It's war time...

[LWW 10+ year member]

And, as I said, the Iraqi people have NOT asked to be saved..

Reality update trois. Listen to anyone who has managed to escape. Those inside Iraq CAN'T ask. The jews in Buchenwald never asked to be saved either. WAKE UP!

PEACE

 

[nswartley 5,000+ posts]

heres a thought: sadaam just fired some scud missles into kuwait that he claimed he didnt have!!!!!!!!!! let that settle a little bit.......HE WAS LYING DURING INSPECTIONS.....

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

If we aren't going to "take over the country", then why is there a TEN YEAR OCCUPATION plan in place? That's taking over the country until we get the new government trained the way we want them..

This isn't even fair game any more. We occupied Japan and Germany also...and instituted Democracies. Once a Government was stable we stopped running it and ALLOWED free elections. If they wanted to return to a miserable existence they could. They didn't.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Support him why? He wasn't even voted into office! His brother was the govener of the state that fukked up the voting so bad that it had to be discluded, and even without that state, he didn't have the most votes, the Supreme Court had to put him in office.. sheesh.. support someone like that? that shouldn't even be in office?

OOOPS! Another BS statement. Jeb Bush was Geo's campaign mgr in Fla and stepped aside once the controvesy began. Al's didn't. The Constitution decided who was President, the court only enforced it. The Florida Supreme Court was the one inventing law from the bench for it to even be a controversy. The law has been there since 1789. If you disagree with it work to change it. Unless you have evidence that Thomas Jefferson conspired for George W Bush to be president 214 years later you should learn what you are talking about.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

B) There has been no proof offered that Saddam had neuclear weapons.. He's been working with depelted uranium which means he could build them eventually, and I agree that that is a BAD idea.. but Bush certianly wasn't waiting because he was afraid of nukes..

Man don't you hate when the truth comes out. Saddam's bomb maker has fled to the US and has been testifying on this for years. Israel bombed their plant 20 yrs back.

Savant you don't recognize proof is the problem. Someone workingt on nuclear weapons is de facto intent to build them. DUH!

Dogma over fact.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

And you DID imply there was a link to Saddam and bin Laden when you brought up Sept 11..

**** those truths. How about an airline simulator in Baghdad being used by the 9/11 terror pigs? How about one of Saddam's thugs meeting a 9/11 terror pig in Bulgaria? How about Iraq accepting Taliban in their country?

PEACE

 

[nswartley 5,000+ posts]

why dont we pay more attention to syria....no one ever talks about syria and i am POSITIVE that they are harboring many a terrorist...

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Now.. this I'm not sure of.. Saudi Arabia, if I recall correctly, produces 98% of the oil that we use..

You didn't Savant. Our #1 oil supplier is...CANADA. That of course explains why we have invaded them so many times.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

First off, THIS IS NOT A HUMANITARIAN ENDEAVOR.. that means, we are NOT there to help the Iraqi people!!!!! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL

Get this trough your thick skull Savant you have been so discredited are so full of your own bile that you can't recognize reality.

PEACE

 

[nswartley 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by LWW You didn't Savant. Our #1 oil supplier is...CANADA. That of course explains why we have invaded them so many times.

 

PEACE

dumb comparison...canada hasnt been hostile towards us since pre-1900s...

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Now Savant I hate to tee off on you but since joining the forum I have noticed you love to pick a fight, call names, and then cry foul if someone responds. I call it the bait and beotch approach.

Someone earlier stated they hate you. I don't. I feel sorry for you man. You seem to be so miserable with your existence that you have to blame every problem on someone...and on the big stuff that means your homeland. You spout the most foolish pap that I have seen...merely regurgitating the AlBore liberal mantra regardless of it's veracity. Your arguments are for the most part intellectually bankrupt.

The funny part is that in spite of proving your own imbecility you hang a moniker on yourself implying genius. You try to buffalo the uneducated with big words you can't even spell.

In the real world you remind me most of Don King.

Sorry but I have to call them as I see them...and I see you as a common internet troll.

