are starving to death (including the Iraqi kids lorax) " that we continually heard prior to the war. Please continue to ignore all the Iraqis killed by Saddam during the 12 years that Saddam jerked off the UN. Please continue to live in your fantasy world where diplomacy miraculously works right in the nick of time.... despite the obvious failures of it for 12 years prior.

Yeah, you are right Lorax.... how could anyone think the removal of Saddam by force was inevitable.
 
Superfreak said:
Really, because it seems what you forgot is the fact that I said quite clearly that Bush should not have gone in when he did. That he should have waited until we were done in Afghanistan. Hence the whole "bad timing" argument.

Again, yes the troops on the border were what pushed Saddam to allow the UN back in. Yes, it likely would have worked for a while longer. But to act as though it would have worked indefinitely is naive. Saddam could have come clean at any point... yet he did not..... WHY lorax? Because he wanted to continue to make people believe that he had WMDs. Yet YOU think that was somehow going to change. That eventually he would have said..... "I was just messing with y'all.... I don't have any WMDs"

You continue to act as though our searching suspected sites would have done anything but confirm that there were no WMDs at suspected sites. Big fucking deal.... those sanctions were not going to be lifted and given the fradulent oil for food fiasco, we were never going to get UN Sec Council approval to go in.

Yes, we could have sat on the border and "contained" Saddam for the next fifty years. The loss of US lives would not have been as high. But the cost of Iraqi lives would have been.

Please, continue to ignore the chants of "millions of Iraqis are starving to death (including the Iraqi kids lorax) " that we continually heard prior to the war. Please continue to ignore all the Iraqis killed by Saddam during the 12 years that Saddam jerked off the UN. Please continue to live in your fantasy world where diplomacy miraculously works right in the nick of time.... despite the obvious failures of it for 12 years prior.

Yeah, you are right Lorax.... how could anyone think the removal of Saddam by force was inevitable.
Click to expand...


So because Saddam "made us think" that he had wmds, the lives lost were justified?

What if he did have WMD's? Then would it be ok to starve to death, and deny medical care to half a million children? Then would it be ok to kill hundreds of thousands of more in a war?

Would it really?
 
Darla said:
I wish you lived in NY, i would love for you to come to an event we are having and watch a documentary we are showing.

you are correct about the sanctions, but wrong about the war. Both killed an unfathomable amount of children. And why? Why? What reason on God's green earth can there be for any of this?

There are no WMD's, but even if there were, if you could see what we have done, through three adminstrations now, in that country, you would know in your heart that there could never be any reason for such a monstrosity, never.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I am wrong about the war. Bush fucked it up. That is my position on the war. What Lorax has a hard time understanding is that the outcome from Bush's fuckups is not the only possible outcome the war could have had.

We could have easily gone in, removed Saddam, left the Iraqi army intact and pulled back out after Saddam was gone. We did not need to stay. We could have immediately removed the sanctions.

If a cival war broke out, then it would have been Iraqi on Iraqi and not seen as occupation.

What lorax cannot seem to fathom is that the vast majority of the dead in Iraq since the start of the war have been Iraqi on Iraqi or terrorist on Iraqi.

What lorax cannot fathom is that as long as Saddam was there, we (the US and UK) were not going to allow santions to be lifted. As long as they had skirted the oil for food program, France, Russia and China were not going to all UN approval for the war. The UN was inept and everyone knew it.
 
Uhhh...your wonderful UN..........

Darla said:
So because Saddam "made us think" that he had wmds, the lives lost were justified?

What if he did have WMD's? Then would it be ok to starve to death, and deny medical care to half a million children? Then would it be ok to kill hundreds of thousands of more in a war?

Would it really?
Click to expand...


Placed the sanctions and stole money as kick backs from Saddam...and there were very few collaterral deaths of children from military action...most were killed by suicide bombers,terrorist hit squads and IED's...at least be honest once and awhile!
 
Darla said:
So because Saddam "made us think" that he had wmds, the lives lost were justified?

What if he did have WMD's? Then would it be ok to starve to death, and deny medical care to half a million children? Then would it be ok to kill hundreds of thousands of more in a war?

Would it really?
Click to expand...

No, the lives lost were not justified. Again, saying that the war was inevitable (in my opinion) does not mean that I agree with how Bush handled this war.

No, the sanctions were a cluster fuck. The only way sanctions can work is if you actually ensure that they are hurting those that are supposed to be hurt (Saddam and Co) and NOT hurting the ones you are trying to help (the Iraqi people).

The only one saying it is "ok" to kill thousands is Lorax via his strawman attmepts.
 
Darla said:
I admitted I was clearly wrong, and I’m terribly disappointed that NY NOW published this, which I would never have believed, it doesn’t even read as if it were written by an adult.

However, no I do not apologize to right wing pieces of shit.

Let me know when one of you guys apologize for murdering babies overseas in one of your wars, and then I will rethink that. Until then, eat shit, or better yet, hold your breath waiting for your apology.
Click to expand...
This is a bullshit statement. Babies DO die in wars, as do children, and adults. It is one of the horrible aspects of war, sometimes a member of the military or even a small group of those members will commit crimes during war. They typically get caught and go to prison for a long damn time. But to point the finger at all of us "guys" as murders of babies is the height of intellectual dishonesty and disrespects the majority of us that served our country proudly and honorably.
 
Superfreak said:
Really, because it seems what you forgot is the fact that I said quite clearly that Bush should not have gone in when he did. That he should have waited until we were done in Afghanistan. Hence the whole "bad timing" argument.

