Sadr runs & hides like the ***** he is!

[Roopull]

Not so tough now, are ya, doo doo head?
Touch my link with your little pointy thing. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/sadr_iran_11)

Anti-American cleric flees Iraq for Iran

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
Tue Feb 13, 11:22 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled
Iraq for
Iran ahead of a security crackdown in Baghdad and the arrival of 21,500 U.S. troops sent by
President Bush to quell sectarian violence, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday.



Al-Sadr left his Baghdad stronghold some weeks ago, the official said, and is believed to be in Tehran, where he has family. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. monitoring activities, said fractures in al-Sadr's political and militia operations may be part of the reason for his departure. The move is not believed to be permanent, the official said.

Word of al-Sadr's departure coincides with an announcement that Iraq will close its borders with Iran and
Syria for 72 hours as part of the drive to end the violence that has threatened to divide the capital along sectarian lines.

The U.S. official said it is not clear how firmly the radical Shiite cleric is controlling his organization and the associated Mahdi Army militia from exile.

"The question for us is to what extent his organization is going to participate in the political process," the official said, referring to al-Sadr's on-again, off-again relationship with the fragile democratic government in Baghdad.

Al-Sadr's departure was reported by several television networks Tuesday.

Al-Sadr's militia is widely seen as the main threat to Iraq's unity and high on the list of targets for the Baghdad security operation.

A ragtag but highly motivated militia that fought U.S. forces twice in 2004, the Mahdi Army is blamed for much of the sectarian strife shaking Iraq since a Shiite shrine was bombed by Sunni militants a year ago. U.S. officials have for months pressed Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to move against the militia, but he has so far done little to comply, largely because he does not want to lose al-Sadr's support.

Al-Sadr rose from obscurity in the aftermath of the ouster of
Saddam Hussein to lead a movement of young, underprivileged Iraqis united by opposition to U.S. military presence as well as hunger for Shiite domination.

The cleric, who is in his mid-30s, is a master of street politics, and his young lieutenants can rally tens of thousands of protesters at short notice. Once wanted in the 2003 killing of a key cleric, al-Sadr gained much influence when his parliamentary bloc of 30 of 275 deputies was instrumental in al-Maliki's election.

Dismissed by older Shiite politicians as a dangerous upstart, al-Sadr set up the Mahdi Army militia in 2003. It is suspected of being behind the abduction and murder of thousands of Sunnis in what are known as death squad killings.

Two key members of al-Sadr's political and military organization were gunned down last week, the latest of as many as seven key figures in the al-Sadr organization killed or captured in the past two months.

The deaths and captures came after al-Maliki, also a Shiite, dropped his protection for the organization.

Shiite leaders insist that the Shiite militias flourished because the U.S. and its allies could not protect civilians. They say if the Sunni insurgents were crushed, the threat from Shiite hard-liners would go away.

Shiite politicians have long maintained that Sunni militants pose a greater threat to Iraq's stability. Thousands of Shiite civilians have been killed in bombings and suicide attacks carried out by al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni groups.

Thousands regularly cross the porous Iraq-Iran border, and Iran has been a popular destination for elite Shiite Iraq exiles. In Saddam's time those exiles included al-Maliki, who like other educated and politically active Shiites feared for his safety in Iraq.

[Gaffer]

If they all keep running to tehran we can just take out tehran and eliminate all the problems at once. I'm sure bin laden is there too.

This was interesting news. I just heard about it last night as we have had no power here since Tuesday. I got home from where we were staying last night because we had no heat here and the temp was 1 degree, and turned on FOX to see what was happening with this news. First thing I hear is they are discussing whether to creamate her or have a regular funneral. FOX the fair and balanced bimbo news channel. They use to be a good channel for news. Now it seems all they want is sensationalism.

[LiberalNation]

If they all keep running to tehran we can just take out tehran and eliminate all the problems at once. I'm sure bin laden is there too.
No we can't, do you know how many problems an attack on Iran would cause us.

As for Sadar, why in the hell do we keep letting him get away. We should have took care of him in the beginning before he became such a serious problem and threat.

[Gunny]

No we can't, do you know how many problems an attack on Iran would cause us.

As for Sadar, why in the hell do we keep letting him get away. We should have took care of him in the beginning before he became such a serious problem and threat.

Wouldn't cause any problem at all as long as it was done right.

[Gaffer]

No we can't, do you know how many problems an attack on Iran would cause us.

As for Sadar, why in the hell do we keep letting him get away. We should have took care of him in the beginning before he became such a serious problem and threat.

If you have all the islamist leaders sitting in tehran and drop a bomb on the city you take out all the islamist leaders at one time. No need for an invasion.

Yes sadr should have been killed off long ago. but maliki is a sadr puppet and has been keeping him safe. maliki needs to go too.

[Gunny]

If you have all the islamist leaders sitting in tehran and drop a bomb on the city you take out all the islamist leaders at one time. No need for an invasion.

Yes sadr should have been killed off long ago. but maliki is a sadr puppet and has been keeping him safe. maliki needs to go too.

EVERY militant, fundamentalist piece of trash willing to use terror/murder to enforce their religion on others needs to be hunted down like dogs and given a trial, sentence and execution by .45.

[LiberalNation]

Wouldn't cause any problem at all as long as it was done right.
Yeah right, you think they wouldn’t retaliate. If they cut off the oil to us it would cause serious problems for us. Not to mention they would triple their efforts to fight us in Iraq and most likely attack our ships in that narrow strait. Then you have the problem of world opinion and the fact it would create far more terrorists.

[Gaffer]

Yeah right, you think they wouldn’t retaliate. If they cut off the oil to us it would cause serious problems for us. Not to mention they would triple their efforts to fight us in Iraq and most likely attack our ships in that narrow strait. Then you have the problem of world opinion and the fact it would create far more terrorists.

Not sure who you are refering to here. Do you mean iran? The terror head. Or saudi arabia our so called ally? Or all of them in the region? Who do you think we are fighting in iraq? No islamist country wants to attack our ships in the gulf because they know what the result would be. There are three carrier groups in the region right now. And two assault groups.

Since when does world opinion mean shit. Those that are really our friends will remain our friends and those that aren't will will continue to dislike and condemn us. All the terrorist minded people are already there, your not creating anything more than whats there to be called on when they are ready.

[Gunny]

Yeah right, you think they wouldn’t retaliate. If they cut off the oil to us it would cause serious problems for us. Not to mention they would triple their efforts to fight us in Iraq and most likely attack our ships in that narrow strait. Then you have the problem of world opinion and the fact it would create far more terrorists.

Last comment first: I don't give a rat's ass about world opinion.

I doubt they'd have to go so far as Iraq to fight us if they cut off our oil. Make no mistake -- while we play this sissy little game of caving to demands in order to pay for these guy's oil, if they actually cut it off we will have no choice but to take it.

I bet the very thought gets your liberal panties all knotted up.

[LiberalNation]

I bet the very thought gets your liberal panties all knotted up.
lol, no just the thought of $5 a gallon gas and gas lines do.

[Gunny]

lol, no just the thought of $5 a gallon gas and gas lines do.

Like I always say about you libs .... it's always about your personal convenience at this moment.

[Gaffer]

lol, no just the thought of $5 a gallon gas and gas lines do.

If we don't succeed in iraq you can expect more tha $5 a gallon gas prices.

[LiberalNation]

Like I always say about you libs .... it's always about your personal convenience at this moment.

I don't think that's a lib quality, more a human quality and esscpially an American quality. If Bush even thinks about attacking Iran he'll find himself impeached for one reason or another. The American people wont like support such an action and neither will congress. As far has I know we're still a democracy so the peoples will does count for somethings. Why do you think the repub congress got it's ass kicked the last election.

[Dilloduck]

I don't think that's a lib quality, more a human quality and esscpially an American quality. If Bush even thinks about attacking Iran he'll find himself impeached for one reason or another. The American people wont like support such an action and neither will congress. As far has I know we're still a democracy so the peoples will does count for somethings. Why do you think the repub congress got it's ass kicked the last election.

Because they spent to damn much money and didn't pour about 50,000 more troops into Iraq and finish the job.

[trobinett]

I don't think that's a lib quality, more a human quality and esscpially an American quality. If Bush even thinks about attacking Iran he'll find himself impeached for one reason or another. The American people wont like support such an action and neither will congress. As far has I know we're still a democracy so the peoples will does count for somethings. Why do you think the repub congress got it's ass kicked the last election.

YOU don't speak for me.

I'm an American, an American that has gone to war to support our way of life.

You don't have a clue as to what the American people will support or won't support, so keep your opinions as just that OPINIONS.

Your are right about this being a democracy, try to keep THAT in mind you sanctimonous ass hole.

[Gaffer]

I don't think that's a lib quality, more a human quality and esscpially an American quality. If Bush even thinks about attacking Iran he'll find himself impeached for one reason or another. The American people wont like support such an action and neither will congress. As far has I know we're still a democracy so the peoples will does count for somethings. Why do you think the repub congress got it's ass kicked the last election.

