Anti-war Protesters Target Wounded At Army Hospital

[5:01 am]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS TARGET WOUNDED AT ARMY HOSPITAL
Wed Aug 2005 24 21:20:05 ET

Anti-war protestors besieged wounded and disabled soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C, a new web report will claim!

CNSNews.com is planning to run an expose on Thursday featuring interviews with both protestors and veterans, as well as shots of protest signs with slogans like “Maimed for a Lie.”

The conservative outlet will post video evidence of the wounded veterans being taunted by protesters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Developing late...

[Nickdfresh]

Sounds really credible.:rolleyes:

[DLR'sCock]

cough bullshit! cough



I wouldn't put this past the GOP lunatic nut jobs to stage such an event.

[FORD]

http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Bullshit-Negation_in-color_small-Sign.gif

[lucky wilbury]

anyone want to bet that this has somthing to do with the "code pink" protests at walter reed?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by 5:01 am
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

.

That's all I needed to read :rolleyes:


www.fatfaginahatreport.com

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
anyone want to bet that this has somthing to do with the "code pink" protests at walter reed?

Code pink ?

Must be Neo-speak for anything to do with Rove/Scotty/Gannon/Drudge/Mehlmen

[lucky wilbury]

right :rolleyes: why don't you google it and tell us what you find .

[FORD]

Hey, look who stopped hiding behind an alias....

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by FORD
Hey, look who stopped hiding behind an alias....

Hey, I know Lucky personally. He wasn't hiding behind an alias. Trust me.

[Ally_Kat]

This is a new low and pissed me off. You want to bitch at someone and taunt someone about hte war, how about aiming it at the politicians incharge. Leave our boys and gals alone. Protestors love to compare this to Vietnam. I guess we're going to start treating returning troops like we did back in Vietnam, too.

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
right :rolleyes: why don't you google it and tell us what you find .

No, why don't you not post here aymore, it's been more than 2 years and no WMD's....



This is nothing more than outrageous fucking bullshit lie.


Fuck Off warmongering right wing lunatic murdering scumbags. Your time is happening now.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
No, why don't you not post here aymore, it's been more than 2 years and no WMD's....


whats the matter COCK? don't like getting proven wrong? maybe there was wmd's on that imanginary missle you saw or better yet maybe our troops which you called "murders" and who you claimed were going to "slaughter" 500,000 people made all the wmd's disappear or better yet maybe bubba made them disappear in 98 or maybe it was kerry who made them disappear after he proclaimed their existance



Originally posted by DLR'sCock
This is nothing more than outrageous fucking bullshit lie.


right :rolleyes: you google code pink then you fucking cock sucking loser. maybe you can join their little protest

http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=178

maybe you should look into mmmmky. but then again if its not bush evil bush bad its all wrong maybe this is like your imgainary missles. code pink doesn't exist! but they have their own imaginary website


Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Fuck Off warmongering right wing lunatic murdering scumbags. Your time is happening now.


your time is happening now? ha ha too funny. and kerry is president in your imginary world too right?

[lucky wilbury]

heres a link that has pics of code pink protesting:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437364/posts

[lucky wilbury]

http://www.rense.com/general63/lnwe.htm

"The American public has very limited information about the real impact of this war," said Ellen Taylor, a spokeswoman for Code Pink, a peace group that has been protesting outside the Walter Reed military hospital in Washington, where the bulk of the wounded are taken. "I think that a lot of information about this war is being kept from the public. That is what we are protesting about."

[lucky wilbury]

theres a little search site called google.com maybe you people should try it. here a little search tip try:

code pink walter reed

and pick your site

[FORD]

Free Republic is your back up of Drudge??

Agent Z, you're gonna have to do better than that :rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Hey, I know Lucky personally. He wasn't hiding behind an alias. Trust me.

5:01 AM is LW/Agent Zimmerman. I ran that IP months ago. I wasn't aware that you knew him personally. Don't tell me you're CIA too? :eek:

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by FORD
Free Republic is your back up of Drudge??

Agent Z, you're gonna have to do better than that :rolleyes:

so pics of the actual protesters isn't enough for you? even the the othe article isn't good enough? look at the pics and read the captions. but again back to my original point anyone want to place bets on if the people in this news artilce are from code pink? apparently they are out there every week click the link in the other post for time and place. we'll just have to wait and see whats in this news atricle when it comes out now won't we.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
whats the matter COCK? don't like getting proven wrong? maybe there was wmd's on that imanginary missle you saw or better yet maybe our troops which you called "murders" and who you claimed were going to "slaughter" 500,000 people made all the wmd's disappear or better yet maybe bubba made them disappear in 98 or maybe it was kerry who made them disappear after he proclaimed their existance


HUSSEIN made the WMD's disappear, he just couldn't make the oil "disappear."

I'm glad you brought up "BUBBA", that pancea for all mindless right wing syncophants as they wonder why the policy of Neo CON mythology is failing...

But GEORGE I is most to blame for the slaughter as he stood by and kept the toops on the sidelines as SADDAM's forces butchered the KURDS and SHIITES in 91', that's where most of those mass graves are from...

By the way LUCKY, are you going to bring up the Post WAR GERMANY circa 1945-46 analogy again and claim we're not really in a war?:rolleyes:





right :rolleyes: you google code pink then you fucking cock sucking loser. maybe you can join their little protest

http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=178

maybe you should look into mmmmky. but then again if its not bush evil bush bad its all wrong maybe this is like your imgainary missles. code pink doesn't exist! but they have their own imaginary website
...


Ha ha! You do that with CLINTON all the time...Pot ---> meet tea kettle....

[Nickdfresh]

OMG!! A bunch of women held "vigil" for the wounded at WALTER REED!


From "Code PINK"
Friday 26 August, 7-9 PM (every Friday)
CODEPINK Vigil Walter Reed Army Medical Center
7200 Georgia Ave., at Elder St., NW.
Let us know if your organization would be interested in helping with the vigil. For more information on the weekly Vigil contact: Ann Wilcox 202-441-3265; Ellen Taylor: 202-270-1861, dc@codepinkalert.org
DOWNLOADABLE FLYER!



Nice spin job, but isn't that getting harder and harder for you...;)

[Nickdfresh]

http://www.kintera.org/AccountTempFiles/Account2711/images/22584_Picture813.jpg

Yeah baby!!

The POWER of =(BREASTS)= compells you!

[BigBadBrian]

Here's a picture of these Code Pink cunts protesting at Walter Reed. Pitiful turnout, huh?

http://image61.webshots.com/161/5/41/69/390354169ZiaWda_ph.jpg

[BigBadBrian]

Code Pink Cunts arguing with military members and famiies on their way in to see loved ones. Bitches!!!!!

http://image61.webshots.com/161/1/66/44/390316644rDTusP_ph.jpg

[BigBadBrian]

Counter Protesters to Code Pink. The DC Chapter of Free Republic. Feel Free to make a donation. ;)

http://image50.webshots.com/50/1/48/41/390314841wQyMwY_ph.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Who was doing the arguing?

Exactly what was said?

[5:01 am]

it was code pink:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200508\SPE20050825a.html

Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 25, 2005

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.

One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."

Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.

On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.

But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.

"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.

Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."

When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."

Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.

"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.

At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.

"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.

Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.

[5:01 am]

double post

[FORD]

So, let's see.... we have Drudge, Freak Republic, and CNS "news".

I'm still waiting for one reliable source on this. The Busheep are so goddamn desperate to stop the momentum of what Cindy Sheehan started that they are capable of almost anything right now, including a complete hoax like this.

[lucky wilbury]

so code pinks own website isn't relieable enough for you?

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
HUSSEIN made the WMD's disappear, he just couldn't make the oil "disappear."



right it s all about oil if it was about oil don't you think we would have gone after a country that hates us and has loads of oil to boot in our own hemisphere like venezula? or better yet canada or mexico. you know the three largest importers of oil to the us.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm glad you brought up "BUBBA", that pancea for all mindless right wing syncophants as they wonder why the policy of Neo CON mythology is failing...




1.why don't you read the iraq liberation act or pl 235 and tell me who wrote the policy on getting rid of iraq. heres a hint those laws are from 1998 so it ain't bush. heres another it establishes the law that says the us policy towards iraq is regime change and it lays out the case of wmd and connections to terrorists. google and read them mmmky.

