Annie
Not So Junior Member
Tis possible! Watch the breath!
School Me Mainecoon
- Thread starter Sir Evil
- Start date
Tis possible! Watch the breath!
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Damon, you've no idea just how ironic that statement is in any thread in which Dixie has been participating.
Okay, it would be even funnier had Toby chimed in. Can't have everything though.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Damon, you've no idea just how ironic that statement is in any thread in which Dixie has been participating.
Okay, it would be even funnier had Toby chimed in. Can't have everything though.
Damon? Is this like claiming others are Dixie or something? I really hate when users can make multiple id's. I promise, this is my one and only here.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
It is amazing to me how low a rascal these scurvy scriveners take me for. Do they think me so uneducated, such an illiterate rube, that I might fail to recognize so obvious a reference as "Runyon?"
Annie
Not So Junior Member
It was unintentional, but I like it! I'm assuming this?
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
That's the stiff. Always writes in the present tense. It's quite annoying, really, but what can you do? He's got the swells in his pocket.
So, not Damon Runyon, eh? Okay. We'll just have to work on the code some more.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Well perhaps tomorrow, I think I better hang it up for tonight.
maineman
Banned
Ok Coon I thought this would be a better way for you to scool me, keep it in one thread as I noticed you like to jump around and get your quotes confused.
So Here goes, please school me in the following:
The Iraq Issue
Seeing as this has been the crying call of damn near the entire democratic party and more, school me on a few of these issues:
1 - How many resolutions were dealt with on Iraq?
2 - How long was Iraq an issue within the U.N?
3 - Would diplomacy been the ultimate answer?
4 - At the given time of the Iraq invasion and given the fact that we saw up close what terrorism was all about, was their a better way of handling Iraq?
And was there another country that was obviously more of an issue at that time?
5 - Now we are in the middle of a possible civil war within Iraq, and I never said the situation was ideal! What do we do next? and why?
I'll start it at that, answer whichever way you want, whenever you want, but just school me as you claim to be able to do so easily!
1. Nowhere near as many as have dealt with Israel, yet Bush did not feel compelled to invade, conquer, and occupy the Holy Land because of UN resolutions. This war was sold to America as a logical response to 9/11....not because we decided to invade the country with the most UN resolutions against it.
2. Again...nowhere near as long as Israel has been an issue...see #1 above.
3. The answer to what? To dealing with the wahabbist islamic extremists that attacked us on 9/11? NO. But, neither was invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq.
4. Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 was about as appropriate as invading Korea in response to Pearl Harbor. Iraq posed no threat to us. Colin Powell said as much, explicitly, months before 9/11. I was fully supportive of our invasion of Afghanistan, and Bush had my support for his aggressive foreign policy initiatives there up until we outsourced the capture of OBL at Tora Bora to a bunch of Afghan warlords who went into the hills and came back empty handed except for the bribe money spilling from their pockets. He lost me there and has never gotten me back. I do not think that our enemy should be viewed as a "country", but as a "philosophy" that does not reside in any one country and as a "condition" that is primarily caused by the socio-economic inequities that exist in the region and that the residents of that region rightly or wrongly ascribe, in large measure, to the actions of the west..
5. What do we do in regards to Iraq, or in regards to the war against Islamic extremism?
With regards to Iraq, we give the Iraqi government a date in the near future that we will leave their country and let them decide amongst themselves how they should be governed. I, for one, think that an Iraqi shiite dominated theocracy with close ties to Iran is infinitely worse than a baathist secular Iraq acting as a regional foil to Iranian hegemony, but we have already screwed that pooch and the current mess in Lebanon is a by-product of our misplaced aggession against Iraq and the resulting shift in the middle eastern house of cards.
With regards to the war against Islamic extremism, until we deal with the causes of it instead of simply attempting to stomp on it, we will not solve the problem. Simply killing muslims as a strategy for getting muslims to stop wanting to kill us is a strategy doomed for failure.
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
Ok Coonie, right of the bat we have some shitbrick answers! Israel is an ally, they have yet to show any signs of invading anyone just for the hell of it, or drop bombs for the sake of having the power. We are talking about tyranical regimes, would you say that Sharon has shown symptoms of being a madman?
Israel is very easily seen as a place that is an ally to nobody except us, especially during this latest conflict, There is some serious hatred towards the jews, and to be honest it almost sounds like you are one of them. Israel harbors no terrorists, no threats to us whatsoever! You act as though we bow to a bitty country as such is really silly!
So, you think that there was no need to deal with Iraq at al or what?
Holy shitbricks batman, George W actually had the blessings of Coonie!!!
Coonie, many of your like minded were for the Iraq war originally as well. I nor you will never know the truth behind the intelligence on that deal, but even without WMD's there was still plenty of cause for this invasion. It has been proven many times over that Iraq harbored terrorists, they had terrorist training camps. Perhaps they were unable to do the US harm directly by missle attack or such, but does this make it ok? Hell no! saddam was probably one of the biggest American haters going, he would of like nothing more then to see more attacks brought upon our soil. So why the change of heart by many of your kind? I see it as gutless to stand a course until things have changed. I'll grant you the fact that things look pretty shitty there, but still that is no reason to hightail it out!
I see that you are failing to see the many that we are fighting there fall right into the category of islamic extremists!
Fair enough! but what happens if the Iraqi government fails to secure itself? We will wind up with a bigger problem thanks to the extremists!
"The current mess in Lebanon is a by-product of our misplaced aggession against Iraq and the resulting shift in the middle eastern house of cards."?
Spoken like a true shitbrick! How do you figure this, or is it just your humble opinion? Look, Iran has already been know to be part of the axis of evil, they are the ones sending extremists into Iraq as well as Syria. The pink & the Brain think they are going to take over the entire middle east. If you cant see that the Israel-Lebanon conflict was simply about diverting attention away from Irans ambitions then you are simply just fooling yourself. It was an immediate diversion by Iran, and I don't think they expected the response that came of it.