There's a war coming with iran and you better get ready for it. And all the REAL Americans will be behind it. The unAmericans, like yourself, will do everything they can to undermine it. we are at war with islam and iran is presently the head of that evil snake. We are a democracy alright, inspite of people like you.

[Roopull]

If Bush even thinks about attacking Iran...


...uh, Iran has already attacked the US. What do you suppose we do about it?

[manu1959]

lol, no just the thought of $5 a gallon gas and gas lines do.

a gallon of milk is five bucks and there are lines at the food mart....

[LiberalNation]

a gallon of milk is five bucks and there are lines at the food mart....
You don't need 20 gallons of milk a week, and you don't need milk to heat your house in winter, and all the trucks and planes that transport our goods don't run on milk. Higher oil prices meen higher eveything.

[LiberalNation]

...uh, Iran has already attacked the US. What do you suppose we do about it?
Nothing is what I propose. Attacking Iran will cause problems, invading Iran way more. America would not support an invasion of Iran. We don't have the troops and we've wasted enough money on our little Iraq adventure. That wont happen and neither will an attack I'm betting.

[manu1959]

You don't need 20 gallons of milk a week, and you don't need milk to heat your house in winter, and all the trucks and planes that transport our goods don't run on milk. Higher oil prices meen higher eveything.

you don't need 20 gallons of gasoline a week, and you don't need gasoline to heat your house in winter....ride a bike and move to a warmer climate live in a co-op and grow your own food.......

oh wait.....or are you saying the us should be in the middle east protecting the oil fields so you can drive to the store and buy your organic milk, french wine and imported sushi.....

[LiberalNation]

The unAmericans, like yourself, will do everything they can to undermine it. we are at war with islam and iran is presently the head of that evil snake. We are a democracy alright, inspite of people like you.
LMAO, you think "real" americans will support a war with Iran. Your off your rocker. Americans don't even supporting the current war with Iraq and one with Iran would be far tougher. Probably even take a draft for a ground invasion. You can't kill ever muslim int he ME and attacking them will just turn ever person in Iran against us. They will fight to defend their home country just like we would ours if it comes down to that.

and no people like me wont endermine it dear, will stop it because like me are now the majority of Americans on this issue. America has never liked long war, i'ts just a part of our society.

[LiberalNation]

oh wait.....or are you saying the us should be in the middle east protecting the oil fields so you can drive to the store and buy your organic milk, french wine and imported sushi.....
No just to drive to the store and buy the basics. Not everyone has the money to just pack up and move to a warmer climate. Normal people have jobs and need to drive cars to get to those jobs. Higher oil prices hurt normal people and those people vote out politicians because of it.

and yes I do wish we would worry more about those oil field than the worthless Iraqi government and baghdad plus drilling in new places like Alaska.

[Gaffer]

liberalnation, a classic example of the uninformed liberal nut.

First of all, concerning oil, if we start drilling in anwar and the gulf and all the other places your kind says we can't drill in, it will take 10 years to see the results. Are you proposing we take over all the middle east oil wells so there won't be any shortage of gas while you drive to the store? That would mean invading about a dozen countries.

You don't get it. we are fighting iran and alqueda in iraq. They are the ones fermenting all the trouble there. iran has numerous times threaten the US and is supplying the insurgents in iraq, not to mention hizbollah and hamas. Iran will be attacked at some point, quite posibly right after attacking us outright.

A complete invasion would not be necessary. air strikes and a few ground forces at strategic locations would be all that would be needed. They import way more than they export and without their ports they would soon collapse. Not to mention a good portion of the population would love to over throw the government there. Think Afganhistan. There are two provinces in western iran that have been in revolt for over two weeks now.

And for your information the majority of Americans DO think we should take down iran. That is if you believe in polls which all libs live by.

[LiberalNation]

And for your information the majority of Americans DO think we should take down iran. That is if you believe in polls which all libs live by.
Links to these polls please?

liberalnation, a classic example of the uninformed liberal nut.
No I'm not a classic liberal at all. A nut maybe but there ain't much classic about me. I spend more time defending myself against liberals than conservatives on most boards. maybe it's just the nuts who don't like me.

Not to mention a good portion of the population would love to over throw the government there.
Not if we attack they wont. They would feel threatned and would rally to their crappy government not to us. Even if they don't like their government where still outsiders, infidels, and attacking them.

[Gaffer]

Links to these polls please?

No I'm not a classic liberal at all. A nut maybe but there ain't much classic about me. I spend more time defending myself against liberals than conservatives on most boards. maybe it's just the nuts who don't like me.

Not if we attack they wont. They would feel threatned and would rally to their crappy government not to us. Even if they don't like their government where still outsiders, infidels, and attacking them.

You sure post like a classic liberal.

I seem to remember dems talking about afganhistan the same way. we can never defeat them there. The soviets spent ten years trying to subdue them and failed. The terrain is too hostile. All the usual "we are going to fail" garbage they always put out.

Well the population was ready to get rid of the taliban. And afganhistan fell in weeks. I am sure iran can go the same way. There is a large segment of the iranian population that is against the government there and would topple it if they could. But the government has the guns. We could use the same tactics of special forces with air support and local fighters to take down iran, probably as quickly as afganhistan went down. We won't know until the shooting starts.

[LiberalNation]

Well the population was ready to get rid of the taliban. And afganhistan fell in weeks. I am sure iran can go the same way. There is a large segment of the iranian population that is against the government there and would topple it if they could. But the government has the guns. We could use the same tactics of special forces with air support and local fighters to take down iran, probably as quickly as afganhistan went down. We won't know until the shooting starts.

Although I'd love to prove you wrong on that point the shooting isn't gona start to begin with. Not while Bush is in office so I wont get to.

[Gaffer]

Although I'd love to prove you wrong on that point the shooting isn't gona start to begin with. Not while Bush is in office so I wont get to.

Why wouldn't the shooting start while Bush is in office? I thought he was a warmonger out to take over the world one country at a time.

I'm pretty sure the shooting will be started by iran. Either along the iraq border or in the gulf. Though I wouldn't rule out a pre-emptive strike on our part.

[LiberalNation]

Why wouldn't the shooting start while Bush is in office? I thought he was a warmonger out to take over the world one country at a time.
Like I said, congress wouldn't take to kindly to it. Even the republicans.

[Gaffer]

Like I said, congress wouldn't take to kindly to it. Even the republicans.

Its up to the president to conduct war. Now if we end up in a war with iran and congress tries to interfer then there will be hell to pay come election time. Foriegn policy,which includes war, is strictly the domain of the president as stated in the Constitution. The president wages war the congress funds it and declares war.

If it becomes a shoving match the president can suspend habis corpus and act on his own, as Lincoln did, to defend the country. The president has a lot of power that is not used.

See my post Sniper rifles from iran.

[LiberalNation]

They wouldn't fund it and the hell to be payed would not be in congress but the next prez election when a dem wins by a crazy majority. I think you must be living in a bubble world to think americans support fighting another war in the ME. They want us out of the one we're in now. That's from my personal prespective of course but I do live in red state Kentucky and not a single person I've spoken to is happy with Bush or the wars he's started.

What Lincoln did was unconstitutional and wrong. If Bush tried it there would be problems. I see him getting his butt impeached if he attacked Iran with out congressional aproval.

[Gunny]

I don't think that's a lib quality, more a human quality and esscpially an American quality. If Bush even thinks about attacking Iran he'll find himself impeached for one reason or another. The American people wont like support such an action and neither will congress. As far has I know we're still a democracy so the peoples will does count for somethings. Why do you think the repub congress got it's ass kicked the last election.

It is a liberal quality to put personal convenience ahead of everything else even when it has an adverse affect on the greater good.

I think you are wrong about Iran. It is my opinion you misjudge the American people on Iran just as you are misinterpretting the last election. And I'm really getting tired of pointing out the fact to you "mandate" libs that the Dems slipped in through the back door because conservatives made kneejerk decisions and voiced their disapproval with the then-current representatives by abstaining from voting without considering the consequences of those actions. Same way your boy Clinton got elected to the Presidency. When conservatives are united and vote, you libs always find yourselves on the outside looking in.

So to answer your question, Republicans got their "asses kicked" due to dissension among the ranks of the right, and people not thinking their actions through to conclusion.

As far as Iran goes, I think the American people see Iran as a FAR bigger threat than either Iraq or Afghanistan. Probably because it is. Iran is a terrorist state, run by militant Islamic fundamentalists, on the verge on obtaining nuclear weapons. If that doesn't scare you, it should.

If President Bush decides to act against Iran, it would not support impeachment for treason. Diasgreeing with and acting in opposition to the Democrat party doesn't come anywhere mear treason. Matter of fact, it usually means somebody's doing the right thing.

[Gunny]

They wouldn't fund it and the hell to be payed would not be in congress but the next prez election when a dem wins by a crazy majority. I think you must be living in a bubble world to think americans support fighting another war in the ME. They want us out of the one we're in now. That's from my personal prespective of course but I do live in red state Kentucky and not a single person I've spoken to is happy with Bush or the wars he's started.