2. you still haven't learned what the wolrd neo con means have you? you just keep repeating because you a good liittle sheep know don't you.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But GEORGE I is most to blame for the slaughter as he stood by and kept the toops on the sidelines as SADDAM's forces butchered the KURDS and SHIITES in 91', that's where most of those mass graves are from...



no. saddam was doing the mass grave thing on an almotst weekly basis. some were from 91 but of that would only account for 1/3 of the people in graves.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
By the way LUCKY, are you going to bring up the Post WAR GERMANY circa 1945-46 analogy again and claim we're not really in a war?



are you going to continue posting saying people said this or that even thought they never said it at all? well i consider a war between two standing armies but if you going to call terrorist bombings and they are terrorist bombings even according to the iraqis themselves who call the bombers terrorists a war then i guess you would have to call the faln assult on nyc in the late 70's early 80s a war since they too were bombing police stations,targeting police and politicians etc etc etc



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Ha ha! You do that with CLINTON all the time...Pot ---> meet tea kettle....



did you even read they point that you respnded to with this?

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
so code pinks own website isn't relieable enough for you?

The Code Pink website suggests that this is a vigil designed to SUPPORT the troops by calling attention to their injuries.

http://www.codepink4peace.org/downloads/WR_Vigil_half_flyer.pdf

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
The Code Pink website suggests that this is a vigil designed to SUPPORT the troops by calling attention to their injuries.

http://www.codepink4peace.org/downloads/WR_Vigil_half_flyer.pdf

but it doesn't look like thats what their doing now is it?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437364/posts

[FORD]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
right it s all about oil if it was about oil don't you think we would have gone after a country that hates us and has loads of oil to boot in our own hemisphere like venezula?.

The BCE has gone after Venezuela. They have tried twice now to overthrow the legitimately elected government. And Pat Robertson probably wasn't too far off in his estimation of what they're planning, though he was still a goddamned moron for calling for it on TV.

But I don't have to tell you that, do I? It's probably standard water cooler gossip at your office ;)

Oh yeah..... BUY CITGO GAS!!!!

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
but it doesn't look like thats what their doing now is it?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437364/posts

That is HARDLY a legitimate source, with the namecalling and references to "Pinkos" throughout. Give me a break.

But the pictures don't lie. I will agree that some of these protestors are taking it too far.

Would you agree that if the protestors stick to the message in that flyer, that their message is legitimate?

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by FORD
The BCE has gone after Venezuela. They have tried twice now to overthrow the legitimately elected government. And Pat Robertson probably wasn't too far off in his estimation of what they're planning, though he was still a goddamned moron for calling for it on TV.

But I don't have to tell you that, do I? It's probably standard water cooler gossip at your office ;)

Oh yeah..... BUY CITGO GAS!!!!


that government is hardly legitamate. chavez is a nut and needs to go. his own people have tried to take him out but chavez just uses the army to stop them

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
That is HARDLY a legitimate source, with the namecalling and references to "Pinkos" throughout. Give me a break.

But the pictures don't lie. I will agree that some of these protestors are taking it too far.

Would you agree that if the protestors stick to the message in that flyer, that their message is legitimate?

how often do those liberal protesters stick to one message. have you watch their anti war rallys on cspan? its more like and anti capitalism/ free mumia/free heath care/pro choice rally they hardly stay on topic or stay appropriate

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
how often do those liberal protesters stick to one message. have you watch their anti war rallys on cspan? its more like and anti capitalism/ free mumia/free heath care/pro choice rally they hardly stay on topic or stay appropriate

Why don't you just answer the question?

[FORD]

Funny how the pictures of the Freepazoids are all perfectly focused with decent lighting, and the pictures of the alleged "pinkos" are barely legible (except for the Ann Coulter closeup)

The Freeps have a spin-off group called "protest warriors" (which is as close as any of them ever got to a war) which infiltrates legitimate protests in an effort to discredit them, which is probably what occurred here, if anything.

Though, as I said, It's hard to tell anything from the deliberately bad pictures.

The Freeps are psychotic. Just reading their website is proof of that. And the 5 or 6 people who showed up for this event - that's a "good" turnout for them. Most of the idiots who post on that site wouldn't leave their bunkers long enough to actually confront opponents of the BCE.

[FORD]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
that government is hardly legitamate. chavez is a nut and needs to go. his own people have tried to take him out but chavez just uses the army to stop them

That wasn't "his own people", it was your co-workers, and you know it.

[Guitar Shark]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I have to agree with you on this one FORD. That website is unreal.

[FORD]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
how often do those liberal protesters stick to one message. have you watch their anti war rallys on cspan? its more like and anti capitalism/ free mumia/free heath care/pro choice rally they hardly stay on topic or stay appropriate

This wasn't an "anti-war" rally, it was a "support the wounded troops" rally, and Code Pink was the only group in attendance until those fucking trailer park neanderthals showed up.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Why don't you just answer the question?

no its not right simply because thats not what their doing. they are there and they are trying to use walter reed as a soap box to go on anti bush anti war rants. i'd be willing to bet that the only thing they'll tell the media is that its bush fault their wounded blah blah blah you know what they'll say.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by FORD
This wasn't an "anti-war" rally, it was a "support the wounded troops" rally, and Code Pink was the only group in attendance until those fucking trailer park neanderthals showed up.

i was refering to anti war rallies in general. you want pics or and articles to prove my point?

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
no its not right simply because thats not what their doing. they are there and they are trying to use walter reed as a soap box to go on anti bush anti war rants. i'd be willing to bet that the only thing they'll tell the media is that its bush fault their wounded blah blah blah you know what they'll say.

You and Warham would be a good match. You both see the world in black and white.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
You and Warham would be a good match. You both see the world in black and white.

great minds think alike! but you would agree that a better place to protest would be capitol hill,the mall or any other place other then a hospital where there are no law makers there on a daily basis

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by FORD
That wasn't "his own people", it was your co-workers, and you know it.

look like his peeps to me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3539211.stm

Mass anti-Chavez rally in Caracas


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39927000/jpg/_39927983_caracasmarch_afp_203body.jpg


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/03/02/venezuela.protests.ap/

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/americas/03/02/venezuela.protests.ap/story.guard.ap.jpg

[FORD]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
i was refering to anti war rallies in general. you want pics or and articles to prove my point?

An "anti-war rally in general" is just that. Anybody who opposes the war is likely to show up, and they'll probably use the opportunity to "network" for their other political causes while they're at it. That's not exactly shocking.

As if right wingers don't do the same thing? Like show up to protest an abortion clinic and get fliers for the next homophobe rally while they're at it. Not really much of a surprise there.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
right it s all about oil if it was about oil don't you think we would have gone after a country that hates us and has loads of oil to boot in our own hemisphere like venezula? or better yet canada or mexico. you know the three largest importers of oil to the us.

Oh yeah, attack a democratically elected government...That would go over well...:D

Besides, we were getting their oil cheap, without the hinderance of sanctions...

And it would be hard to build huge bases to replace the ones in SAUDI ARABIA, wouldn't it...Say, don't they basically hate us and have lots of oil too? Hmmm...

So yes, it's about securing our oil rights in the MIDDLE EAST, pure and simple...


1.why don't you read the iraq liberation act or pl 235 and tell me who wrote the policy on getting rid of iraq. heres a hint those laws are from 1998 so it ain't bush. heres another it establishes the law that says the us policy towards iraq is regime change and it lays out the case of wmd and connections to terrorists. google and read them mmmky.

Where does it talk about the massive, yet understaffed ground invasion and botched occupation? Mmmkay...I believe it was about trying to have SADDAM overthrown from within...Something that tends to work better than fighting the insduyrgents of a foriegn culture...


2. you still haven't learned what the wolrd neo con means have you? you just keep repeating because you a good liittle sheep know don't you.

Ha ha! We're getting bitter now...Neo CON=lying asswipes pandering to LEO STRAUSS' ideals...


no. saddam was doing the mass grave thing on an almotst weekly basis. some were from 91 but of that would only account for 1/3 of the people in graves.


There are plenty of mass graves around the world we can "liberate." Spin it how you want, but that's just the latest spin cycle on an Adiminstration failing miserably...


are you going to continue posting saying people said this or that even thought they never said it at all? well i consider a war between two standing armies but if you going to call terrorist bombings and they are terrorist bombings even according to the iraqis themselves who call the bombers terrorists a war then i guess you would have to call the faln assult on nyc in the late 70's early 80s a war since they too were bombing police stations,targeting police and politicians etc etc etc
[/b]

You never said that? Actually, you did...