I have tried to talk peacefully and in a civil manner with you, as have others, but instead you insist upon wallowing in the slop. A shame.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

dumb comparison...canada hasnt been hostile towards us since pre-1900s...

Sorry. My analogy was to DISPROVE the "it's only because we want their oil" BS. That and that Savant as usual hasa no clue.

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by nswartley heres a thought: sadaam just fired some scud missles into kuwait that he claimed he didnt have!!!!!!!!!! let that settle a little bit.......HE WAS LYING DURING INSPECTIONS.....

Actually, there are NO confirmed reports that they are Scud missles..

Also, the 'burning' oil fields haven't been confirmed yet either, they are 'supposing' they are on fire from sattelite photos.. Is it very possible they are on fire? yes.. is it known yet? no..

 

[jlaine 10+ year member]

Bravo LWW, well handled retort(s).

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW You didn't Savant. Our #1 oil supplier is...CANADA. That of course explains why we have invaded them so many times.

 

PEACE

Oops.. I was mistaken.. it's that 95% of all Saudi exports is oil, they only posses 25% of all the world's oil.. my bad..

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html

Saudi Arabia (including half of the Saudi-Kuwaiti "Neutral Zone") contains 264.2 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (more than one-fourth of the world total)

Yes, Canada was the supplier leader for 2002 (first 9 months), can't find anything beyond that yet.. it was 0.4 MMBD ahead of Saudi Arabia (1.5 MMBD versus the 1.9 MMBD from Canada).. so yes, Canada is our leading supplier.. Wonder if that has anything to do with the physical locality of it all.. But, yes.. as you pointed out.. I was mistaken.. Saudi Arabia only supplies about ~25% of all our oil.. I hadn't looked into that stuff.. probably should have.. the only thing I've seen on any of that was the Saudi link about a month ago..

*sigh* Nice how you took parts from many different posts and made many new posts from them, a lot of the quotes are out of context or used despite the explination being on the next line in the original post.. I'll try to make some sense of the chaotic diversion you are attempting to make..

I said no proof of a connection to Saddam and bin Laden.. you said

**** those truths. How about an airline simulator in Baghdad being used by the 9/11 terror pigs? How about one of Saddam's thugs meeting a 9/11 terror pig in Bulgaria? How about Iraq accepting Taliban in their country?

And they got flying liscenses in the US.. does that mean Clinton was part of the terrorist movement? Ever hear of spies (point 2).. based on a statment about my having heard on the news that there was a tape with bin Laden denouncing Sadam a few years ago.. There are a LOT of middle eastern countries with Taliban in their country.. You are trying to use circumstantial evidence to make the connection, that's not proof.. one could make the same false logic leaps to connect our leaders to many things around the world.. That's why our judicial system requires 'reasonable proof'.. bank statements, pictures, testimony.. not 'there was a simulator a city of Iraq'.. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

To nukes.. you said the SAME thing I did, only tried to make it look I didn't say it.. nice..

Savant you don't recognize proof is the problem. Someone workingt on nuclear weapons is de facto intent to build them. DUH!

I agree completely, but that does NOT mean HE HAS nukes.. why is this even being brought up? other than you don't have enough things of substance to argue about.. I've noticed I've made MANY points, you only picked a very few to contest (true, some are legitimate, like the Saudi thing, that was my bad.. and I have no issues admitting it)..

Anyway, more..

Oil fields.. not secured.. 'probably' buring a few at the moment (not confirmed).. why didn't we drop a few thousand troops in the fields if we were really that worried about it? They aren't secured yet.. but once they are, AFTER they are burning now (no chance of preventing eco-disaster now, it's happening), it will be to 'control' them..

:I don't doubt for a SECOND that he knows Saddam is planning on dropping chem/bio weaps on us but went into war anyway (instead of trying to coax the gun out of the jumper's hand)..Savant my friend in another thread you are whining how their is no evicence they even have this stuff. Whassupwiddat?

In context, I was saying that Bush is claiming there will be significant loss of life.. So if he 'believes' they have the weapons, his inteligence people probably told him he'd use them.. does he have these things? we don't know yet.. Bush says he does.. we don't know cause we didn't inspect everything.. if he has them will he use them? I think so.. would it have been better to keep looking to make sure they weren't there? better than finding out by sending in troops.. if you ask me..