What Lincoln did was unconstitutional and wrong. If Bush tried it there would be problems. I see him getting his butt impeached if he attacked Iran with out congressional aproval.

Again, what are you going to impeach him for? Acting within the authority of his office?

What Lincoln did was unConstitutional, but necessary for the preservation of this Nation as we know it, so it wasn't "wrong." Sometimes, the end DOES justify the means.

And just a little clarifier ... the people of this Nation want a victory, not "out." Being dissatisfied with how th ewar is being conducted doesn't mean everyone's ready to cut-n-run. That's just more of you libs reading into something what isn't there by skewing the facts.

[LiberalNation]

As far as Iran goes, I think the American people see Iran as a FAR bigger threat than either Iraq or Afghanistan. Probably because it is. Iran is a terrorist state, run by militant Islamic fundamentalists, on the verge on obtaining nuclear weapons.
So why in the hell did we invade Iraq instead of Iran if it's Iran that's such a big threat. What's wrong with your boy Bush, he shoulda dealt with them first shouldn't he have. I mean they are actually getting nukes opposed to Saddams imaginary nuke program and WMDs.

[LiberalNation]

Again, what are you going to impeach him for? Acting within the authority of his office?
You can always find a reason. Bush has enough dirt on him congress could dig up and make a reason if they were really pissed at him. Can the president be censured by the way. Another consideration.

What Lincoln did was unConstitutional, but necessary for the preservation of this Nation as we know it, so it wasn't "wrong." Sometimes, the end DOES justify the means.
Yes it was "wrong", he violated the basic principles this country was founded on and stands for. He was a very poor president IMO who took advantage of a horrible situation to violate the constitution.

and no, people want out/think we've stayed there to long. Americans don't like long wars like I said.

[manu1959]

So why in the hell did we invade Iraq instead of Iran if it's Iran that's such a big threat. What's wrong with your boy Bush, he shoulda dealt with them first shouldn't he have. I mean they are actually getting nukes opposed to Saddams imaginary nuke program and WMDs.

what would have been the premise for invading iran?

[Gunny]

So why in the hell did we invade Iraq instead of Iran if it's Iran that's such a big threat. What's wrong with your boy Bush, he shoulda dealt with them first shouldn't he have. I mean they are actually getting nukes opposed to Saddams imaginary nuke program and WMDs.

Actually, your "boy" Jimmy Carter should have dealt with Iran.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already posted once this morning since it seems to be the lib day to rehash the "WMD" argument. The fact is, Saddam produced, possessed and used WMDs. It's quite obvious to anyone above the age of three that he wasn't going to stop pursuing them.

IIRC, correctly, at the time the US invaded Iraq, President Alphabet wasn't in the picture yet, and Iran had a more moderate leader, who wasn't rattling his saber, and overtly flaunting what they're doing in regard to nukes in our faces.

[LiberalNation]

what would have been the premise for invading iran?
Same as Iraq except it would actually be true.

[manu1959]

You can always find a reason. Bush has enough dirt on him congress could dig up and make a reason if they were really pissed at him. Can the president be censured by the way. Another consideration.

Yes it was "wrong", he violated the basic principles this country was founded on and stands for. He was a very poor president IMO who took advantage of a horrible situation to violate the constitution.

and no, people want out/think we've stayed there to long. Americans don't like long wars like I said.

lincoln re-united this great country.....i for one do not really care that he broke a few eggs....if not for lincoln....this land would be somewhere between 2 and 50 nations....

[LiberalNation]

Actually, your "boy" Jimmy Carter should have dealt with Iran.
I wasn't even alive when Carter was president and from all I've read about him he wasn't a very good one.

[manu1959]

Same as Iraq except it would actually be true.

really...... i was unaware that there was over a decade of negotiations with iran and 18 UN resolutions and violations of a cease fire with a US ally....

[Gunny]

You can always find a reason. Bush has enough dirt on him congress could dig up and make a reason if they were really pissed at him. Can the president be censured by the way. Another consideration.

If there was a any REAL dirt on President Bush, ti would've already been used. Wishful thinking on your part.

Yes it was "wrong", he violated the basic principles this country was founded on and stands for. He was a very poor president IMO who took advantage of a horrible situation to violate the constitution.

So, in your opinion, those principles this country was founded upon cannot be even temporarily suspended in order to preserve the verysame principles? I disagree. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
and no, people want out/think we've stayed there to long. Americans don't like long wars like I said.

Incorrect. YOU and your lefty cohorts want out. A loss for the US is a mere inconvenience to you guys when political victory within the US is at stake. Y'all think you're going to sit back after the fact and blame Bush, but you don't have the foresight to see the consequences of your actions. The backlash will be the same as it was after Viet Nam. When the smoke clears, the people are going to see EXACTLY what the cause was, and y'all will be out on your ears again.

[Gunny]

Same as Iraq except it would actually be true.


Would it? You mean Iran actually possesses WMDs? Your evidence?

Remember, an attack on Iran would be to proactively circumvent it gaining nuclear weapons capabilities, not because they already have them.

[LiberalNation]

lincoln re-united this great country.....i for one do not really care that he broke a few eggs....if not for lincoln....this land would be somewhere between 2 and 50 nations....
My views are states should have the right to secede from the Union and the south was partly justified in it's behavior at the time but anyway.

Lincoln was not a good prez, a good prez would have avoided the war to begin with and not committed a genocide of his own country men.

[Gunny]

I wasn't even alive when Carter was president and from all I've read about him he wasn't a very good one.

You think? Then why is it your political POV is a DIRECT result of his taking the Democrat party to the far left, if you think he wasn't a good President?

[Gunny]

My views are states should have the right to secede from the Union and the south was partly justified in it's behavior at the time but anyway.

States do NOT have the right to secede. At the time, nothing precluded a state from leaving the union as voluntarily as it joined.

Lincoln was not a good prez, a good prez would have avoided the war to begin with and not committed a genocide of his own country men.

Lincoln being elected President was the final catalyst that led to secession. He could not have avoided war without letting the CSA go its own way. Lincoln's conviction was that the Union had to be preserved at all cost. That is where the rubber meets the road and you either consider the Constitution a suicide pact, or you suspend parts of it temporarily in order to achieve the greater good ... the continued existence of those ideals emobdied within the Constitution.

[manu1959]

My views are states should have the right to secede from the Union and the south was partly justified in it's behavior at the time but anyway.

Lincoln was not a good prez, a good prez would have avoided the war to begin with and not committed a genocide of his own country men.

your view is yours.....as for lincoln....i can lay the exact same accusation at the feet of jefferson davis.....and as my ancesteral home is in Murfreesboro don't jump to conclusions....

[Gunny]

your view is yours.....as for lincoln....i can lay the exact same accusation at the feet of jefferson davis.....and as my ancesteral home is in Murfreesboro don't jump to conclusions....

Jefferson Davis was an exceptionally poor President. Part of the problem with the Confederacy was his problem of political favoritism; especially, where his generals in the field were concerned.

[manu1959]

You think? Then why is it your political POV is a DIRECT result of his taking the Democrat party to the far left, if you think he wasn't a good President?

this one always kills me......the far left and carter are cause and effect incarnate.....and they always deny...

[Grumplestillskin]

Actually, your "boy" Jimmy Carter should have dealt with Iran.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[manu1959]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

yes it is .... it is the foundation of the democrat's arguments on everything at the moment....

[Gunny]

this one always kills me......the far left and carter are cause and effect incarnate.....and they always deny...

Well, as this young 'un points out, he wasn't even alive when Carter was President. I got the same sorta response out of Jillian awhile back.

They don't even know why they stand for what they do, nor why their party is where it is on the political spectrum.

I was a tried and true, born and raised Southern Democrat until Carter yanked the rug out from under our feet and left room only for the flower children, pacifist do-gooders living in their own little utopian world that had nothign to do with reality.

The Iran Hostage Crisis was a harsh slap upside the head for that bunch.

[Gunny]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It isn't hindsight on my part. I'd be willing to bet there is STILL a phone record of my calling the White House and, asking to speak to the President (that didn't happen) and demanding to know what the Hell he was going to do about the hostages.

And I enlsited in the Marines under the presumption war with Iran was inevitable and I was willing to put my money where my mouth was.

So "hindsight" doesn't apply in my case.

[Grumplestillskin]

yes it is .... it is the foundation of the democrat's arguments on everything at the moment....

Au contraire. I find it the other way around. In fact, when I post about certain things that I stated pre Iraq war, conservatives accuse me of Monday morning quarterbacking. It is only so if things were stated after they happened. Stating something before it happens, and then it happens, is not quarterbacking. It's predicting - accurately - what is going to occur. If a schmuck like me in the middle of nowhere can see what's going to happen in a certain situation, how come highly educated people in the US defense department - and the neocon shills like Wolfowitz - couldn't see it? Question is a bit facetious and rhetorical. I think they could see it, didn't give anybody the downside, because it didn't fit their agenda. After all, most of the cabel were chickenhawks...