Ha ha, you truly are delusional...It's only a war if it meets LUCKY WILBURY's narrow definition, I guess that Low-Intensity Conflict training I recieved was all a lie then....


did you even read they point that you respnded to with this? [/B]

Why would you ask such a question? Because I don't agree with your sycophantish BuSHEEP apologist points, I didn't comprehend them...Whatever...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
that government is hardly legitamate. chavez is a nut and needs to go. his own people have tried to take him out but chavez just uses the army to stop them

If CHAVEZ was a "luny" rightest, you'd be the first to defend him...

He's a democractically elected populist, whether you like him or not, it's none of our business what he does internally, or is this another Neo CON double-standard (it's only a democracy if we politically approve of it)...He's still selling us cheap gas, if any of it can be called cheap anymore...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
That is HARDLY a legitimate source, with the namecalling and references to "Pinkos" throughout. Give me a break.

But the pictures don't lie. I will agree that some of these protestors are taking it too far.

Would you agree that if the protestors stick to the message in that flyer, that their message is legitimate?

No.

Protesting at a Hospital is low-brow.

Of course, that's typical for you liberals.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
look like his peeps to me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3539211.stm

Mass anti-Chavez rally in Caracas


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39927000/jpg/_39927983_caracasmarch_afp_203body.jpg


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/03/02/venezuela.protests.ap/

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/americas/03/02/venezuela.protests.ap/story.guard.ap.jpg

You forgot the pictures of the pro-CHAVEZ rallies, which are even bigger...

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No.

Protesting at a Hospital is low-brow.

Of course, that's typical for you liberals.

:gulp:

Or, right to life protestors. :rolleyes:

I don't see a problem with it.

[Nickdfresh]

Don't worry, their going to close WALTER REED soon anyways...So we can save approx. 1/10th of the annual defense budget (at best) over 20-years time! Yaay!!

(And send the proceeds to IRAQ...:))

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh yeah, attack a democratically elected government...That would go over well...

saddam was democratically elected to. hitler as well


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Besides, we were getting their oil cheap, without the hinderance of sanctions...

oh yeah real cheap $68 + per barrel :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And it would be hard to build huge bases to replace the ones in SAUDI ARABIA, wouldn't it...Say, don't they basically hate us and have lots of oil too? Hmmm...

So yes, it's about securing our oil rights in the MIDDLE EAST, pure and simple...

yet the top five oil importers to the us are:

1. canada
2. mexico
3. nigeria
4. venezula
5. saudi arabia

those are the top five the order changes from day to day yet i don't see many middle eastern countries on the list i just see one. sorry to burst your bubble but if it was about oil the middle east would be down on the list.




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Where does it talk about the massive, yet understaffed ground invasion and botched occupation? Mmmkay...I believe it was about trying to have SADDAM overthrown from within...Something that tends to work better than fighting the insduyrgents of a foriegn culture...

yet the military on the ground who are in a far better postion then you to know say we have the right amount of troops.General abizaid says troop levels are fine i belive him more tehn you

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.


AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Ha ha! We're getting bitter now...Neo CON=lying asswipes pandering to LEO STRAUSS' ideals...

i'm not the one using words without knowing what they means.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
There are plenty of mass graves around the world we can "liberate." Spin it how you want, but that's just the latest spin cycle on an Adiminstration failing miserably...


it was one of many and one of the first reasons laid out for taking out saddam but then again bush was just enforcing bubbas law:

SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.

Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You never said that? Actually, you did...


really? find where i said it. find where i said the us was at "war with the faln" under your ideas it would be a war not under mine. i've never said and you know it. go ahead search the forums for. please do. and post it


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Ha ha, you truly are delusional...It's only a war if it meets LUCKY WILBURY's narrow definition, I guess that Low-Intensity Conflict training I recieved was all a lie then....

then you would say the brits were at war with the ira for thirty years? same with spain and eta? same with the us and the faln?




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why would you ask such a question? Because I don't agree with your sycophantish BuSHEEP apologist points, I didn't comprehend them...Whatever...

you just proved my point i've made many a times you don't read what others post. in response to the posting of a code pink link their actual site, the group thats in crawford and everywhere else where the people are real you post some clinton crap. then again lets be real your trying to derail this thread because you dismissed it and it turns out to be true and you cant be proven wrong now can you

[lucky wilbury]

the videos of the people is up click thte link to go to the site to see it.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200508\SPE20050825a.html


i saw it on tv

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
If CHAVEZ was a "luny" rightest, you'd be the first to defend him...

right. maybe you could find an example of where i did such a thing then again you won't


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He's a democractically elected populist, whether you like him or not, it's none of our business what he does internally,

well considering what he does internally like lock up oppostion leaders, funds farc, calls for the end of the usa, trys to destablize central america, threatens to cut off oil yeah it is our buisness because it directly affects us



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
or is this another Neo CON double-standard (it's only a democracy if we politically approve of it)...

there you are using a word wrongly again


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He's still selling us cheap gas, if any of it can be called cheap anymore...

right $68 bucks a barrel real cheap. hes one the reasons oil is high. as a memeber of opec he's helping keep prices high and those high prices are the only thing keeping him in power

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
The Code Pink website suggests that this is a vigil designed to SUPPORT the troops by calling attention to their injuries.

http://www.codepink4peace.org/downloads/WR_Vigil_half_flyer.pdf


Anyone with a half brain can see that is the obvious intent. But the usual Spin carries on.


Fucking Repukes, so desperate.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
saddam was democratically elected to. hitler as well

So fucking what? Actually, he ran in two free and fair elections, unlike SADDAM, and Hitler had only one election. Again with the bullshit, faulty logical historical paradigms for your nutty spin job...

So we don't like his politics, so we'll create reasons to overthrown democratic leaders?

President Bush, State of the Union address, February 3, 2005:
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace."

Yeah, but I guess we can select who's a "democracy now as we support SAUDI and PAKISTANI tyrants...:rolleyes:



oh yeah real cheap $68 + per barrel :rolleyes:

Well, that would President Fuckbags energy policy, that not CHAVEZ's fault...And I said "as far as oil could be called cheap these days.."




yet the top five oil importers to the us are:

1. canada
2. mexico
3. nigeria
4. venezula
5. saudi arabia

those are the top five the order changes from day to day yet i don't see many middle eastern countries on the list i just see one. sorry to burst your bubble but if it was about oil the middle east would be down on the list.

Dated info, let's see what the statistics say:

June 2005 Import Highlights: Released on August 16, 2005
Preliminary monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in June 2005 has been released and it shows that three countries have exported more than 1.5 million barrels per day or more to the United States. A total of four countries exported over 1.0 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top sources of US crude oil imports for June were Canada (1.696 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.616 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.564 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.292 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (.896 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (.608 million barrels per day), Angola (.397 million barrels per day), Algeria (.292 million barrels per day), Ecuador (.288 million barrels per day), and United Kingdom (.269 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 10.564 million barrels per day in June, which is an increase of .398 million barrels per day from May. The top five exporting countries accounted for 67 percent of United States crude oil imports in June and the top ten sources accounted for approximately 84 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports.
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-05 May-05 YTD 2005 Jun-04 Jan - Jun 2004

CANADA 1,696 1,722 1,604 1,724 1,622

MEXICO 1,616 1,748 1,568 1,668 1,597

SAUDI ARABIA 1,564 1,430 1,521 1,455 1,388

VENEZUELA 1,292 1,273 1,329 1,439 1,353

NIGERIA 896 1,111 1,021 1,208 1,107

IRAQ 608 588 548 636 657
ANGOLA

ALGERIA

ECUADOR

UNITED KINGDOM

BRAZIL

COLOMBIA

KUWAIT

NORWAY

CHAD

[i]Those were the top 15 importers, yeah there's not many Middle Eastern companies. but SAUDI ARABIA only imported 132 million less barrels than the top importer CANADA...

Oh, and looky who's number six on the list with 608M barrels (and that's with insurgent attacks on the oil infrastructure...)





yet the military on the ground who are in a far better postion then you to know say we have the right amount of troops.General abizaid says troop levels are fine i belive him more tehn you

LOL, yeah, I can imagine the firestorm if he said we didn't have enough troops. A lot of junior commanders will say differently...

Gen. SHINSEKI whas been prophetic...

I guess the increasingly brazen, efficient insurgent attacks and the mounting casualties might also indicate otherwise...


(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.


AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).

And again, where does it say anything about getting an army of tank divisions and invading?





i'm not the one using words without knowing what they means.

You sure use history in such fashion...


it was one of many and one of the first reasons laid out for taking out saddam but then again bush was just enforcing bubbas law:

SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.

Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

BUBBA's law? What about poppy BUSH? I like how you are only capable of blaming democrats for supposed policy failures...