Well Coonie, I'll give ya this, you have made a pretty good attempt here but for the most part you are just spewing out typical left handed rhetoric that can be read pretty much all around the net by your kind.
And what the hell does "dealing with the cause mean"? Should we take the time for a more diplomatic approach? should we be trying the hearts & minds routine? Blah, blah, blah....... That's all bullshit!!! We need to be even more aggresive on the war against terror! It's many like you that can't see the big picture of the extremist movement, they don't wanna win over your attention, they don't wanna make peace with you, they don't wanna know nothing from you, they wan't you dead, and that's the bottome line!!!!
Wake up coonie, you have a little ways to go before you go on to be a teacher of anything!
Chickenhawk bluster from someone who's unwilling to serve or die in an unnecessary war he helped start.
ChickenHawk update, August 19, 2006:
-22,000 dead, wounded and maimed american soldiers
-50-100,000 dead iraqi civilians
-350,000,000,000 Taxpayer dollars
-Final estimated cost for your war: 1 - 1.5 Trillion taxpayer $$$
ChickenHawk update, August 19, 2006:
-22,000 dead, wounded and maimed american soldiers
-50-100,000 dead iraqi civilians
-350,000,000,000 Taxpayer dollars
-Final estimated cost for your war: 1 - 1.5 Trillion taxpayer $$$
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
Cyphilis - Why pull your thumb out of your ass just to stick it in your mouth?
Highly intelligent refute to the discussion, where did ya copy & paste it from?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
bluster from someone who's unwilling to serve
You know what... you are right, we shouldn't have a voice if we aren't willing to serve, so you will back an immediate Constituional measure to only allow those currently serving in the military, the right to vote? If not, shut your bluster hole!
You know what... you are right, we shouldn't have a voice if we aren't willing to serve, so you will back an immediate Constituional measure to only allow those currently serving in the military, the right to vote? If not, shut your bluster hole!
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Bluster from "Living Legend", that's rich.
I'm trying to reason if you are insinuating that only those who have served should be able to speak? Or those that haven't can only speak if they agree with you? Or you agree that all should be able to voice their opinions?
Welcome Runyon!
ok, here's the scoop.... Maineman was in the Navy, a lifer, I believe...
Dixie did not serve in the military, because of some medical disability I believe is what he said....
So Maineman and Dixie have a LONG standing fight going on regarding this...
Thus, Dixie is being SARCASTIC and humorous in his response that you are questioning!
hope that helps!
care
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Welcome Runyon!
ok, here's the scoop.... Maineman was in the Navy, a lifer, I believe...
Dixie did not serve in the military, because of some medical disability I believe is what he said....
So Maineman and Dixie have a LONG standing fight going on regarding this...
Thus, Dixie is being SARCASTIC and humorous in his response that you are questioning!
hope that helps!
care
Thanks for the welcome and yes, that info. does help. I've seen vets taunted on some boards, as well as 'vets' saying that 'unless you serve/d, 'just shut up', neither of which are or should be part of an American dialogue, IMO.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Allow me to clarify... I am sick and tired of snot-nosed punks who want to call people names and whine and moan about people "unwilling to serve" in this war, having a valid opinion. I am fed up with ex-military jackasses, who seem to think their opinions are more valid and credible, and they have more freedom of speech, than those of people who were not able to serve or didn't serve. The notion that, if you didn't serve, or aren't ready to go sign up right now, you shouldn't have a voice or opinion about this war or any war.
Here is what I propose... We only allow those CURRENTLY serving to vote. I'll give up my right and allow that to be the rule from now on. This should satisfy the snot-noses, and put an end to the name calling and such. Yes, it's a bit sarcastic, I admit, but it solves the problem those who want to bitch seem to have. Next time a snot-nose pops off to you about why you're not in Iraq fighting this war, ask them if they would like to sign on to this initiative, if they are not willing to do this, they are not very sincere about their position.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Welcome Runyon!
ok, here's the scoop.... Maineman was in the Navy, a lifer, I believe...
Dixie did not serve in the military, because of some medical disability I believe is what he said....
So Maineman and Dixie have a LONG standing fight going on regarding this...
Thus, Dixie is being SARCASTIC and humorous in his response that you are questioning!
hope that helps!
care
My response was not to that person, I no longer speak to the person you mentioned, and cannot go into detail about the specifics, because Damo doesn't want it mentioned here. Suffice it to say, any parent would fully understand my concerns regarding the safety of my family, including my minor daughter, who he made very graphic public comments about. If you would like to send me a private message, I will be happy to divulge exactly what he said and what took place, and why I no longer speak to him. I promised Damo I would avoid posting it here, and I will honor my word.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I'm trying to reason if you are insinuating that only those who have served should be able to speak?
Not those who "have" served, those who are currently serving. If you are no longer in the military, your bacon isn't on the line anymore, you are really no different, or any more qualified to be making decisions about war, than someone who never served. So, let's put a rest to the rhetoric, let's all back a Constitutional Amendment to only allow people currently serving in our Armed Forces the right to vote. We either need to have a system, where we all have an equal voice, or we need to agree that only the ones risking their lives should have the voice. I can go either way.
Not those who "have" served, those who are currently serving. If you are no longer in the military, your bacon isn't on the line anymore, you are really no different, or any more qualified to be making decisions about war, than someone who never served. So, let's put a rest to the rhetoric, let's all back a Constitutional Amendment to only allow people currently serving in our Armed Forces the right to vote. We either need to have a system, where we all have an equal voice, or we need to agree that only the ones risking their lives should have the voice. I can go either way.