[manu1959]

Au contraire. I find it the other way around. In fact, when I post about certain things that I stated pre Iraq war, conservatives accuse me of Monday morning quarterbacking. It is only so if things were stated after they happened. Stating something before it happens, and then it happens, is not quarterbacking. It's predicting - accurately - what is going to occur. If a schmuck like me in the middle of nowhere can see what's going to happen in a certain situation, how come highly educated people in the US defense department - and the neocon shills like Wolfowitz - couldn't see it? Question is a bit facecious and rhetorical. I think they could see it, didn't give anybody the downside, because it didn't fit their agenda. After all, most of the cabel were chickenhawks...

give me a break....the whole WMD argument is a hindsight argument....and the basis for all yall saying the war was a mistake....

[Grumplestillskin]

It isn't hindsight on my part. I'd be willing to bet there is STILL a phone record of my calling the White House and, asking to speak to the President (that didn't happen) and demanding to know what the Hell he was going to do about the hostages.

He tried to do something about hte hostages, remember. The debacle in the desert...

[Grumplestillskin]

give me a break....the whole WMD argument is a hindsight argument....and the basis for all yall saying the war was a mistake....

Nope, In fact, if a particular messageboard was still open I'd show you posts I made about how the intel was at best faulty, and his ability to manufacture, distribute and launch WMD's. Nothing hindsight about it...

[manu1959]

He tried to do something about hte hostages, remember. The debacle in the desert...

he didn't send enough troops............:laugh:

[manu1959]

Nope, In fact, if a particular messageboard was still open I'd show you posts I made about how the intel was at best faulty, and his ability to manufacture, distribute and launch WMD's. Nothing hindsight about it...

i am please to hear that you would not have invaded iraq....good for you.

i too would not have....but for far different reasons.

however, the intel was represented to the pres, the hose and the senate.... by George Tenant, as a "slam dunk".... and was backed up by other contries intel and the senate and house both voted to "go to war"... and when they say, if i knew then what i know now i would not have been for the war before i was against it....is hindsight.

[Gunny]

Au contraire. I find it the other way around. In fact, when I post about certain things that I stated pre Iraq war, conservatives accuse me of Monday morning quarterbacking. It is only so if things were stated after they happened. Stating something before it happens, and then it happens, is not quarterbacking. It's predicting - accurately - what is going to occur. If a schmuck like me in the middle of nowhere can see what's going to happen in a certain situation, how come highly educated people in the US defense department - and the neocon shills like Wolfowitz - couldn't see it? Question is a bit facetious and rhetorical. I think they could see it, didn't give anybody the downside, because it didn't fit their agenda. After all, most of the cabel were chickenhawks...

The DoD did predict what was going to happen. The problem is when you interject politics and try to fight a PC war based on appeasing world opinion. If it was purely a matter of strategy and tactics from a military standpoint, we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd be discussing what to do with our 51st state.

And you lefties are as much to blame for the attempts at appeasement as any Republican politician. If it wasn't for your caterwalling, the job would be a lot easier.

[manu1959]

The DoD did predict what was going to happen. The problem is when you interject politics and try to fight a PC war based on appeasing world opinion. If it was purely a matter of strategy and tactics from a military standpoint, we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd be discussing what to do with our 51st state.

And you lefties are as much to blame for the attempts at appeasement as any Republican politician. If it wasn't for your caterwalling, the job would be a lot easier.

dude you are on a role.............

[Gunny]

He tried to do something about hte hostages, remember. The debacle in the desert...

I called pre-six months later- Delta Force debacle. IMO, that was about as tactically stupid an attempt to do too little too late as could be devised. He should have acted wthin 24 hours of the hostages being taken.

[Grumplestillskin]

i am please to hear that you would not have invaded iraq....good for you.

i too would not have....but for far different reasons.

however, the intel was represented to the pres, the hose and the senate.... by George Tenant, as a "slam dunk".... and was backed up by other contries intel and the senate and house both voted to "go to war"... and when they say, if i knew then what i know now i would not have been for the war before i was against it....is hindsight.

They are offering hindsight. I am not. You are right in that regard of course.
Why wouldn't have you gone into Iraq?

[Grumplestillskin]

I called pre-six months later- Delta Force debacle. IMO, that was about as tactically stupid an attempt to do too little too late as could be devised. He should have acted wthin 24 hours of the hostages being taken.

I agree. Guess he didn't have enough intel, but the Iranians sure would have been a lot less organised,

[manu1959]

They are offering hindsight. I am not. You are right in that regard of course.
Why wouldn't have you gone into Iraq?

i do not belive in the US being the worlds police force.....we simply did not have a dog in the fight.....come on going to war for kuwait.....

i have long advocted closing all foriegn military bases and cutting off all forigen aid.....let someone else take care of things for awahile.....i feel like the guy that goes out with his friends week after week, always picks up the check and all everyone does is bitch about the food, or the beer, or the women....

[Gunny]

They are offering hindsight. I am not. You are right in that regard of course.
Why wouldn't have you gone into Iraq?

Simple answer ... going into Iraq and doing the job the right way would offend the hell out of the PC and the liberal coalition of world opinion.

The religious sects who are causing all the trouble now were already isolated, and should have been kept that way for the Iraqi government to deal with at a later time when it was on its own feet.

The Iraqi Army should have been rounded up and put in detention and weeded through one at a time.

Iraq's borders should have been sealed.

Since all of the above would cause the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth, the factional infighting was inevitable. Saddam keeping the region off balance by having isolated himself fromt he rest of the Arab World was preferable to that.

[Grumplestillskin]

i do not belive in the US being the worlds police force.....we simply did not have a dog in the fight.....come on going to war for kuwait.....

i have long advocted closing all foriegn military bases and cutting off all forigen aid.....let someone else take care of things for awahile.....i feel like the guy that goes out with his friends week after week, always picks up the check and all everyone does is bitch about the food, or the beer, or the women....


From the outside looking in, i can see why you would think like that. Thing is, there are too many Wolfawitz's and the likie in the world who want it all. They need folk to do their bidding.

[Grumplestillskin]

Simple answer ... going into Iraq and doing the job the right way would offend the hell out of the PC and the liberal coalition of world opinion.

The religious sects who are causing all the trouble now were already isolated, and should have been kept that way for the Iraqi government to deal with at a later time when it was on its own feet.

The Iraqi Army should have been rounded up and put in detention and weeded through one at a time.

Iraq's borders should have been sealed.

Since all of the above would cause the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth, the factional infighting was inevitable. Saddam keeping the region off balance by having isolated himself fromt he rest of the Arab World was preferable to that.

Sounds like a plan, but you probably would have needed more troops. Dunno how you would have sealed a porous border. Like the idea of isolating the extremists like Sadr etc. However, I still think betrayal and kinship is so endemic in arab society that it might have been a bridge too far in getting those who generally hate each other to work together...I blame the Brits for not taking religious and ethnic considerations into account when partitioning the ME back in the day...

[Dilloduck]

From the outside looking in, i can see why you would think like that. Thing is, there are too many Wolfawitz's and the likie in the world who want it all. They need folk to do their bidding.

wow---thats mighty Noahide of ya--look out !!

[Grumplestillskin]

wow---thats mighty Noahide of ya--look out !!

Where is your pal?

[manu1959]

From the outside looking in, i can see why you would think like that. Thing is, there are too many Wolfawitz's and the likie in the world who want it all. They need folk to do their bidding.

tis all da joooooos fault huh....

[Grumplestillskin]

tis all da joooooos fault huh....

No noahide conspracies here! I was commenting on the man, not his religion...:420:

[manu1959]

No noahide conspracies here! I was commenting on the man, not his religion...:420:

a man that wants the world to be one nation without boarders or wars or conflict working together for the greater good of the world and its people?

you mean a man like that?

[Dilloduck]

a man that wants the world to be one nation without boarders or wars or conflict working together for the greater good of the world and its people?

you mean a man like that?

Don't forget that the US has to ask the rest of the world for permission to take a shit.

[manu1959]

Don't forget that the US has to ask the rest of the world for permission to take a shit.

we bring that on ourselves.....mostly because we publicly rebuke ourselves for trying to help

[LiberalNation]

Then why is it your political POV is a DIRECT result of his taking the Democrat party to the far left, if you think he wasn't a good President?
You don't even know my POV besides being against a war/attack on Iran. That's only one lil issue. Not near enough to classify me has "far left".

He wasn't a good president because his policies didn't really work that's all.

[manu1959]

You don't even know my POV besides being against a war/attack on Iran. That's only one lil issue. Not near enough to classify me has "far left".

He wasn't a good president because his policies didn't really work that's all.

clinton's polices didn't work

[LiberalNation]

clinton's polices didn't work

Some of them did, some of them didn't. His policy toward the threats posed by terrorist groups being one that did not work out to well. Bush's policies aren't working much better.

[manu1959]

Some of them did, some of them didn't. His policy toward the threats posed by terrorist groups being one that did not work out to well. Bush's policies aren't working much better.

what policy of clinton's worked......

bush's current policies are a result of clinton's failed terrorisim policies....further bush's terrorist czar and cia head were both clinton apointees still on watch when we got hit ......