So committing war crimes by killing civilians and further turning the ISLAMIC world further against us is reason enough to invade? No.



really? find where i said it. find where i said the us was at "war with the faln" under your ideas it would be a war not under mine. i've never said and you know it. go ahead search the forums for. please do. and post it

I don't know what "faln" is:confused:


then you would say the brits were at war with the ira for thirty years? same with spain and eta? same with the us and the faln?

Um, does the phrase "War on TERROR" ring a bell? In short, yes they were...though again, your historical analogies are hysterically flawed. Try more like the Viet CONG...We were at "War" with the NLF...

You can't even compare the number of daily attacks and blood letting of N. Ireland to IRAQ. Fucking ridiculous assertion...:rolleyes:

And go down and tell the wounded at WALTER REED they were not wounded in a war, and they'd spit on you...:mad: Idiot!! Yeah, let's talk about disrespect for vets.:rolleyes:



you just proved my point i've made many a times you don't read what others post. in response to the posting of a code pink link their actual site, the group thats in crawford and everywhere else where the people are real you post some clinton crap. then again lets be real your trying to derail this thread because you dismissed it and it turns out to be true and you cant be proven wrong now can you [/B]

Ha ha! You recycle the same bullshit arguments widely discredited not only in the media, but by official gov't sources...

You continue to invent and and post fabricated sources that have no bearing in truth in the effort to find some semantic "out" for your ridiculous arguments...Whatever...

And you've posted more CLINTON "crap" here than anybody, like in the previous post.

[LoungeMachine]

Damn Nick.

Well done.


Complete and utter ownership.


Nice job.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Damn Nick.

Well done.


Complete and utter ownership.


Nice job.

Thanks LOUNGE, good thing BBB isn't keeping score...:D

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Thanks LOUNGE, good thing BBB isn't keeping score...:D

I am.

You half-wits are way behind.

Seriously.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I am.

You half-wits are way behind.

Seriously.

:gulp:

Uh huh...Must be a GOLF score.;)

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So fucking what? Actually, he ran in two free and fair elections, unlike SADDAM, and Hitler had only one election. Again with the bullshit, faulty logical historical paradigms for your nutty spin job...

no his elections were not legitamate. there was fraud all over the place.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So we don't like his politics, so we'll create reasons to overthrown democratic leaders?

so its ok fo him to influnece other governments but we can't do the same to him. right:rolleyes:



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
President Bush, State of the Union address, February 3, 2005:
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace."

Yeah, but I guess we can select who's a "democracy now as we support SAUDI and PAKISTANI tyrants...:rolleyes:

bush is just continuing the same support for those countries as clinton but then again clinton allowed musharaff to stay in power after his coup and now we just have to let him stay there in this post 9-11 world


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, that would President Fuckbags energy policy, that not CHAVEZ's fault...And I said "as far as oil could be called cheap these days.."

actually it is chavez fault being he's part of opec. you know opec? the countries that pump the oil who cut production to keep prices high? bush has nothing to do with the price of oil opec does. now put htat in your pipe and smoke it



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Dated info, let's see what the statistics say:

June 2005 Import Highlights: Released on August 16, 2005
Preliminary monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in June 2005 has been released and it shows that three countries have exported more than 1.5 million barrels per day or more to the United States. A total of four countries exported over 1.0 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top sources of US crude oil imports for June were Canada (1.696 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.616 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.564 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.292 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (.896 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (.608 million barrels per day), Angola (.397 million barrels per day), Algeria (.292 million barrels per day), Ecuador (.288 million barrels per day), and United Kingdom (.269 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 10.564 million barrels per day in June, which is an increase of .398 million barrels per day from May. The top five exporting countries accounted for 67 percent of United States crude oil imports in June and the top ten sources accounted for approximately 84 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports.
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-05 May-05 YTD 2005 Jun-04 Jan - Jun 2004

CANADA 1,696 1,722 1,604 1,724 1,622

MEXICO 1,616 1,748 1,568 1,668 1,597

SAUDI ARABIA 1,564 1,430 1,521 1,455 1,388

VENEZUELA 1,292 1,273 1,329 1,439 1,353

NIGERIA 896 1,111 1,021 1,208 1,107

IRAQ 608 588 548 636 657
ANGOLA

ALGERIA

ECUADOR

UNITED KINGDOM

BRAZIL

COLOMBIA

KUWAIT

NORWAY

CHAD

[i]Those were the top 15 importers, yeah there's not many Middle Eastern companies. but SAUDI ARABIA only imported 132 million less barrels than the top importer CANADA...

Oh, and looky who's number six on the list with 608M barrels (and that's with insurgent attacks on the oil infrastructure...)

why would you post this your only making my point on who the top oil importers to the usa were. the worlds top oil exporters are norway and russia hardly the middle east and for the record its not 132 million barrels less per day 132 thousand less per day see 1.696 miillion per day - 1.564 mill per day is only 132,000



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL, yeah, I can imagine the firestorm if he said we didn't have enough troops. A lot of junior commanders will say differently...

Gen. SHINSEKI whas been prophetic...

well if the junior officers feel differently and aren't passing along their concerns its their fault.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I guess the increasingly brazen, efficient insurgent attacks and the mounting casualties might also indicate otherwise...

the number off attacks are down. they are using fewer bombs but more explosives




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And again, where does it say anything about getting an army of tank divisions and invading?


to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.

its all up to whoever wants to define appropriate



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You sure use history in such fashion...

right :rolleyes:




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BUBBA's law? What about poppy BUSH? I like how you are only capable of blaming democrats for supposed policy failures...

where we the bush sr laws that said the policy of the usa is regime change in iraq resulting in a democratic state? post them. here i'll save you the time there are none.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So committing war crimes by killing civilians and further turning the ISLAMIC world further against us is reason enough to invade? No.

and where are we going out and rounding up and killing civilians? show me. and i hate to break the bad news to you the islamic world was lost long ago. after gulf war 1 we had an almost 90+% approvel rating in the islamic world just pic you country. throughout the 90's that went down the crapper. they blame us for sanctions on iraq, bosnia and kosovo (yes they do they say we caused it and didn't want to stop it) and on and on. it was lost and thats why a bunch of nuts came here and crashed a few planes here i think you know the story and everyone in those countries say we had it coming.





Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't know what "faln" is:confused:

they are the puetro rican terrorists that attacked all over nyc

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/faln.htm
Armed Forces of Puerto Rican National Liberation
Fuerzas Armadas Liberacion Nacional Puertoriquena (FALN)
Popular Boricua Army
Ejercito Popular Boricua
Macheteros


Throughout the late 1970’s and mid-1980’s the Armed Forces of Puerto Rican National Liberation ("FALN" or in Spanish, Fuerzas Armadas Liberacion Nacional Puertoriquena) and the Popular Boricua Army (Ejercito Popular Boricua), commonly known as the Macheteros, claimed responsibility for numerous bombings and robberies, causing a reign of terror in both the United States and Puerto Rico. The FALN operated in the continental United States, while the Macheteros were active mostly in Puerto Rico.

United States law enforcement first learned of the existence of the FALN on October 26, 1974, the date the group issued a communiqué taking credit for five bombings in New York. . Ultimately, over the next decade, FALN activities resulted in 72 actual bombings, 40 incendiary attacks, 8 attempted bombings and 10 bomb threats, resulting in 5 deaths, 83 injuries, and over $3 million in property damage.


Similar to the FALN, the existence of the Macheteros became publicly known when the group sent a communiqué to the United Press International in which they claimed credit for the death of a Puerto Rican police officer on August 24, 1978. The goals of the Macheteros were complete autonomy and sovereignty for Puerto Rico. In order to achieve their goals, the Macheteros conducted an armed struggle against the United States Government, mainly represented through attacks on military and police, in several cases causing the death of U.S. servicemen. In a January 1981 attack, Macheteros commandos infiltrated a Puerto Rican Air National Guard base and blew up 11 planes, causing approximately $45 million in damages.

The capture and conviction of the individual members of the FALN and Macheteros brought an end to the reign of terror in Puerto Rico and the United States. Although a few random assaults may have occurred, mostly in Puerto Rico, the continual assaults on New York, Chicago, and law enforcement and Naval officers in Puerto Rico virtually came to a halt.

On August 11, 1999, President Clinton extended offers of clemency to sixteen terrorists incarcerated in federal prison. Prior to these offers, he had offered clemency to only three federal prisoners.


its one of the reasons i despise clinton. he pardon terrorists. pardon them! he was really fighting terrorism wasn't he? he was fighting it so hard he let them walk. would you like some cnn articles to go along with this one as well



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Um, does the phrase "War on TERROR" ring a bell? In short, yes they were...though again, your historical analogies are hysterically flawed. Try more like the Viet CONG...We were at "War" with the NLF...