Again, yes the troops on the border were what pushed Saddam to allow the UN back in. Yes, it likely would have worked for a while longer. But to act as though it would have worked indefinitely is naive. Saddam could have come clean at any point... yet he did not..... WHY lorax? Because he wanted to continue to make people believe that he had WMDs. Yet YOU think that was somehow going to change. That eventually he would have said..... "I was just messing with y'all.... I don't have any WMDs"

You continue to act as though our searching suspected sites would have done anything but confirm that there were no WMDs at suspected sites. Big fucking deal.... those sanctions were not going to be lifted and given the fradulent oil for food fiasco, we were never going to get UN Sec Council approval to go in.

Yes, we could have sat on the border and "contained" Saddam for the next fifty years. The loss of US lives would not have been as high. But the cost of Iraqi lives would have been.

Please, continue to ignore the chants of "millions of Iraqis are starving to death (including the Iraqi kids lorax) " that we continually heard prior to the war. Please continue to ignore all the Iraqis killed by Saddam during the 12 years that Saddam jerked off the UN. Please continue to live in your fantasy world where diplomacy miraculously works right in the nick of time.... despite the obvious failures of it for 12 years prior.

Yeah, you are right Lorax.... how could anyone think the removal of Saddam by force was inevitable.
Click to expand...

We wouldn't have to sit on the border for 50 years. Inspections were working; once completed, we'd know he wasn't a threat, and they could be withdrawn.

If he kept "thumbing his nose" at that point, we send 'em back every few years. I don't care what kind of math you use; doing that would be a hell of a lot less expensive than the alternative. And I don't think it would be necessary. As both Rice & Powell said in '01, he was contained, and NO threat to America, by any stretch of the imagination. They said he wasn't even a threat to his neighbors.

War is a last resort, Superfreak; to be used ONLY when all other options have been exhausted. If you haven't learned that by now, I can't help you. I just hope that the people we elect do not think as you do, and do not engage in war with any other philisophy than that.

There is a reason Bush Sr. didn't go to Bagdhad in the 1st Gulf War. It never would have been as easy as you portray - "just slip in, take out Saddam, keep the Iraqi army intact & slip out" - that's fantasy.

I'm so sick & tired of you apologists - and that is what you are - try to justify this war with excuses about bad timing, and empty words about "17 UN resolutions" (which, I'll point out again, seem to have worked). You have no comprehension for the human suffering caused by your inability to think creatively or intelligently about the situation with Iraq, and that applies no matter what the "timing" is.
 
Socrtease said:
This is a bullshit statement. Babies DO die in wars, as do children, and adults. It is one of the horrible aspects of war, sometimes a member of the military or even a small group of those members will commit crimes during war. They typically get caught and go to prison for a long damn time. But to point the finger at all of us "guys" as murders of babies is the height of intellectual dishonesty and disrespects the majority of us that served our country proudly and honorably.
Click to expand...

Um, I meant right wing war supporters. Not gender, and not soldiers.
Touchy much?
 
Superfreak said:
No, the lives lost were not justified. Again, saying that the war was inevitable (in my opinion) does not mean that I agree with how Bush handled this war.

No, the sanctions were a cluster fuck. The only way sanctions can work is if you actually ensure that they are hurting those that are supposed to be hurt (Saddam and Co) and NOT hurting the ones you are trying to help (the Iraqi people).

The only one saying it is "ok" to kill thousands is Lorax via his strawman attmepts.
Click to expand...

You know what, we have no business telling other countries what weapons they can or cannot have, period. That makes us arrogant and brash and somewhat stupid. Enforcing our decrees by murdering their children, is what makes us evil.

It’s really very clear to me. Clearer than anything ever could be.
 
Onceler said:
We wouldn't have to sit on the border for 50 years. Inspections were working; once completed, we'd know he wasn't a threat, and they could be withdrawn.

If he kept "thumbing his nose" at that point, we send 'em back every few years. I don't care what kind of math you use; doing that would be a hell of a lot less expensive than the alternative. And I don't think it would be necessary. As both Rice & Powell said in '01, he was contained, and NO threat to America, by any stretch of the imagination. They said he wasn't even a threat to his neighbors.

War is a last resort, Superfreak; to be used ONLY when all other options have been exhausted. If you haven't learned that by now, I can't help you. I just hope that the people we elect do not think as you do, and do not engage in war with any other philisophy than that.

There is a reason Bush Sr. didn't go to Bagdhad in the 1st Gulf War. It never would have been as easy as you portray - "just slip in, take out Saddam, keep the Iraqi army intact & slip out" - that's fantasy.

I'm so sick & tired of you apologists - and that is what you are - try to justify this war with excuses about bad timing, and empty words about "17 UN resolutions" (which, I'll point out again, seem to have worked). You have no comprehension for the human suffering caused by your inability to think creatively or intelligently about the situation with Iraq, and that applies no matter what the "timing" is.
Click to expand...

Again with the cost analysis.... I agreed that the cost of doing what you suggested is lower than what Bush has done. I have said time and again that Bush has fucked this war up completely. Yet you continjue to attempt to lump my position with what Bush has done. Why lorax? They are not the same position and you know it. So you are either playing ignorant, because that supports your position better or you are being deliberately dishonest. So are you an idiot or a liar?

You are correct.... war IS a last resort. A last resort of 12 years of failed diplomacy. I never said it would be easy or that there wouldn't be a cival war had we gone in and removed Saddam while leaving the Iraqi Army in tact.

The only one of us pretending their way would be easy is you.

Again you come out with your tired old attempts to build your strawman. ENough of your bullshit. You think that your OPINION is somehow equated to fact. You think that your BELIEFS of what might have happened are somehow more accurate than mine.

again, when in doubt.... call your opponent a Bush appologist and then act like that makes you correct. What a lazy and pathetic argument that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top