[LiberalNation]

If it was purely a matter of strategy and tactics from a military standpoint, we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd be discussing what to do with our 51st state.
The founding father would be rolling in their graves, and your calling me anti-American. The person who’s for throwing out the constitution when it's convenient and waging imperialist genocidal war against civilian and “enemy” a like.

That’s not a way to defeat terrorism. Oppression and occupation only begets hatred and revolt. Make them a 51st state and will be on the same boat as Israel. Constant fighting and hatred of the world.

[manu1959]

The founding father would be rolling in their graves, and your calling me anti-American. The person who’s for throwing out the constitution when it's convenient and waging imperialist genocidal war against civilian and “enemy” a like.

That’s not a way to defeat terrorism. Oppression and occupation only begets hatred and revolt. Make them a 51st state and will be on the same boat as Israel. Constant fighting and hatred of the world.

which part of the constitution did clinton throw out when he went into somalia to kill civilians?

[LiberalNation]

which part of the constitution did clinton throw out when he went into somalia to kill civilians?
I don't know, I was young and not watching news during the Clinton years but if you'd like to point out to me I'll give ya my opinion.

[darin]

I don't know, I was young and not watching news during the Clinton years but if you'd like to point out to me I'll give ya my opinion.

Translation: Instead of educating myself on world history and international law and our constitution, it's easier to slander/libel our current President.

[manu1959]

I don't know, I was young and not watching news during the Clinton years but if you'd like to point out to me I'll give ya my opinion.

it would be the same part as the person you are refering to in this quote of yours...... "The person who’s for throwing out the constitution when it's convenient and waging imperialist genocidal war against civilian and “enemy” a like."

[LiberalNation]

Translation: Instead of educating myself on world history and international law and our constitution, it's easier to slander/libel our current President.
History classes never get to the Clinton years and I'm really not interested in current history, so sorry but I don't see that changing for awile. I don't independently study anything past the Vietnam war years for entertainment when I'm bored. Light law and the constitution is something I do spend some of my time studying outside as well as inside school. pretty interesting.

[LiberalNation]

it would be the same part as the person you are refering to in this quote of yours...... ]
What happened in Somalia, never even heard of that war. Must not have been a big one. I remember hearing about a bombing that killed a lot of marines, same war?

[manu1959]

History classes never get to the Clinton years and I'm really not interested in current history, so sorry but I don't see that changing for awile. I don't independently study anything past the Vietnam war years for entertainment when I'm bored. Light law and the constitution is something I do spend some of my time studying outside as well as inside school. pretty interesting.

so what you are saying is you are uninformed .... yet offering your opinion non the less ..... you are the poster child for liberals

[SassyLady]

If you are not studying current history why are you in here debating current history?

[manu1959]

What happened in Somalia, never even heard of that war. Must not have been a big one. I remember hearing about a bombing that killed a lot of marines, same war?

lebanon was the marines....somalia was the movie blackhawk down......

[SassyLady]

What happened in Somalia, never even heard of that war. Must not have been a big one. I remember hearing about a bombing that killed a lot of marines, same war?

Do some research and then come back and talk about Clinton's successes.

[LiberalNation]

I am uninformed about the Somalia war but it has no bearing on whether or not I can give my opinion on Bush or another posters opinion on war int eh ME. Clinton really has nothing to do with it.

[LiberalNation]

Do some research and then come back and talk about Clinton's successes.
I wasn't talking about his success. You all assumed I though he was a success and never did any wrong.

[LiberalNation]

If you are not studying current history why are you in here debating current history?
I'm debating current events, current policy, and stuff yet to happen.

[jillian]

Do some research and then come back and talk about Clinton's successes.

Perhaps you should.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Clinton.html

[SassyLady]

Liberal....

What we are trying to tell you is that Bush is dealing with the foundation that Clinton developed. Most kids today are not well informed enough about recent history to make well formed opinions about the differences between Bush and Clinton.

All your own experience is with Bush history......all we're asking is that you research a little more before you come in here and start comparing the two.

[manu1959]

I wasn't talking about his success. You all assumed I though he was a success and never did any wrong.

so when you said:

Some of them did, some of them didn't. His policy toward the threats posed by terrorist groups being one that did not work out to well.

in response to me saying clinton's polices didn't work

you were not talking about clinton or his success?

might want to think this one all the through

[SassyLady]

Perhaps you should.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Clinton.html

Jillian....I lived with Clinton's "successes".

[manu1959]

Perhaps you should.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Clinton.html

the context of the discussion is war on terror.....clinton and his crew did shit.....except at waco...they got them all that day

[jillian]

Jillian....I lived with Clinton's "successes".

Me, too. Your point?

[LiberalNation]

All your own experience is with Bush history......all we're asking is that you research a little more before you come in here and start comparing the two.
Hey i'm not the one who brought Clinton up in the first place. Might do a bit of research when I feel like it.

[LiberalNation]

so when you said:

Some of them did, some of them didn't. His policy toward the threats posed by terrorist groups being one that did not work out to well.

in response to me saying clinton's polices didn't work

you were not talking about clinton or his success?

might want to think this one all the through
Some did work, his economic policy must have been pretty good because the national debt was low during his terms and the economy was doing well according to all I've heard. I do believe his economic policy is what he’s known for.

Can we get off clinton and past now.

[manu1959]

Perhaps you should.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Clinton.html

yes we know....they invented the intenet and took full credit for the dot com boom years...and then blamed bush when the dot com era collapsed

no mention of the cole, wtc I, nigeria, bali, somalia

i did like this one.....

33. Punished Saddam for attempt on Pres. Bush.

[SassyLady]

Me, too. Your point?

Don't need to research his impact. Liberalnation admitted to not knowing much about the impact of Clinton. I suggested they do some research. Next thing I know, you are stepping in and suggesting that I do some research.

As I mentioned... I lived it. Seems you have to. So why are you getting into my discussion with Liberal?

[manu1959]

Some did work, his economic policy must have been pretty good because the national debt was low during his terms and the economy was doing well according to all I've heard. I do believe his economic policy is what he’s known for.

Can we get off clinton and past now.

his economic policy was to cut taxes.....you see the dot com era was just getting rolling and he did what bush did cut taxes to ensure that all the young businesses could grow...they did....

he also cut military spending....do you know why? because reagan won the cold war and he could.....he also chose not to deal with any of the terrorist shit going on....he also closed and sold several military bases....he did defer the cost of the clean up of those bases till after he was gone.....

so in short he lucked into an econmy....and didn't fuck it up.....and in his second term he fucked anything that moved

[Abbey Marie]

his economic policy was to cut taxes.....you see the dot com era was just getting rolling and he did what bush did cut taxes to ensure that all the young businesses could grow...they did....

he also cut military spending....do you know why? because reagan won the cold war and he could.....he also chose not to deal with any of the terrorist shit going on....he also closed and sold several military bases....he did defer the cost of the clean up of those bases till after he was gone.....

so in short he lucked into an econmy....and didn't fuck it up.....and in his second term he fucked anything that moved

Except Hillary.

[SassyLady]

Except Hillary.

OMG - I think I peed my pants on that one Abbey!

[darin]

History classes never get to the Clinton years and I'm really not interested in current history, so sorry but I don't see that changing for awile. I don't independently study anything past the Vietnam war years for entertainment when I'm bored. Light law and the constitution is something I do spend some of my time studying outside as well as inside school. pretty interesting.



Translation: "I'm lazy and want to be spoon-fed 'feel good' BS which will make my mind weak."

Whatever.

[manu1959]

Except Hillary.

:laugh2:

[Gunny]

You don't even know my POV besides being against a war/attack on Iran. That's only one lil issue. Not near enough to classify me has "far left".

He wasn't a good president because his policies didn't really work that's all.

You label yourself a liberal dude, and in case you missed it the first time, what was considered moderate liberal in 1977 is now considered moderate conservative since the guy you follow but claim wasn't a good President pulled the rug out from under us.

The math just isn't that hard.

[Gunny]

Some of them did, some of them didn't. His policy toward the threats posed by terrorist groups being one that did not work out to well. Bush's policies aren't working much better.

What policy toward the threat posed by terrorist groups? Cutting and running from Somalia? Lobbing a cruise missile into a tent as a retaliatory strike?

President Bush completely removed a terrorist organization from power in Afghanistan and has them hiding in the hills. I'd call that successful.

[Gunny]

The founding father would be rolling in their graves, and your calling me anti-American. The person who’s for throwing out the constitution when it's convenient and waging imperialist genocidal war against civilian and “enemy” a like.

That’s not a way to defeat terrorism. Oppression and occupation only begets hatred and revolt. Make them a 51st state and will be on the same boat as Israel. Constant fighting and hatred of the world.

First, I have not called you anti-American. I use that term very sparingly, and only on those who are truly anti-American.

You need to read up on how the founding father's you attempt to sling around like a sword treated Tories during the American Revolution before you go to presuming what they'd be doing in their graves.

As I already said, they did not create a suicide pact when they wrote the Constitution; yet, you would have it be just that. It is with a lack of foresight that you attempt to stand on principles you are not willing to protect. You can temprorarily suspend them in order to protect them, or lose them permanently. Not a real hard decision there.