You can't even compare the number of daily attacks and blood letting of N. Ireland to IRAQ. Fucking ridiculous assertion...:rolleyes:

And go down and tell the wounded at WALTER REED they were not wounded in a war, and they'd spit on you...:mad: Idiot!! Yeah, let's talk about disrespect for vets.:rolleyes:

i don't consider iraq now as a war. it is part of the war on terrorism taking out terrorists. in order for a real war you need two armies and the geneva convention applies. it doesn't apply to the thugs in iraq since their not an army. why should i go to walter reed i can just visit my mom over at the va where she works. why don't you go to walter reed and tell the soliders that those lefties outside are really there to support you even though their calling you murders. better yet you tell them that they are to quote you "committing war crimes by killing civilians" ask them about that



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Ha ha! You recycle the same bullshit arguments widely discredited not only in the media, but by official gov't sources...

You continue to invent and and post fabricated sources that have no bearing in truth in the effort to find some semantic "out" for your ridiculous arguments...Whatever...

And you've posted more CLINTON "crap" here than anybody, like in the previous post.

right yet all my things i post are true and i even go out of my way to find all sources yet you post crap fram and belive stuff from anti war sites. the stuff i post from clinton is actually true. its part of history. his own words yet you hold on to lies and even when your proven wrong you ignore them time and time again like oh say richard clake laying out an iraq-al queda link. when he does one time to you hes not creditable when he says there is none you parrot what he says and on and on the again what do i know i'm only posting stuff from cnn.com,msnbc.com, sp wires, various british newspapers, the scotsman on and on

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by FORD
5:01 AM is LW/Agent Zimmerman. I ran that IP months ago. I wasn't aware that you knew him personally. Don't tell me you're CIA too? :eek:

Nah, not CIA. Neither is he.

He says it's not tracing his IP because it's placing him in New Hampshire. He says it's probably tracing back to a hub and to google hanscom field and look at the map.

Besides, 5:01am was posting when he wasn't even around. Lucky left in June and came back this week.

He also says to tell you his aliases were dale gribble and AL_GORE. He says Gore was at the old army and Dale was at DDLR.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
no his elections were not legitamate. there was fraud all over the place.

And you know this how? Many claim that about the last two US elections, though I don't necessarily agree with their point of view...


so its ok fo him to influnece other governments but we can't do the same to him. right:rolleyes:

Who is he "influencing?" Why would we care, he is the leader of only one of two oil producing nations in Central/South America?



bush is just continuing the same support for those countries as clinton but then again clinton allowed musharaff to stay in power after his coup and now we just have to let him stay there in this post 9-11 world

Bullcrap! BUSH claimed holy jihad on behalf of the doctrine of "democracy" and reform. He can't pick and choose which nation should be a "democracy" while invading countries to "spread the seed of democratic reform..." It's called moral consistency, and not being self-servingly hypocritical...It does wonders for one's international credibility...


actually it is chavez fault being he's part of opec. you know opec? the countries that pump the oil who cut production to keep prices high? bush has nothing to do with the price of oil opec does. now put htat in your pipe and smoke it

So we're going to overthrow him for now being in The Organization of Petroleum States? Let's hold the SAUDI's hands at the same time?



why would you post this your only making my point on who the top oil importers to the usa were. the worlds top oil exporters are norway and russia hardly the middle east and for the record its not 132 million barrels less per day 132 thousand less per day see 1.696 miillion per day - 1.564 mill per day is only 132,000

Actually, it undermines your point by showing how integral SAUDI and IRAQ (the country we invaded and occupied to "spread democracy";)) is to our oil supplies. Yes, the SAUDIS are in third place, but in relative terms, they're only a hair behind first place CANADA...

Try cutting off the SAUDI supply and see what would happen.

Thanks for the mathematical correction BTW....It's closer than I thought.


well if the junior officers feel differently and aren't passing along their concerns its their fault.

SHINSEKI was sacked for his dissention from scummy RUMMY's battle plan of minimalist forces in IRAQ...

Why would junior officers go on record and ruin their careers when this is an administration that shows how vindictive it can be to it's critics (Valerie PLAME anybody?)



he number off attacks are down. they are using fewer bombs but more explosives

I don't know whether the number is down or not...But they're very effective at confounding our tactics and countermeasure...The insurgency is strengthening.


to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.

its all up to whoever wants to define appropriate

Great, how about Declaring War before we send our kids to die in foreign lands?


where we the bush sr laws that said the policy of the usa is regime change in iraq resulting in a democratic state? post them. here i'll save you the time there are none.

The point was that CLINTON inherited a mess left behind by poppy (and REAGAN as well). Their policies were what led to the situations in IRAQ.


and where are we going out and rounding up and killing civilians?

Who said anything about "rounding up?" How about "Shock and Awe" bombing kills innocence regardless of intentions, as does attacking sewage treatment plants (disease/bio warfare in the first Gulf War). No one said anything about troops rounding up civilians...



show me. and i hate to break the bad news to you the islamic world was lost long ago. after gulf war 1 we had an almost 90+% approvel rating in the islamic world just pic you country. throughout the 90's that went down the crapper. they blame us for sanctions on iraq, bosnia and kosovo (yes they do they say we caused it and didn't want to stop it) and on and on. it was lost and thats why a bunch of nuts came here and crashed a few planes here i think you know the story and everyone in those countries say we had it coming.

I hate to break the sad news to you, but we're unpopular in the ISLAMIC world due to our unquestioning support of ISRAEL, not fucking BOSNIA (we liberated them and prevented Islamic extremists from getting a foothold in Europe). They also hate the regimes that are fundamentally anti-democratic that we supported for years since WWII. The actual ISLAMIC extremists are few in number, and have lost any real popular support as far as taking power in their societies (i.e. ALGERIA). We only strengthened them and their standing by invading IRAQ...







they are the puetro rican terrorists that attacked all over nyc

Oh, I thought maybe you meant the WEATHERMAN UNDERGROUND or something...

Funny, but the most effective terrorists form a bloody point of view are right wing extremists such as McVEIGH and "Christians" like Eric RUDOLPH. They were much more successful at killing than the Puerto RICAN cunts..




On August 11, 1999, President Clinton extended offers of clemency to sixteen terrorists incarcerated in federal prison. Prior to these offers, he had offered clemency to only three federal prisoners.


its one of the reasons i despise clinton. he pardon terrorists. pardon them! he was really fighting terrorism wasn't he? he was fighting it so hard he let them walk. would you like some CNN articles to go along with this one as well

That's part of it! That's what is happening in Northern IRELAND, you have to let them out, because they are not ordinary criminals. Political killers have been extensively studied with the near universal consensus that they are "fairly normal individuals" that thought of themselves as soldiers, not murders for self-gain. It's called a peace settlement, it has been achieved in Northern IRELAND, ANGOLA, El SALVADOR, and ultimately will happen in IRAQ...You can't have it all your way.


i don't consider iraq now as a war. it is part of the war on terrorism taking out terrorists. in order for a real war you need two armies and the geneva convention applies. it doesn't apply to the thugs in iraq since their not an army. why should i go to walter reed i can just visit my mom over at the va where she works. why don't you go to walter reed and tell the soliders that those lefties outside are really there to support you even though their calling you murders. better yet you tell them that they are to quote you "committing war crimes by killing civilians" ask them about that

Seeing as I would never think of a US soldier as 'rounding up' and killing civilians, which we don't do, and haven't done since VIETNAM, it wouldn't be a problem..

I doubt I'd meet many pilots at WALTER REED, though certainly not all pilots killed civilians, but clearly some did...

And the cunts responsible for the scandal at Abu GHRAIB wouldn't be a problem...


right yet all my things i post are true and i even go out of my way to find all sources yet you post crap fram and belive stuff from anti war sites. the stuff i post from clinton is actually true. its part of history. his own words yet you hold on to lies and even when your proven wrong you ignore them time and time again like oh say richard clake laying out an iraq-al queda link. when he does one time to you hes not creditable when he says there is none you parrot what he says and on and on the again what do i know i'm only posting stuff from cnn.com,msnbc.com, sp wires, various british newspapers, the scotsman on and on

You're selectively culling the articles you post...

And I've seen you post some doozies regarding WMD's in the past, completely misrepresenting the whole issue. And you only post stuff blasting the CLINTON administration while completely exonerating BUSH, his father, or Ronald REAGAN (who is largely responsible for this mess to begin with).