The Hitler comparison.. As I said, there are a LOT of nasty leaders in the world (over time for the most part).. their common thread is they are nasty people.. However, Hitler had the RESPECT of his population.. and was very expansionistic.. and IMPROVED HIS COUNTRY.. nasty person, but not like Saddam.. if anything, Saddam is worse .. why? nasty and NOT helping his country, NOT liked/respected by his people (don't even bother pointing out where I said this isn't humanitarian, I'll get to that again).. Totally different than Hitler.. AND, we have Saddam contained.. Yes, he tried to waltz into Kuait.. we stopped him.. was that justified? I think so.. is being in there NOW justified? not for the reasons (or, more to the point, lack of commitment to) we are in there.. it started as a call of correlation to Sept. 11, then went to disarming based on the UN, then it became to liberate the citizens.. Again, WE DO NOT DO HUMANITARIAN ACTS like that.. not with the military machine.. Every time it's been used as an excuse, it was a guise..

So, the humanitarian aspect.. How many people from forgien countries come here and say they hate their old country? most, I'd say (when you are talking about near 3rd world countries like Iraq/Iran/etc).. Does Saddam ****? yes.. he does.. Are we going to make life better for all Iraqis if/when Saddam is gone/killed? Yes.. is that WHY we are there? NO.. why is that hard to believe? We have NEVER (that I can recall) started an all out war, especially against the UN, for humanitarian reasons.. if we have, show me where/when.. Vietnam doesn't even count because it wasn't a war! it was a police action, like when we went to Korea.. We don't go to war to help anyone because they are suffereing, we go to war to protect our economic and power interests.. that's it..

The occupancy thing shouldn't even have been commented on by you, it was a perfectly valid rebuttle to someone elses statement.. yet, you try to turn it around (another useless point, by the way, lacking any substantial debunking of most of my points).. Someone else said we aren't there to take over the country, that is FALSE.. we WILL take over the country... So I guess you and I agree on that point, yet you try and make it look like I don't know what I'm saying? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

I don't even know where to begin with the election thing.. All I can say is that I'm pretty sure I recall hearing that Jeb was govener in FL.. FL had a shit load of problems with the ballots/voting, then a LOT of military votes were not even looked at by the time the end came.. Al Gore didn't have any family in the government in Florida, unless I missed something.. And Bush was put into office by the court, which 'interprets' the constitution.. The whole thing was still under investigation (I thought) when Sept. 11 happened.. I could be wrong, but I thought I heard a blurb or two about it.. Not to mention the reaction of the comedy world who jumps on things like that, normally based largely on fact (not to say that watching comedians is a good way to catch up on current events...).. Bottom line, it was a fiasco of an election and to imply someone should support the President in light of the entire mess is irresponsible and .. well.. ignorant.. You should only support someone/something if you believe in it.. otherwise you are a hypocrit.. What 'should' have happened was a totally new election.. nothing less..

I feel sorry for you man. You seem to be so miserable with your existence that you have to blame every problem on someone.

Now you sound like LuRp.. Dude, I'm far from miserable.. and I don't blame anyone for my problems, unless there is a direct correlation (meaning, I don't remove myself from blame if there is blame to be placed on me. and if there is blame to be placed on something external to me, I point that out too)..

Sorry but I have to call them as I see them...and I see you as a common internet troll.

One of us doesn't understand what a troll is.. I'm under the impression that a troll is when someone takes on a different identity than what they are know by (I've always and only been Savant on this forum) to try and stirr up trouble or add support to their alter-ego.. In that context (troll as I understand it), I'm far from a troll..

I have tried to talk peacefully and in a civil manner with you, as have others, but instead you insist upon wallowing in the slop. A shame.

Not sure exactly what you mean, I spend much more time being civil in debating here than most that oppose my views or opinions.. Sure, I degenerate to tossing insults on occasion, but it's difficult maintaing composure when you have to repeat yourself many times to try and have someone actually read and understand (not agree with, just understand) what you are saying..