Completely destroying one's enemy and/or his ability to wage war worked like a charm in Germany and Japan. Not completely destroying one's enemy and/or his capability to wage war has NEVER worked.

[Gunny]

What happened in Somalia, never even heard of that war. Must not have been a big one. I remember hearing about a bombing that killed a lot of marines, same war?

And you presume to discuss war with the adults?:smoke:

[manu1959]

gunny,

liberal is a self proclaimed 17 year old high school girl......
:bsflag:

[Gunny]

I am uninformed about the Somalia war but it has no bearing on whether or not I can give my opinion on Bush or another posters opinion on war int eh ME. Clinton really has nothing to do with it.

No, really ... you have proven yourself in one thread not knowledgeable enough to discuss the conduct of war with professionals and/or students of the subject.

[Gunny]

I'm debating current events, current policy, and stuff yet to happen.

Oh. Like your opinion of President Lincoln and his conduct during the US Civil War? I believe that ended in April, 1865 at Appomattox Court House.

[Gunny]

gunny,

liberal is a self proclaimed 17 year old high school girl......
:bsflag:

LOL ... guess I missed that little tidbit ....

[manu1959]

LOL ... guess I missed that little tidbit ....

check the introductions thread....

[Gaffer]

It's obvious LN has had a lot of liberal BS drilled into her head. Hopefully her mind is open enough to obsorb some real facts and information. LN we have lots of experienced people here that lived through all of the recent history clear back to WW2.

I would suggest you state an opinion if you think you know what your talking about and see who steps up to agree or argue with you. You can learn a lot here, even if you don't agree with it. And recent history can be as important to you as ancient history. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

As you are unfamiliar with samolia I suggest you get the movie Blackhawk Down and watch it. Then find some reading material on it.

[Gunny]

It's obvious LN has had a lot of liberal BS drilled into her head. Hopefully her mind is open enough to obsorb some real facts and information. LN we have lots of experienced people here that lived through all of the recent history clear back to WW2.

I would suggest you state an opinion if you think you know what your talking about and see who steps up to agree or argue with you. You can learn a lot here, even if you don't agree with it. And recent history can be as important to you as ancient history. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

As you are unfamiliar with samolia I suggest you get the movie Blackhawk Down and watch it. Then find some reading material on it.

And here's the short version of the Beiruit Barracks Bombing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

[Abbey Marie]

gunny,

liberal is a self proclaimed 17 year old high school girl......
:bsflag:

It is very common for one so young to be so liberal. I give her credit for at least caring about politics. I had other things on my mind at that age.

[manu1959]

It is very common for one so young to be so liberal. I give her credit for at least caring about politics. I had other things on my mind at that age.

i am more cynical than to belive liberal is a little high school girl

[LiberalNation]

First, I have not called you anti-American. I use that term very sparingly, and only on those who are truly anti-American.
A lot of people here have if you haven't then I apoligize for accusing you of it.

[LiberalNation]

i am more cynical than to belive liberal is a little high school girl
lol this is the second board whose accused me of such, the other was politics and current affairs but after two years of posting they finally got over it. I think I need to avoid these radical sites. what reason would I have to claim to be something I'm not. Esspicially admiting I was young. Most young people wont do so on boards like this because of the shit you take for it. People dismissing your comments because "your just a kid".

[manu1959]

lol this is the second board whose accused me of such, the other was politics and current affairs but after two years of posting they finally got over it. I think I need to avoid these radical sites. what reason would I have to claim to be something I'm not. Esspicially admiting I was young. Most young people wont do so on boards like this because of the shit you take for it. People dismissing your comments because "your just a kid".

i don't dismiss you because you claim to be young......

[LiberalNation]

i don't dismiss you because you claim to be young......
No you dismiss me bbecause I disagree with you but lot of people like to slam on anyone under 25s age so most don't disclose.

[jillian]

i am more cynical than to belive liberal is a little high school girl

I campaigned for my first presidential candidate of choice when I was 12. ;)

[Gunny]

lol this is the second board whose accused me of such, the other was politics and current affairs but after two years of posting they finally got over it. I think I need to avoid these radical sites. what reason would I have to claim to be something I'm not. Esspicially admiting I was young. Most young people wont do so on boards like this because of the shit you take for it. People dismissing your comments because "your just a kid".

Your comments are not being dismissed because you "are just a kid," at least by me. I have argued the points I have disagreed with word for word. However, you DO have a tendency to step across the line of telling some pretty old and experienced people they are wrong without being able to support it with more than your opinion. And dismissing someone else's points because you are not knowledgeable on the subject, if those points are relevant to the conversation, pretty-much shows a lack of knowledge and understanding.

If you want to debate with adults, then do it. Like an adult. And if you are not knowledgeable on a topic, don't go to telling those who are that they are wrong.

And I consider the fact that you are at least partially-trained by the members of P&CA a strike against you.:poke:

[Gunny]

No you dismiss me bbecause I disagree with you but lot of people like to slam on anyone under 25s age so most don't disclose.

You get dismissed when you cannot support your argument.

[manu1959]

No you dismiss me bbecause I disagree with you but lot of people like to slam on anyone under 25s age so most don't disclose.

i have not dismissed you as of yet, and i have not disagreed with you as i have no clue what you stand for.....

[Dilloduck]

I campaigned for my first presidential candidate of choice when I was 12. ;)

Ho Chi Minh ??

[LiberalNation]

However, you DO have a tendency to step across the line of telling some pretty old and experienced people they are wrong without being able to support it with more than your opinion. And dismissing someone else's points because you are not knowledgeable on the subject, if those points are relevant to the conversation, pretty-much shows a lack of knowledge and understanding.

If you want to debate with adults, then do it. Like an adult. And if you are not knowledgeable on a topic, don't go to telling those who are that they are wrong.
and that's the bullshit I'm talking about. You all haven't debated like adults just name called and liberal hating and you'll get it right back in return.

I have my opinions, there what i believe, I have no problem telling adults on the internet I disagree with them if their views run contrary to my own. As for back up my opinions, I asked for a link to claimed polls and got more flaming. I'm not digging up stories to back up my opinions that will just be dismissed cuss people disagree if you all wont even waste the time.

[manu1959]

and that's the bullshit I'm talking about. You all haven't debated like adults just name called and liberal hating and you'll get it right back in return.

I have my opinions, there what i believe, I have no problem telling adults on the internet I disagree with them if their views run contrary to my own. As for back up my opinions, I asked for a link to claimed polls and got more flaming. I'm not digging up stories to back up my opinions that will just be dismissed cuss people disagree if you all wont even waste the time.

opinions.....

[LiberalNation]

That's what I do, opinions. That's what these type boards are for.

[Gunny]

and that's the bullshit I'm talking about. You all haven't debated like adults just name called and liberal hating and you'll get it right back in return.

I have my opinions, there what i believe, I have no problem telling adults on the internet I disagree with them if their views run contrary to my own. As for back up my opinions, I asked for a link to claimed polls and got more flaming. I'm not digging up stories to back up my opinions that will just be dismissed cuss people disagree if you all wont even waste the time.

Really? Who exactly is "you all"? I have done nothing but address the points you make that I disagree with. Sorry if being called a liberal offends you.:laugh:

You're swinging a wide loop, cowgirl. I cannot speak for anyone who has done any of the things you are accusing, but DO be careful who you include in your accusations.

And before you accuse me of insulting or flaming you, you might want to ask for clarification because if you get nasty with me, I'll return it in spades, and I don't care how old you are.

Try rereading what I posted. I didn't tell you to not disagree with adults. I'm basically saying engage your brain before engaging your mouth. If you're going to debate about war and politics with us, put up or shut up. And when you can't put up, you're going to be called for it and expected to act like an adult about it, not fall back on being picked on because you're a kid.

[Dilloduck]

That's what I do, opinions. That's what these type boards are for.

Then you certainly will understand those who might have an opinon of you !

[LiberalNation]

Then you certainly will understand those who might have an opinon of you !
lol sure, I understand.

[LiberalNation]

not fall back on being picked on because you're a kid.

Don't worry I wont, I only took it up because people brought up my age in this unrelated thread.

I'm basically saying engage your brain before engaging your mouth. If you're going to debate about war and politics with us, put up or shut up.
I already am, you all just disagree with it.

[manu1959]

That's what I do, opinions. That's what these type boards are for.

then why do get upset if someone holds an opinion of you that your opinions carry no weight because you are a little girl?.....

[Gunny]

That's what I do, opinions. That's what these type boards are for.

Sure. And if you engage in debate, your opinion is going to be challenged, and you will be expected to support it.

And don't forget, having an opinion is just fine, but we all have ours and believe in them just as strongly as you do yours.

[LiberalNation]

then why do get upset if someone holds an opinion of you that your opinions carry no weight because you are a little girl?.....
I don't get upset, it doesn't bother me all that much besides being a slight annoyance. If it did I wouldn't post my age. The only thing I said is many people do and that's why they don't.

[LiberalNation]

Sure. And if you engage in debate, your opinion is going to be challenged, and you will be expected to support it.