And it wasn't just Richard CLARKE questioning the IRAQ-Al Qaeda connection, it was the 9/11 Commission and virtually every reputable publication in the country...

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And you know this how? Many claim that about the last two US elections, though I don't necessarily agree with their point of view...



Who is he "influencing?" Why would we care, he is the leader of only one of two oil producing nations in Central/South America?

he's helping oppostion canidates in boliva





Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Bullcrap! BUSH claimed holy jihad on behalf of the doctrine of "democracy" and reform. He can't pick and choose which nation should be a "democracy" while invading countries to "spread the seed of democratic reform...' It's called moral consistency, and not being self-servingly hypocritical...It does wonders for one's international credibility...

it was going to be brought up and there a plan to transition back before 9-11 but 9-11 happend and the nuts in the country are rioting now over local elections as long as the war on terror is on for the most part there it'll have to wait




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So we're going to overthrow him for now being in The Organization of Petroleum States? Let's hold the SAUDI's hands at the same time?

the only one whos talking about overthrowing him is chavez himself. hes paranoid and isolated. but we should push oppostion leaders to the front there seeing its on our door step





Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, it undermines your point by showing how integral SAUDI and IRAQ (the country we invaded and occupied to "spread democracy";)) is to our oil supplies. Yes, the SAUDIS are in third place, but in relative terms, they're only a hair behind first place CANADA...

Thanks for the mathematical correction BTW....It's closer than I thought.

i only brought it up to show that we relie on many other places and the idea it's only middle eas oil is wrong



Originally posted by Nickdfresh

SHINSEKI was sacked for his dissention from scummy RUMMY's battle plan of minimalist forces in IRAQ...


no he wasen't and you can't get any more independent then factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/article275.html
Forced to Retire?

Kerry claimed, as he had in the first debate, that the Army's Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, was forced to retire for saying before the invasion of Iraq that many more troops were needed than the administration was planning to send.

It is true that Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 25, 2003 that "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would be required for an occupation of Iraq. It is also true that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called that estimate "wildly off the mark" in testimony to the House Budget Committee on Feb. 27, 2003. And it is true that the general retired several months later on June 11, 2003.

But the administration didn't force General Shinseki to retire. In fact, The Washington Times reported Shinseki's plans to retire nearly a year before his Feb. 25, 2003 testimony. The Times article was published April 19, 2002:

Washington Times: He (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection.

(Update, Oct. 11: We originally quoted in this space an Oct. 9 Washington Post story saying Gen. Shinseki's pending retirement was leaked "in revenge" for his position on troop levels. Based on that, we said there was "some truth" to Kerry's statement. However, the Post withdrew their report in a correction published Oct. 11.)




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why would junior officers go on record and ruin their careers when this is an administration that shows how vindictive it can be to it's critics (Valerie PLAME anybody?)

her ANALYST career wasn't hurt. even wilson admits she wasen't covert



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't know whether the number is down or not...But they're very effective at confounding our tactics and countermeasure...The insurgency is strengthening.

thats all open for debate




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Great, how about Declaring War before we send our kids to die in foreign lands?

they pretty much did that in oct 02




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The point was that CLINTON inherited a mess left behind by poppy (and REAGAN as well). Their policies were what led to the situations in IRAQ.

clinton made it and our standing ten times worse when he help put un sanctions on iraq. our standing went way down besaude they were then expolited in the middle east to show were were killing people




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Who said anything about "rounding up?" How about "Shock and Awe" bombing kills innocence regardless of intentions, as does attacking sewage treatment plants (disease/bio warfare in the first Gulf War). No one said anything about troops rounding up civilians...
excuse me you said:

So committing war crimes by killing civilians and further turning the ISLAMIC world further against us is reason enough to invade? No.

you didn't use rounding up but the point was in reference to what saddam did which is that that war crimes thing was referenceing. but war crimes in gerneral are for intionally targeting groups of civilains not facilities




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I hate to break the sad news to you, but we're unpopular in the ISLAMIC world due to our unquestioning support of ISRAEL, not fucking BOSNIA (we liberated them and prevented Islamic extremists from getting a foothold in Europe). They also hat the regimes that are fundamentally anti-democratic that we supported for years since WWII. The actual ISLAMIC extremists are few in number, and have lost any real popular support as far as taking power in their societies (i.e. ALGERIA). We only strengthened them and their standing by invading IRAQ...

its more over pre iraq war the sanctions and yes they DID blame us for bosnia. the showed the pics and said we were allowing it to happen. israel was up their but it wasen't at the top. check some of those nutty websites they have out htere but make sure you've got a good firewall!



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh, I thought maybe you meant the WEATHERMAN UNDERGROUND or something...

Funny, but the most effective terrorists form a bloody point of view are right wing extremists such as McVEIGH and "Christians" like Eric RUDOLPH. They were much more successful at killing than the Puerto RICAN cunts..

That's part of it! That's what is happening in Northern IRELAND, you have to let them out, because they are not ordinary criminals. Political killers have been extensively studied with the near universal consensus that they are "fairly normal individuals" that thought of themselves as soldiers, not murders for self-gain. It's called a peace settlement, it has been achieved in Northern IRELAND, ANGOLA, El SALVADOR, and ultimately will happen in IRAQ...You can't have it all your way.

look into the faln and controvsy over their pardoning and the timing and their location: hint it has something to do with a certain bitch's senate run! dig up old the news articles on it




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Seeing as I would never think of a US soldier as 'rounding up' and killing civilians, which we don't do, and haven't done since VIETNAM, it wouldn't be a problem..

I doubt I'd meet many pilots at WALTER REED, though certainly not all pilots killed civilians, but clearly some did...

not intentionally though


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And the cunts responsible for the scandal at Abu GHRAIB wouldn't be a problem...



You're selectively culling the articles you post...

And I've seen you post some doozies regarding WMD's in the past, completely misrepresenting the whole issue. And you only post stuff blasting the CLINTON administration while completely exonerating BUSH, his father, or Ronald REAGAN (who is largely responsible for this mess to begin with).

And it wasn't just Richard CLARKE questioning the IRAQ-Al Qaeda connection, it was the 9/11 Commission and virtually every reputable publication in the country...

no the 9-11 commsion only said iraq wasen't involed with 9-11 thats it. they only looked at the 9-11 plot. other plots connections were not investigated by them. same with wmd. and dude did you not read the article where richard clark links iraq andal quaeda?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury




you can't get any more independent then factcheck.org






:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

LMMFAO


You're fucking ridiculous


Go mainline some more kool-ade :cool:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
he's helping oppostion canidates in boliva

OMG! How subversive!! "helping candidates...you mean like all the foreign companies that donate money to our candidates?


it was going to be brought up and there a plan to transition back before 9-11 but 9-11 happend and the nuts in the country are rioting now over local elections as long as the war on terror is on for the most part there it'll have to wait

Well, I doubt it would have gone over well in anytime frame. The guys's elected, whether you like it or not. Jesus, how many dictators have we ignored yet we fucking focus on CHAVEZ...


the only one whos talking about overthrowing him is chavez himself. hes paranoid and isolated. but we should push oppostion leaders to the front there seeing its on our door step

So why are you arguing this point and basically agreeing with that corrupt, phoney cunt ROBERTSON ( a guy who has nefarious associations in AFRICA and gets blood diamond money)...



i only brought it up to show that we relie on many other places and the idea it's only middle eas oil is wrong

Well. I knew we have diverse sources of oil, but SAUDI/IRAQI oil is still critical...



no he wasen't and you can't get any more independent then factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/article275.html
Forced to Retire?

He was marginalized and put out out pasture...RUMMY hardly ever spoke with him again.

Q: When Gen. Shinseki testifies, he's uncomfortable answering the question, "What's the number? How many do we need?" He doesn't want to answer it, and then he kind of does a math problem, and then he answers it. I think it's two days later Wolfowitz comes in.

A: (Fmr Sec of the ARMY Thomas WHITE) Oh, yeah. First of all, it's the Senate Armed Services Committee, and it's Sen. Carl Levin. And Levin wants a number, which is not an unreasonable thing for Sen. Levin to be asking for -- "What's going to happen when the war's over? How many people?" -- right? That's a reasonable question to ask.

And so Shinseki tells him, "Maybe as many as 200,000," or some words to that effect. But the number 200,000 was out there. I thought that was perfectly reasonable. So the next morning, I get a call from Wolfowitz, who is upset that Shinseki would give this number. And I forget exactly what I said, but I said: "Well, he's an expert. He was asked. He has a fundamental responsibility to answer the questions and offer his professional opinion, which he did. And there was some basis to the opinion because he is a relative expert on the subject ."... They go public shortly thereafter to discredit Shinseki. And [Wolfowitz] says "wildly off the mark," and he gives this little speech about he "couldn't conceive of how you would have a case where it takes more people to secure the peace than it does to win the war." Well, you can look over the past 50 years in stability operations, and it's quite clear that that's precisely how the equation normally comes out, that Shinseki has a basis for this view. And Rumsfeld says something about it as well at the time.

So they discredit Shinseki. Then a week later, I get in front of the same committee. I see Sen. Levin before the hearing starts, and he says, "I'm going to ask you the same question." I said: "Good. You're going to get the same answer."

At that point, Shinseki and White are not on the team, right? We don't get it. We don't understand this thing, and we are not on the team. And therefore, actions are going to be taken.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/themes/secure.html


Kerry claimed, as he had in the first debate, that the Army's Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, was forced to retire for saying before the invasion of Iraq that many more troops were needed than the administration was planning to send.

It is true that Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 25, 2003 that "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would be required for an occupation of Iraq. It is also true that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called that estimate "wildly off the mark" in testimony to the House Budget Committee on Feb. 27, 2003. And it is true that the general retired several months later on June 11, 2003.

But the administration didn't force General Shinseki to retire. In fact, The Washington Times reported Shinseki's plans to retire nearly a year before his Feb. 25, 2003 testimony. The Times article was published April 19, 2002:

Washington Times: He (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection.

(Update, Oct. 11: We originally quoted in this space an Oct. 9 Washington Post story saying Gen. Shinseki's pending retirement was leaked "in revenge" for his position on troop levels. Based on that, we said there was "some truth" to Kerry's statement. However, the Post withdrew their report in a correction published Oct. 11.)


I see the Administration relied on his ideas for the IRAQ invasion (something he wanted no part of)...But I guess you trust the incompetent idiots like RUMMy over SHINSEKI...and their policies with have amounted to failure...


her ANALYST career wasn't hurt. even wilson admits she wasen't covert

She left the CIA! And that's not for ROVE to fucking decide!



thats all open for debate

Uh no, that's the prevailing opinion, but I guess you only agree with military commanders like ABERZID when you use them for your points...



they pretty much did that in oct 02

You either declare war or you don't!






clinton made it and our standing ten times worse when he help put un sanctions on iraq. our standing went way down besaude they were then expolited in the middle east to show were were killing people

BUSH made our standing twenty times worse when he permanently stationed US troops in SAUDI ARABIA...And the sanctions were put in place during the Gulf WAR under the BUSH Admin. That's the issue! But of course LUCKY, you'll ignore that too.:rolleyes:





excuse me you said:

So committing war crimes by killing civilians and further turning the ISLAMIC world further against us is reason enough to invade? No.

you didn't use rounding up but the point was in reference to what saddam did which is that that war crimes thing was referenceing. but war crimes in gerneral are for intionally targeting groups of civilains not facilities


Definitions of war crimes are subject to those in power...And I didn't use the term "war crimes," that's your term, I just said that the US bombing campaign killed civilians...And yes, in the first Gulf War, we intentionally targeted sewage treatment facilities, which is a war crime and a manifestation of biological warfare...








its more over pre iraq war the sanctions and yes they DID blame us for bosnia. the showed the pics and said we were allowing it to happen. israel was up their but it wasen't at the top. check some of those nutty websites they have out htere but make sure you've got a good firewall!

Whose "THEY," Al Qaeda? Obviously when we stepped in and bombed the shit out of the SERBS, that sort of made us look good in the Islamic world...

ISRAEL isn't "up there?" Are you delusional man? That's basically all that is up there!





look into the faln and controvsy over their pardoning and the timing and their location: hint it has something to do with a certain bitch's senate run! dig up old the news articles on it

Oh who cares! It's a tiny group that killed a fraction of the people that die on even a good day in IRAQ...






not intentionally though

Uh, My Lai was pretty intentional...:rolleyes:




no the 9-11 commsion only said iraq wasen't involed with 9-11 thats it. they only looked at the 9-11 plot. other plots connections were not investigated by them. same with wmd. and dude did you not read the article where richard clark links iraq andal quaeda?

The 9/11 Commission said there were no significant ties between Al Qaeda and IRAQ...

And isn't it a little stupid to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 when the SAUDIS and the PAKIS are still supporting the Al Qaedians/TALIBANers...

Just a little hypocrisy there, the war had nothing to do with terrorism...

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

LMMFAO


You're fucking ridiculous


Go mainline some more kool-ade :cool:

Better than the tripe you cut and paste.

Posted anything from ant-war.com lately?

[Nickdfresh]

Q: When Gen. Shinseki testifies, he's uncomfortable answering the question, "What's the number? How many do we need?" He doesn't want to answer it, and then he kind of does a math problem, and then he answers it. I think it's two days later Wolfowitz comes in.

A: (Fmr Sec of the ARMY Thomas WHITE) Oh, yeah. First of all, it's the Senate Armed Services Committee, and it's Sen. Carl Levin. And Levin wants a number, which is not an unreasonable thing for Sen. Levin to be asking for -- "What's going to happen when the war's over? How many people?" -- right? That's a reasonable question to ask.

And so Shinseki tells him, "Maybe as many as 200,000," or some words to that effect. But the number 200,000 was out there. I thought that was perfectly reasonable. So the next morning, I get a call from Wolfowitz, who is upset that Shinseki would give this number. And I forget exactly what I said, but I said: "Well, he's an expert. He was asked. He has a fundamental responsibility to answer the questions and offer his professional opinion, which he did. And there was some basis to the opinion because he is a relative expert on the subject ."... They go public shortly thereafter to discredit Shinseki. And [Wolfowitz] says "wildly off the mark," and he gives this little speech about he "couldn't conceive of how you would have a case where it takes more people to secure the peace than it does to win the war." Well, you can look over the past 50 years in stability operations, and it's quite clear that that's precisely how the equation normally comes out, that Shinseki has a basis for this view. And Rumsfeld says something about it as well at the time.

So they discredit Shinseki. Then a week later, I get in front of the same committee. I see Sen. Levin before the hearing starts, and he says, "I'm going to ask you the same question." I said: "Good. You're going to get the same answer."

At that point, Shinseki and White are not on the team, right? We don't get it. We don't understand this thing, and we are not on the team. And therefore, actions are going to be taken.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/themes/secure.html

Nothing like civilian CHICKENHAWKS (WOLFIESHITZ) telling the military how to fight wars...


“I won’t let those Air Force generals bomb the smallest outhouse ... without checking with me...I spent 10 hours a day worrying about all this, picking the targets one by one, making sure we didn’t go over the limits.”

--President Lyndon Baines JOHNSON

[BigBadBrian]

Stay on topic, Nick.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Stay on topic, Nick.

:gulp:

I am...BUSH's inept Administration has caused lots of casualties at WALTER REED...

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
OMG! How subversive!! "helping candidates...you mean like all the foreign companies that donate money to our candidates?

check the elections laws here it is illegal for a foriegn company or national to donate money to a us canidate




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, I doubt it would have gone over well in anytime frame. The guys's elected, whether you like it or not. Jesus, how many dictators have we ignored yet we fucking focus on CHAVEZ...

So why are you arguing this point and basically agreeing with that corrupt, phoney cunt ROBERTSON ( a guy who has nefarious associations in AFRICA and gets blood diamond money)...

but chavez is the last dictator other then castro in our hemishpere and he's trying to turn other countries againest us in our own backyard



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I see the Administration relied on his ideas for the IRAQ invasion (something he wanted no part of)...But I guess you trust the incompetent idiots like RUMMy over SHINSEKI...and their policies with have amounted to failure...

but the point still remains he wasen't fired as you claimed




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
She left the CIA! And that's not for ROVE to fucking decide!

um no. she still works there. you would think i would know( :D )but just in case you don't believe me:


http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1087227,00.html

And even if there are hearings, it's not clear if Plame, who still works for the CIA, will in fact testify

-----------

thats from july 26,2005



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Uh no, that's the prevailing opinion, but I guess you only agree with military commanders like ABERZID when you use them for your points

well the top ones are in charge and have a greater overview of whats going on so yeah i'll believe them



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You either declare war or you don't!

military action is still military action


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BUSH made our standing twenty times worse when he permanently stationed US troops in SAUDI ARABIA...And the sanctions were put in place during the Gulf WAR under the BUSH Admin. That's the issue! But of course LUCKY, you'll ignore that too.