And don't forget, having an opinion is just fine, but we all have ours and believe in them just as strongly as you do yours.

Yep, what are we talking about again. Feels like I'm running in circles.

[manu1959]

I don't get upset, it doesn't bother me all that much besides being a slight annoyance. If it did I wouldn't post my age. The only thing I said is many people do and that's why they don't.

i think you post your age so you can play the i am young card and follow up with you are only dismissing me and my opinions because i am young.....

[Gunny]

Don't worry I wont, I only took it up because people brought up my age in this unrelated thread.

I already am, you all just disagree with it.

Really? I thought we were debating yor perception of how you are being mistreated because of your age.

Feel free to go back to where the topic left off and take it right up again. I believe it concerned Clinton's mishandling of Somalia in the 90s, and your thinking it was related to the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing. I provided a link for the latter.

If you're 9 or 90, I'll be more than happy to correct you in the error of your ways.

[LiberalNation]

i think you post your age so you can play the i am young card and follow up with you are only dismissing me and my opinions because i am young.....
No I do it because I like the fight. Revealing my age makes it just that much harder in the debate or has in my experience. I don't mind being outnumbered or antagonized I revel in it. That’s why I don’t bother to make myself liked, it’s more fun just to say whatever I think and feel.

[jillian]

Ho Chi Minh ??

Don't think he ran for president of the United States. He was also BMT. :bye1:

oh yeah... never voted communist either.

[LiberalNation]

Really? I thought we were debating yor perception of how you are being mistreated because of your age.

Go back and read and you'll see I never said any such thing.

and the thread was about war with Iran. Somalia was just another thing we were taken off topic with and before that it was clinton.

[LiberalNation]

Oh and I'll never bring up my age as long as others don't. i didn't bring it up in this thread besides to be honest and say i wasn't around and truthfully no little about clinton or carter so get off the subject.

[Gunny]

No I do it because I like the fight. Revealing my age makes it just that much harder in the debate or has in my experience. I don't mind being outnumbered or antagonized I revel in it. That’s why I don’t bother to make myself liked, it’s more fun just to say whatever I think and feel.

There's no point to having people purposefully dislike you either.

[manu1959]

No I do it because I like the fight. Revealing my age makes it just that much harder in the debate or has in my experience. I don't mind being outnumbered or antagonized I revel in it. That’s why I don’t bother to make myself liked, it’s more fun just to say whatever I think and feel.

if that is what you belive that is fine, but given you were "debating" with us before i found out what you claimed you age to be ..... i had dismissed your ability to debate before i found out you were young ....

[LiberalNation]

There's no point to having people purposefully dislike you either.
I don't, some people like me even ones with disagreeing viewpoints. Just depends I guess. Saying what I think no matter if it's diplomatic or not because that's what I feel/think at the time doesn't make me popular either.

[LiberalNation]

if that is what you belive that is fine, but given you were "debating" with us before i found out what you claimed you age to be ..... i had dismissed your ability to debate before i found out you were young ....

I know that happens when people don't agree with ya don't it. No prob, might be nice if you just stopped buggin me then but doubt that'll happen.

[Gunny]

Go back and read and you'll see I never said any such thing.

and the thread was about war with Iran. Somalia was just another thing we were taken off topic with and before that it was clinton.

Natural progression of a conversation. Somalia was within the context of Clinton's handling of Islamic terrorism. The brief version is we were in Somalia as humanitarian relief and a Somali warlord ambushed an Army unit and Clinton just pulled everyone out rather than retaliate.

In comparison, we were attacked on 9/11 and Bush completely removed a terrorist organization from power in Afghanistan and currently has them hiding out in caves in Northern Pakistan.

So in terms of success, I'd say President Bush has been rather more successful in handling terrorists than Clinton was.

[Said1]

Ho Chi Minh ??

Let me interject with :lmao: <------ me.


Please, don't ding me, Jill.

[LiberalNation]

So in terms of success, I'd say President Bush has been rather more successful in handling terrorists than Clinton was.
Depends on if there are more terrorist now or then. If there are more then he is not any more sucessfull than clinton.

[Gunny]

Depends on if there are more terrorist now or then. If there are more then he is not any more sucessfull than clinton.

Did you think that through before you posted it?

How many terrorists there were then compared to now is irrelevant. What IS relevant is how each President, respectively, handled the issue.

[Abbey Marie]

I campaigned for my first presidential candidate of choice when I was 12. ;)

It was for Goldwater, wasn't it? :laugh:

[LiberalNation]

No more terrorist under Bush than Clinton = Bush not dealing with it well. If it's a fight against terrorist you want to stop the terrorists not make more of them. If there is fewer terrorist under Bush than clinton then same thing, Bush would be doing the better job.

[Abbey Marie]

and that's the bullshit I'm talking about. You all haven't debated like adults just name called and liberal hating and you'll get it right back in return.
...


Nope. BS is when a brand new poster enters saying, I'm not bothering to click on your link. Post the article here or I won't read it.

Some advice: This kind of arrogance won't work here, and it won't work in "real life" either.

Btw, is your new rainbow avatar just a pretty picture, or does it represent something?

[manu1959]

No more terrorist under Bush than Clinton = Bush not dealing with it well. If it's a fight against terrorist you want to stop the terrorists not make more of them. If there is fewer terrorist under Bush than clinton then same thing, Bush would be doing the better job.

well....clinton did nothing and bush attacked two countries.....as for the relative number of terrorists.....there are probaly fewer now because bush has been killing them....

[LiberalNation]

Btw, is your new rainbow avatar just a pretty picture, or does it represent something?
What does that have to do with anything.


BS is when a brand new poster enters saying, I'm not bothering to click on your link. Post the article here or I won't read it.

Some advice: This kind of arrogance won't work here, and it won't work in "real life" either.
Lol I done said I post what I feel and think no matter what people might think. I didn't think it was being arrogent, I was just explaining and being honest.

[manu1959]

Nope. BS is when a brand new poster enters saying, I'm not bothering to click on your link. Post the article here or I won't read it.

Some advice: This kind of arrogance won't work here, and it won't work in "real life" either.

Btw, is your new rainbow avatar just a pretty picture, or does it represent something?

she is pro greenpeace leprechaun.....

[Abbey Marie]

What does that have to do with anything.

I dont know. That's what I am asking you.

[Gunny]

No more terrorist under Bush than Clinton = Bush not dealing with it well. If it's a fight against terrorist you want to stop the terrorists not make more of them. If there is fewer terrorist under Bush than clinton then same thing, Bush would be doing the better job.

That is a backwards-assed argument. At the most basic level, there are more people in the world now than there were 7-15 years ago.

However, there is one less nation being run by a fundamentalist Islamic sect under Bush than there was under Clinton. That would be an entire country's terrorists ousted from power.

Clinton DID blow up a tent with a cruise missile though ......:laugh:

[LiberalNation]

I dont know. That's what I am asking you.
Yeah but why are you asking, it's a gay pride flag anybody can see that.

[Said1]

Yeah but why are you asking, it's a gay pride flag anybody can see that.

Personally, I had a craving for fruit loops.

[Gunny]

What does that have to do with anything.


Lol I done said I post what I feel and think no matter what people might think. I didn't think it was being arrogent, I was just explaining and being honest.

Bottom line is, even those of us who disagree, with a few exceptions, debate within a certain parameter. If you don't play the game by those rules, you WILL be ostricized. It's as simple as that.

[LiberalNation]

However, there is one less nation being run by a fundamentalist Islamic sect under Bush than there was under Clinton.

No Afghanistan and Iraq are still being run by fundamentalists. Have you seen the news coming out of those countries. Iraq has a more religious leader than Saddam was and Afghanistan is still trying to execute people who dare convert to Christianity.

[Gunny]

Yeah but why are you asking, it's a gay pride flag anybody can see that.

So why are you flying a fag flag?

[Abbey Marie]

Yeah but why are you asking, it's a gay pride flag anybody can see that.

Not necessarily; maybe you just like a lot of colors. :dunno: Why is it that gays think they own the rainbow anyway? Thanks for clarifying.

[Said1]

No Afghanistan and Iraq are still being run by fundamentalists. Have you seen the news coming out of those countries. Iraq has a more religious leader than Saddam was and Afghanistan is still trying to execute people who dare convert to Christianity.
LOL. That was one LESS country. I thought you didn't follow the news and stuff, anyway? :laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

If you don't play the game by those rules, you WILL be ostricized. It's as simple as that.
I know, that's fine.

[LiberalNation]

Why is it that gays think they own the rainbow anyway?
They don't but it is the symbol of the gay rights movement. Just like the US government uses stars and stripes as a symbol for it's flag or Nazis use the swastica.

[Gunny]

No Afghanistan and Iraq are still being run by fundamentalists. Have you seen the news coming out of those countries. Iraq has a more religious leader than Saddam was and Afghanistan is still trying to execute people who dare convert to Christianity.

Afghanistan is not being run my the Taliban, a militant Islamic extremist group that supports terrorism.