1.we were invited into saudi arabia and we even covered with a "fatwa" saying we were there to help and we had a high standing in the middle east for a long time after that

2.sanctions were one the no fly zones were others and a failed oil-for -food program was the thrid. al jazeera used to run daily pics of us planes bombing in iraq. would you like and obl speech blasting clinton for attacking iraq on a daily basis?


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Definitions of war crimes are subject to those in power...And I didn't use the term "war crimes," that's your term, I just said that the US bombing campaign killed civilians...And yes, in the first Gulf War, we intentionally targeted sewage treatment facilities, which is a war crime and a manifestation of biological warfare...

war crimes to most normal people are picking out a civilian area a know civilian area and flattening the people there




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Whose "THEY," Al Qaeda? Obviously when we stepped in and bombed the shit out of the SERBS, that sort of made us look good in the Islamic world...

no it didn't because thats not how the arab media played it. they showed the pics and said the us is letting this happen. then in kosovo they ran the pics of people fleeing and the media was saying the usa is creating a humanitarn crisis to "wag the dog" and to benifit yogoslavia and help them relcaim kosovo. now that may not be the truth but thats what the arab media was saying.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
ISRAEL isn't "up there?" Are you delusional man? That's basically all that is up there!

israel is on the list but our imprefctions top it


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh who cares! It's a tiny group that killed a fraction of the people that die on even a good day in IRAQ...

i care. i care about a terrorist group that did nothing but target nyc and taget nyc cops were set free. i care that those motherfuckers were let go to help that bitch hillary and for no other reason then that. i care that even when they were released they didn't repeant or say they were sorry.




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The 9/11 Commission said there were no significant ties between Al Qaeda and IRAQ...

9-11 commision said iraq wasen't involved in 9-11 and thats it thats all they looked at


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And isn't it a little stupid to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 when the SAUDIS and the PAKIS are still supporting the Al Qaedians/TALIBANers...

Just a little hypocrisy there, the war had nothing to do with terrorism...

it was just one reason of many.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
check the elections laws here it is illegal for a foriegn company or national to donate money to a us canidate

Fine, but I'm sure they find ways to manipulate the special interests...There's always a loophole...


but chavez is the last dictator other then castro in our hemishpere and he's trying to turn other countries againest us in our own backyard

CHAVEZ was democratically elected twice, therefore he's not a dictator...Whether wee like or hate him, he has to serve out his term and his fate has to be decided by VENEZUELANS.


but the point still remains he wasen't fired as you claimed

He still was marginialized and publicly embarrassed by civilian Chickehawks like WOLFIESHITZ, if they had listened to him, maybe 1,500 less people would be dead...That's the big picture...


um no. she still works there. you would think i would know( :D )but just in case you don't believe me:

Plame, [b]who still works for the CIA, will in fact testify


Okay, you have me on that one...


well the top ones are in charge and have a greater overview of whats going on so yeah i'll believe them

I think they must carefully choose their words, so I don't believe them. They're in a position where they cannot be truthful by nature.


military action is still military action

:rolleyes: Uh, no...It's not...There are degrees of it.




1.we were invited into saudi arabia and we even covered with a "fatwa" saying we were there to help and we had a high standing in the middle east for a long time after that

But it still pissed off OSAMA, and he just found another Fatwa...


2.sanctions were one the no fly zones were others and a failed oil-for -food program was the thrid. al jazeera used to run daily pics of us planes bombing in iraq. would you like and obl speech blasting clinton for attacking iraq on a daily basis?[/wquote]

And how many pics do they run of ISRAEL security forces dueling with PALESTINAIN rioters?

[quote]war crimes to most normal people are picking out a civilian area a know civilian area and flattening the people there

Who's a "normal person?" War crimes are often in the eye of the beholder, just ask USAF Gen. CURTIS LEMAY who basically stated after WWII, that if the AXIS had won, the Allied Air Marshalls and Generals would have been tried for war crimes for firebombing...

Killing noncombatants is killing noncombatants no matter how the coup de grace' is delivered...That's my point. "War crimes" is a nebulous term...



no it didn't because thats not how the arab media played it. they showed the pics and said the us is letting this happen. then in kosovo they ran the pics of people fleeing and the media was saying the usa is creating a humanitarn crisis to "wag the dog" and to benifit yogoslavia and help them relcaim kosovo. now that may not be the truth but thats what the arab media was saying.

I don't think that entire ARAB world's media could have seen it thus, but even if they did, the EUROPEAN BOSNIANS were not radicalized as mujahedeen as a direct result of our intervention...


israel is on the list but our imprefctions top it

Perhaps...




i care. i care about a terrorist group that did nothing but target nyc and taget nyc cops were set free. i care that those motherfuckers were let go to help that bitch hillary and for no other reason then that. i care that even when they were released they didn't repeant or say they were sorry.

Well, I don't necessarily advocate letting them off as such, but have they done anything since then?



9-11 commision said iraq wasen't involved in 9-11 and thats it thats all they looked at it was just one reason of many.

That's all that mattered to most...That's all that should have mattered really. It's the only justifiable reason to have sent good people to die...

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
CHAVEZ was democratically elected twice, therefore he's not a dictator...Whether wee like or hate him, he has to serve out his term and his fate has to be decided by VENEZUELANS

and he's already trying to re write their constituion



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He still was marginialized and publicly embarrassed by civilian Chickehawks like WOLFIESHITZ, if they had listened to him, maybe 1,500 less people would be dead...That's the big picture...

he gave his opinion on troop levels other generals were saying we would only need 50,000 for the invasion and 100,000 for the aftermanth. the numbers were all over the place. no one really knew what it would take. everyone was just guessing.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think they must carefully choose their words, so I don't believe them. They're in a position where they cannot be truthful by nature.

until i see a general who is on the ground not some retired one on tv say we need x number more or x number less the people at the top are all you can really believe since they have the best overview of things


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But it still pissed off OSAMA, and he just found another Fatwa...

he was pissed before that. i sure he blames his fathers death and his fathers lack of attetion on him,since after all he was one of the "bastard" children of his fathers many wives since she was not saudi, she was syrian, dressed western and was a 'slave wife' on us. and we all know obl loves the west and the western way of life!



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Who's a "normal person?" War crimes are often in the eye of the beholder, just ask USAF Gen. CURTIS LEMAY who basically stated after WWII, that if the AXIS had won, the Allied Air Marshalls and Generals would have been tried for war crimes for firebombing...

Killing noncombatants is killing noncombatants no matter how the coup de grace' is delivered...That's my point. "War crimes" is a nebulous term...

we'll agree to disagree on this one.




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't think that entire ARAB world's media could have seen it thus, but even if they did, the EUROPEAN BOSNIANS were not radicalized as mujahedeen as a direct result of our intervention...

but the radicals did use it to radicallize others in other parts of the arab world.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, I don't necessarily advocate letting them off as such, but have they done anything since then?

i can't lock down anything at the moment but i think most were deported



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's all that mattered to most...That's all that should have mattered really. It's the only justifiable reason to have sent good people to die...

sometimes good people have to die for the greater good. like korea. not a threat to us but in the end the relitivly low cost in us military lives ,yes 53,000 us troops were killed, but because of their sacrifice 48,422,644 south koreans live free

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
and he's already trying to re write their constituion

Let them worry about it...


he gave his opinion on troop levels other generals were saying we would only need 50,000 for the invasion and 100,000 for the aftermanth. the numbers were all over the place. no one really knew what it would take. everyone was just guessing.

Which Generals said 50,000? In the end, those that wanted to go against the larger numbers have been shown to be delusional. SHINSEKI has been vindicated...



until i see a general who is on the ground not some retired one on tv say we need x number more or x number less the people at the top are all you can really believe since they have the best overview of things

Generals can't commnet freely...That's a pretty ridiculous statement...


he was pissed before that. i sure he blames his fathers death and his fathers lack of attetion on him,since after all he was one of the "bastard" children of his fathers many wives since she was not saudi, she was syrian, dressed western and was a 'slave wife' on us. and we all know obl loves the west and the western way of life!

Yes, I realize most of this...



but the radicals did use it to radicallize others in other parts of the arab world.

A small minority...that essentially have failed to affect any real change in their societies since most Muslims want nothing to do with him.


i can't lock down anything at the moment but i think most were deported

Interesting.


sometimes good people have to die for the greater good. like korea. not a threat to us but in the end the relitivly low cost in us military lives ,yes 53,000 us troops were killed, but because of their sacrifice 48,422,644 south koreans live free

Yeah well, this is not the WAR for that...