And who exactly in Afghanistan is trying to execute Christian converts? I smell intellectual dishonesty. Please provide a link to your source of information.

I didn't mention Iraq; however, I will point out that the Government of Iraq was elected democratically by the people of Iraq. And the government of Iraq is under attack daily by terrorists.

[LiberalNation]

I thought you didn't follow the news and stuff, anyway? :laugh2:
Never said that, said I didn't study recent history not current events/news.

[Gunny]

I know, that's fine.

False bravado. How becoming.

[Gunny]

They don't but it is the symbol of the gay rights movement. Just like the US government uses stars and stripes as a symbol for it's flag or Nazis use the swastica.

Which rights exactly do gays not have?

[LiberalNation]

Afghanistan is not being run my the Taliban, a militant Islamic extremist group that supports terrorism.
No but it is being run by Islamic fuendementalist which is what you said.

This story is a bit old but was big news awhile ago. Can't believe you don't remember it. Some high up people pulled a lot of strings to save this guy. The democratic government of Afghanistan would have executed him if things were truely democratic.

Afghan faces death penalty for Christian faith
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article743292.ece

[LiberalNation]

Which rights exactly do gays not have?
Not turning this into a gay debate. Start a new thread and I'll answer.

[LiberalNation]

False bravado. How becoming.
False how, I get treated the same way at P&CA. They think I'm a neo-con/right wing republican. Told you my views are all over the spectrum, not a typical liberal or they would like me.

[Said1]

Never said that, said I didn't study recent history not current events/news.

How recent is recent?

Yo. Yo. S'aight. Don't bother.

[Gunny]

No but it is being run by Islamic fuendementalist which is what you said.

This story is a bit old but was big news awhile ago. Can't believe you don't remember it. Some high up people pulled a lot of strings to save this guy. The democratic government of Afghanistan would have executed him if things were truely democratic.

Afghan faces death penalty for Christian faith
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article743292.ece

Fact is, we were discussing terrorists, were we not? Guess you want to play that literalist game. The Taliban supported al Qaeda, and refused to turn OBL over to the US. The current government of Afghanistan does not support the Taliban and/or AQ, nor Islamic terrorism that anyone is aware of.

[Gunny]

Not turning this into a gay debate. Start a new thread and I'll answer.

Don't need to. There are several in the religion forum, IIRC. pick one and jump right in.

[LiberalNation]

Hey don't say Islamic fundamentalist if you meant terrorists then. I just responded to what you said.

[LiberalNation]

Don't need to. There are several in the religion forum, IIRC. pick one and jump right in.
Nah, I don't like jumping in the middle of long threads. I'll start a new one on the subject tomorrow. Need to get to bed soon tonight.

[Gaffer]

No Afghanistan and Iraq are still being run by fundamentalists. Have you seen the news coming out of those countries. Iraq has a more religious leader than Saddam was and Afghanistan is still trying to execute people who dare convert to Christianity.

That's why we can have victory by stabilizing iraq and afganhistan but we can't win the war until we conquor islam. That is the true enemy.

All the people in those countries are more loyal to their family and tribes than they are to their country. They live under islamic law with a middle ages mentality. Most are illiterate. They don't need democracy there, they need education. Democracy will come with education. But it will be a long and bloody time before that education takes hold.

[Gunny]

Hey don't say Islamic fundamentalist if you meant terrorists then. I just responded to what you said.

Whatever. If you're going to be such a smartass, at least be smartass enough to not pretend you didn't know what I meant when we were discussing terrorists and not Islamic fundamentalists.

[Gunny]

Nah, I don't like jumping in the middle of long threads. I'll start a new one on the subject tomorrow. Need to get to bed soon tonight.

I would suggest you read the threads already there before starting another on the same topic.

[LiberalNation]

at least be smartass enough to not pretend you didn't know what I meant when we were discussing terrorists and not Islamic fundamentalists.
Okay whatever, get over it. Your about sensative.

[LiberalNation]

I would suggest you read the threads already there before starting another on the same topic.
Why all debates on such subjects run about the same course and I've read hundreds already on many different boards.

[manu1959]

Why all debates on such subjects run about the same course and I've read hundreds already on many different boards.

why are you here then if you already know it all

[LiberalNation]

why are you here then if you already know it all

Who said I knew it all. Just said I've read such threads and they're pretty predictable. Why am I here, to say what I got to say of course.

[manu1959]

Who said I knew it all. Just said I've read such threads and they're pretty predictable. Why am I here, to say what I got to say of course.

maybe if you don't post, this thread will turn out different....

[LiberalNation]

So why are you flying a fag flag?
Cuss I feel like.

[Gunny]

Okay whatever, get over it. Your about sensative.

Nothing to be sensitive about. Merely pointing out the obvious ... that you will try to win by deflection what you cannot on merit.

[Gunny]

Cuss I feel like.

Isn't THAT special? In other words, there is no purpose other than a cheap attempt to annoy others?

:lame2:

[Dilloduck]

Isn't THAT special? In other words, there is no purpose other than a cheap attempt to annoy others?

:lame2:

BINGO !

[LiberalNation]

Isn't THAT special? In other words, there is no purpose other than a cheap attempt to annoy others?
Now why in the world would my avater anoy you. I have just as much a right to use one of my choice has anyone else here.

[Dilloduck]

Now why in the world would my avater anoy you. I have just as much a right to use one of my choice has anyone else here.

and everyone has the right to respond with thier opinions. Don't play "picked on".

[LiberalNation]

I'm not, your about paraniod on that subject.

[Dilloduck]

I'm not, your about paraniod on that subject.

no--- I could provide you with several examples but since in your mind it's all about expressing opinions I'll just leave it at that.

[LiberalNation]

Okay back to my avatar, there is nothing wrong with it and I did not choose it to annoy others. Now when I use my upside down american flag maybe I will be but not this one.

[Dilloduck]

Okay back to my avatar, there is nothing wrong with it and I did not choose it to annoy others. Now when I use my upside down american flag maybe I will be but not this one.

So does this avatar have any special symbolism or did you pick it out of a hat?

[LiberalNation]

Of course it has some special symbolism it's a gay pride flag that's it's symbolism. Am I a lesbian and that's the reason I chose it over others, maybe.

[Dilloduck]

Of course it has some special symbolism it's a gay pride flag that's it's symbolism. Am I a lesbian and that's the reason I chose it over others, maybe.

cool---is there a hetero flag so we can all know who is what ?

[LiberalNation]

I don't know but you could make one if that's what you want.

[manu1959]

Okay back to my avatar, there is nothing wrong with it and I did not choose it to annoy others. Now when I use my upside down american flag maybe I will be but not this one.

uside down american flag?! whatever would that mean?

[Dilloduck]

I don't know but you could make one if that's what you want.

I don't see the need if gays are all going to wave a flag. I can just assume all the rest are heteros.

[manu1959]

I don't see the need if gays are all going to wave a flag. I can just assume all the rest are heteros.

generally that is the case with almost all groups.....the bitchers moaners and complainers all draw attention to themselves with signs, flags, parades, special grop names, demanding to be recognized as normal and treated equally.....

[Dilloduck]

generally that is the case with almost all groups.....the bitchers moaners and complainers all draw attention to themselves with signs, flags, parades, special grop names, demanding to be recognized as normal and treated equally.....

I was thinking maybe the flag was to encourage all the gays who are still quiet about it to to jump on the bandwagon. Like a crusade or something.

[Abbey Marie]

I was thinking maybe the flag was to encourage all the gays who are still quiet about it to to jump on the bandwagon. Like a crusade or something.

:laugh:

[manu1959]

I was thinking maybe the flag was to encourage all the gays who are still quiet about it to to jump on the bandwagon. Like a crusade or something.

a gay crusade......they would love all the tunics, the pretty armor and the banners....

[LiberalNation]

I don't see the need if gays are all going to wave a flag. I can just assume all the rest are heteros.
Suit yourself.

[LiberalNation]

uside down american flag?! whatever would that mean?
I don't know but it does seem to annoy people.

[manu1959]

I don't know but it does seem to annoy people.

it means that you need help

[Abbey Marie]

I don't know but it does seem to annoy people.

Hence, it's appeal, no?

[LiberalNation]

Hence, it's appeal, no?

if my goal was to pick an avatar to annoy than yes that is why it would apeal to me.

[Yurt]

if my goal was to pick an avatar to annoy than yes that is why it would apeal to me.

= I enjoy annoying people.

:no:

[Abbey Marie]

if my goal was to pick an avatar to annoy than yes that is why it would apeal to me.


But I thought from this post of yours that you had already decided to annoy people:

Okay back to my avatar, there is nothing wrong with it and I did not choose it to annoy others. Now when I use my upside down american flag maybe I will be but not this one.


:rolleyes:

[LiberalNation]

Haven't used it yet hence I have no desire at the current time to annoy people with my avatar.

[Gunny]

Now why in the world would my avater anoy you. I have just as much a right to use one of my choice has anyone else here.

Did I say it annoyed me personally?

I can't imagine why anyone would think a board full of conservatives would be annoyed by a fag flag.:rolleyes: