PDA

View Full Version : Sick of Liberals..



Bumrush
03-23-2003, 09:32 PM
Don't expect logic to work on bleeding heart liberals. While they pretend to
care about the plight of the oppressed, their true motivation is the
destruction of the capitalist system. They despise America for being a
successful, wealthy country and would rather support totalitarian failure
and terrorism over democracy and prosperity.Liberals and these so called
peace lovers have no problem with the death of thousands of Iraqis by
Hussein and his henchmen. They have no problem when a suicide bomber enters
a bus and kills innocent women and children. They have no problem with
Chinese communism. They have no problem with the Taliban, Al Queda detainees
or any other "freedom fighter". They have no problem with the freedom
fighter Castro who would jail them for saying anything that goes against the
party line.

These Marxist liberals do have a problem with success. A problem with
America, the last superpower that defended the world against Nazism and
communism which has allowed them to spew their venom. They have a problem
with the Israelis that are surrounded by fanatical Muslim fundamentalist and
have been able to prosper and develop a multi tiered economy in the face of
constant terrorism and fanaticism.

In short, these "protesters" and peace loving leftists would rather support
failure and hatred over success and prosperity. In choosing to side with the
oppressors of humanity and societies that have done nothing but fail, they
have shown their true colors.

themole
03-23-2003, 10:27 PM
Atta Boy Bumrush...Very well put. Now I don't have type all that! You did a better job than I could have done anyway.:lol:

dolfan06
03-23-2003, 10:44 PM
you won't get any arguments here!:up:

fins1
03-23-2003, 10:52 PM
Very well said!!!:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

ohall
03-23-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Bumrush
Don't expect logic to work on bleeding heart liberals. While they pretend to
care about the plight of the oppressed, their true motivation is the
destruction of the capitalist system. They despise America for being a
successful, wealthy country and would rather support totalitarian failure
and terrorism over democracy and prosperity.Liberals and these so called
peace lovers have no problem with the death of thousands of Iraqis by
Hussein and his henchmen. They have no problem when a suicide bomber enters
a bus and kills innocent women and children. They have no problem with
Chinese communism. They have no problem with the Taliban, Al Queda detainees
or any other "freedom fighter". They have no problem with the freedom
fighter Castro who would jail them for saying anything that goes against the
party line.

These Marxist liberals do have a problem with success. A problem with
America, the last superpower that defended the world against Nazism and
communism which has allowed them to spew their venom. They have a problem
with the Israelis that are surrounded by fanatical Muslim fundamentalist and
have been able to prosper and develop a multi tiered economy in the face of
constant terrorism and fanaticism.

In short, these "protesters" and peace loving leftists would rather support
failure and hatred over success and prosperity. In choosing to side with the
oppressors of humanity and societies that have done nothing but fail, they
have shown their true colors.

Boy ain't that the truth!

Oliver...

dolfan06
03-23-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Bumrush
Don't expect logic to work on bleeding heart liberals. While they pretend to
care about the plight of the oppressed, their true motivation is the
destruction of the capitalist system. They despise America for being a
successful, wealthy country and would rather support totalitarian failure
and terrorism over democracy and prosperity.Liberals and these so called
peace lovers have no problem with the death of thousands of Iraqis by
Hussein and his henchmen. They have no problem when a suicide bomber enters
a bus and kills innocent women and children. They have no problem with
Chinese communism. They have no problem with the Taliban, Al Queda detainees
or any other "freedom fighter". They have no problem with the freedom
fighter Castro who would jail them for saying anything that goes against the
party line.

These Marxist liberals do have a problem with success. A problem with
America, the last superpower that defended the world against Nazism and
communism which has allowed them to spew their venom. They have a problem
with the Israelis that are surrounded by fanatical Muslim fundamentalist and
have been able to prosper and develop a multi tiered economy in the face of
constant terrorism and fanaticism.

In short, these "protesters" and peace loving leftists would rather support
failure and hatred over success and prosperity. In choosing to side with the
oppressors of humanity and societies that have done nothing but fail, they
have shown their true colors. i really think we should make this part of the TOS, that way everybody gets to read it! ;)

themole
03-23-2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i really think we should make this part of the TOS, that way everybody gets to read it! ;)

:up:

Barbarian
03-24-2003, 01:08 AM
Agreed, the far left isn't any better than the far right.... quite frankly, I think both of the extreems are full of whakos.

Chauncey
03-24-2003, 01:18 AM
And bad spellers ;)

dolfan06
03-24-2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Chauncey
And bad spellers ;) i've noticed that!:rolleyes:

Dolfan984
03-24-2003, 05:21 AM
So just because we have different views about most things means we're the only reason this country is bad. I'm sorry, the coin flips both ways. In fact, I agree with the war right now, and an avid liberal. To have a call out like this brings out several members personally, and now you are the one who's showing their true colors.

Clumpy
03-24-2003, 06:13 AM
I'm a liberal and proud of it. While I vehemently disagree with George Dubya with respect to his domestic agenda, I'll support his foreign policy vs terrorism and Iraq. However, I do believe that he is somewhat motivated by "cleaning up daddy's mess" from the First Persian Gulf War in which I served. I do believe people have the right to protest, that's what makes our country great, however, I do not believe people should show disrespect to our flag or national anthem. Before you stereotype liberals as you did, know that the far right will do far more to damage this country than the far left could!

Bumrush
03-24-2003, 09:38 AM
Sorry if I offended any level headed liberals in this forum. I was talking about the far left wing of the party, the type of people that marched in San Fran promoting communism and comparing Bush to Hitler.

dolfan06
03-24-2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Bumrush
Sorry if I offended any level headed liberals in this forum. I was talking about the far left wing of the party, the type of people that marched in San Fran promoting communism and comparing Bush to Hitler. since there was a site found that was NOT discovered by the inspectors, a site for making chemical weapons and and disguised to look like open desert, i wonder if THAT will change the opinion of this war.:rolleyes:

iceblizzard69
03-24-2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
since there was a site found that was NOT discovered by the inspectors, a site for making chemical weapons and and disguised to look like open desert, i wonder if THAT will change the opinion of this war.:rolleyes:

So far, it doesn't seem to have done anything.

List of illegal things Iraq has done in this war

Lauched Scuds (which they claimed they didn't have)
Violation of Geneva Convention (three violations: embarassment of POWs by putting them on TV, executed POWs, and showing bodies of killed POWs on TV)

Also, they have lied about having a chemical plant, which is supposedly 100 acres. This could be the big one to justify this war.

themole
03-24-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet
I'm a liberal and proud of it. While I vehemently disagree with George Dubya with respect to his domestic agenda, I'll support his foreign policy vs terrorism and Iraq. However, I do believe that he is somewhat motivated by "cleaning up daddy's mess" from the First Persian Gulf War in which I served. I do believe people have the right to protest, that's what makes our country great, however, I do not believe people should show disrespect to our flag or national anthem. Before you stereotype liberals as you did, know that the far right will do far more to damage this country than the far left could!

All that tells me Clumpy...is you are an American just like me. The liberialism I hate is the one that spews the Anti-American pablim and resorts to flag burning and defameing the good that this government stands for..

Checks and balances is what makes us great. I tend to consider myself rightwing, but only to the extent our founding fathers would be considered rightwing today. Meaning I do not like to see our Constitution tampered with in any shape fashion or form. She has had a hard enough time weathering the storm both the extreme right and left have thrown against her.

As for Dubya, cleaning up his daddy's mess...hey... some of that could be going on...but.. will you concede that killing terrorism and protecting us from another 9/11 plays a bigger part?

Bumrush
03-24-2003, 11:06 AM
Granted, everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs when it comes to the current situation. Our right to question how our government is operating should never be curtailed, unless it poses a direct security threat or involves enemy collusion.

With that being said, the extreme left in the country is slowly eroding what is left of the Democratic Party. As a former liberal that will vote for Republicans candidates in the next election, I see more defections to the right of center. It took the South over 100 years to realign to the right after Newt’s political coupe in 1994. The Bible belt Republicans that Nixon talked about in the 1970’s is real and was a decisive part of the Republican congressional takeover and the defeat of Gore.

The current animosities, racial charged policies of the New Left are creating another political realignment that may surpass the Republican revolution of 1994. People such as myself that believed in the idealism of the left are starting to see the reality of Republican principles that are based on logic, goodwill and a desire to reward success over failure. The realignment of moderate voters to the right is happening as we speak. The Republicans are no longer being seen as the party of hate and religious extremism, at least amongst my colleagues that are also changing their party affiliation. A lot of the hate is now coming from the left as they feel increasingly powerless after 80+ years of congressional and judicial dominance.

The political protests, and anti Americanism will not reverse these trends. These people will vote for Democrats or Nader under every circumstance. However, the crucial swing voters that determine elections are strongly in favor of this action and will not forgot the actions of a minority group that is attempting to undermine and minimize US foreign policy. Beyond that, the media is no longer a leftist entity and as news sources diversify and represent more of mainstream opinion the Republican party will only grow.

themole
03-24-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Bumrush
Granted, everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs when it comes to the current situation. Our right to question how our government is operating should never be curtailed, unless it poses a direct security threat or involves enemy collusion.

With that being said, the extreme left in the country is slowly eroding what is left of the Democratic Party. As a former liberal that will vote for Republicans candidates in the next election, I see more defections to the right of center. It took the South over 100 years to realign to the right after Newt’s political coupe in 1994. The Bible belt Republicans that Nixon talked about in the 1970’s is real and was a decisive part of the Republican congressional takeover and the defeat of Gore.

The current animosities, racial charged policies of the New Left are creating another political realignment that may surpass the Republican revolution of 1994. People such as myself that believed in the idealism of the left are starting to see the reality of Republican principles that are based on logic, goodwill and a desire to reward success over failure. The realignment of moderate voters to the right is happening as we speak. The Republicans are no longer being seen as the party of hate and religious extremism, at least amongst my colleagues that are also changing their party affiliation. A lot of the hate is now coming from the left as they feel increasingly powerless after 80+ years of congressional and judicial dominance.

The political protests, and anti Americanism will not reverse these trends. These people will vote for Democrats or Nader under every circumstance. However, the crucial swing voters that determine elections are strongly in favor of this action and will not forgot the actions of a minority group that is attempting to undermine and minimize US foreign policy. Beyond that, the media is no longer a leftist entity and as news sources diversify and represent more of mainstream opinion the Republican party will only grow.

:hail:

DeDolfan
03-24-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Bumrush
Don't expect logic to work on bleeding heart liberals. While they pretend to
care about the plight of the oppressed, their true motivation is the
destruction of the capitalist system. They despise America for being a
successful, wealthy country and would rather support totalitarian failure
and terrorism over democracy and prosperity.Liberals and these so called
peace lovers have no problem with the death of thousands of Iraqis by
Hussein and his henchmen. They have no problem when a suicide bomber enters
a bus and kills innocent women and children. They have no problem with
Chinese communism. They have no problem with the Taliban, Al Queda detainees
or any other "freedom fighter". They have no problem with the freedom
fighter Castro who would jail them for saying anything that goes against the
party line.

These Marxist liberals do have a problem with success. A problem with
America, the last superpower that defended the world against Nazism and
communism which has allowed them to spew their venom. They have a problem
with the Israelis that are surrounded by fanatical Muslim fundamentalist and
have been able to prosper and develop a multi tiered economy in the face of
constant terrorism and fanaticism.

In short, these "protesters" and peace loving leftists would rather support
failure and hatred over success and prosperity. In choosing to side with the
oppressors of humanity and societies that have done nothing but fail, they
have shown their true colors.

Please define "liberal". if you mean Democrats, then say so. I think you'll find "liberals" in either party, tho.


DD...............................

DeDolfan
03-24-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by themole
:hail:

:D Where do you come up with all those smileys from? Ya gotta teach me all that stuff!! "D"D"D


DD..........................................

PhinPhan1227
03-24-2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
Please define "liberal". if you mean Democrats, then say so. I think you'll find "liberals" in either party, tho.


DD...............................


Actually, while you could find conservative Democrats, and Moderate Republicans, I don't think I've ever even heard of a Republican that anyone but Pat Robertson would call "Liberal". At least not in the last 50 years.

Penthos
03-24-2003, 03:10 PM
Do you actually believe what you are writing?

Saying "Liberals and these so called peace lovers have no problem when a suicide bomber enters a bus and kills innocent women and children." ....That is just plain ridiculous and quite frankly, as a father of 2 children, and a veteran of the First Gulf War I am extremely offended by this comment.

And stating that liberals" Have no problem with the Taliban, Al Queda detainees or any other "freedom fighter" ". Is also ignorant and irresponsible, and just goes to show what kind of myopic BS you hear spewed on almost EVERY SINGLE talk radio show on the air. (liberal media my ass).

I am glad we are about to liberate Iraq, I'm very happy for the Iraqi people, and I completley support the troops. However, I think Bush's foreign policy sucks. Does that make me a communist, does that mean that I should leave my country because I expressed my opinion? I'll bet you would like me to because its fine to have an opinion as long as it is the same as yours right? Otherwise its unpatriotic and anti-american right?

Bumrush
03-24-2003, 03:35 PM
Ummm, get off your soapbox. I wrote this earilier today:

"Sorry if I offended any level headed liberals in this forum. I was talking about the far left wing of the party, the type of people that marched in San Fran promoting communism and comparing Bush to Hitler."

Then you spew off this stupidity:

I'll bet you would like me to because its fine to have an opinion as long as it is the same as yours right? Otherwise its unpatriotic and anti-american right?

I guess you didn't read my other post which stated:

"Granted, everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs when it comes to the current situation. Our right to question how our government is operating should never be curtailed, unless it poses a direct security threat or involves enemy collusion"

Settle down and ingest a chill pill, I am not going to report you to grandmaster ashcroft :)

Penthos
03-24-2003, 04:40 PM
You sarted this thread on your ANTI-LIBERAL SOAP BOX by accusing and mischaracterizing liberals as condoning MASS MURDER... and then you tell me to take a chill pill when I point out the offensiveness of the post.

Lets revisit:
You stated: "Liberals and these so called peace lovers have no problem when a suicide bomber enters a bus and kills innocent women and children."

But then in later posts you say you don't mean to offend anyone writing, "Im sorry if I offended any level headed liberals in this forum. "

I guess by the same token I could say "The thing that bugs me about these (insert offensive adjective here) republicans are that they are all money hungry war mongers that would rather shoot someone than shake their hands, and care more for oil than human lives"... Now I know this is not true, and if I was a republican I would find that statement insulting... but I guess its ok if after words I say "Oh, sorry if I offended any Level Headed republicans, I meant the far right wing"...

Nice backpeddaling... You said "liberals", if you meant to say the "far left liberals", then say it. Even still, I doubt even the most FAR left liberals are "Pro-Child Suicide Bombing" Thats just ridiculous.

Bumrush
03-24-2003, 04:46 PM
Again settle down. I did state that I meant the radical element of the left in an earlier post. If you wish to continue arguing about the same thing over and over again thats OK, liberals typically like to whine and complain over and over again without making any valid points :) :) :)

PhinPhan1227
03-24-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
You sarted this thread on your ANTI-LIBERAL SOAP BOX by accusing and mischaracterizing liberals as condoning MASS MURDER... and then you tell me to take a chill pill when I point out the offensiveness of the post.

Lets revisit:
You stated: "Liberals and these so called peace lovers have no problem when a suicide bomber enters a bus and kills innocent women and children."

But then in later posts you say you don't mean to offend anyone writing, "Im sorry if I offended any level headed liberals in this forum. "

I guess by the same token I could say "The thing that bugs me about these (insert offensive adjective here) republicans are that they are all money hungry war mongers that would rather shoot someone than shake their hands, and care more for oil than human lives"... Now I know this is not true, and if I was a republican I would find that statement insulting... but I guess its ok if after words I say "Oh, sorry if I offended any Level Headed republicans, I meant the far right wing"...

Nice backpeddaling... You said "liberals", if you meant to say the "far left liberals", then say it. Even still, I doubt even the most FAR left liberals are "Pro-Child Suicide Bombing" Thats just ridiculous.


You must admit, the VAST majority of those who have spoken out against the war have portrayed our actions as "killing innocent Iraqi's", without any regard for the fact that MANY more Iraqi's are killed every year by Saddam than are likely to be killed in this war. It also seems to me that Bumrush apologized for including all Liberals rather than just the far left wacko's.

Penthos
03-24-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
You must admit, the VAST majority of those who have spoken out against the war have portrayed our actions as "killing innocent Iraqi's", without any regard for the fact that MANY more Iraqi's are killed every year by Saddam than are likely to be killed in this war. It also seems to me that Bumrush apologized for including all Liberals rather than just the far left wacko's.

No I don't admit that... Most liberals I know actually support the troops and are glad that we are only hitting government and military targets... Most liberals I know are against Bush's handling of the situation, not against the troops... Most liberals I know do believe Saddam is a horrible man... Most liberals I know are against "Child-Suicide Bombings"... Maybe most liberals you see on TV are that way but does that make it true...? You see 1/100,000 th of a demographic behaving one way and assume thats the way "They all act" or "they all think"....

Furthermore, I agree that far less Iraqi civilians will die because of our liberation of that country then if they had been left to overthrow Saddam (or not overthrow Saddam) themselves...

My point is, if someone is going to make insulting statements to large people segments of a population, dont' think that just because they say they "didn't mean to offend" the people they specifically named makes it all ok... Trent Lott learned this lesson the hard way...

themole
03-24-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
:D Where do you come up with all those smileys from? Ya gotta teach me all that stuff!! "D"D"D


DD..........................................

After you click on the quote button to reply to a post, you will find a little box with smilies in it. Just click on the smilie you want from this box. If you desire a larger selection...you can click on the "get more" at the bottom of the box. You should be good to go now

.;) :up:

PhinPhan1227
03-24-2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
No I don't admit that... Most liberals I know actually support the troops and are glad that we are only hitting government and military targets... Most liberals I know are against Bush's handling of the situation, not against the troops... Most liberals I know do believe Saddam is a horrible man... Most liberals I know are against "Child-Suicide Bombings"... Maybe most liberals you see on TV are that way but does that make it true...? You see 1/100,000 th of a demographic behaving one way and assume thats the way "They all act" or "they all think"....

Furthermore, I agree that far less Iraqi civilians will die because of our liberation of that country then if they had been left to overthrow Saddam (or not overthrow Saddam) themselves...

My point is, if someone is going to make insulting statements to large people segments of a population, dont' think that just because they say they "didn't mean to offend" the people they specifically named makes it all ok... Trent Lott learned this lesson the hard way...

I specified "those who have spoken out". As such, I was referring to those Liberals in the public forum, not private individuals like yourself. The "On Air" Liberals don't represent the average liberal viewpoint any more than Rush Limbaugh represents the average Conservative. But just like Rush, those Liberal commentators portray a viewpoint that the public comes to associate with that group. It's their fault that you get lumped into "The liberal mindset" even when that mindset doesn't truly represent your viewpoint. It's like someone saying they're an environmentalist, and people automatically thinking of PETA or Greenpeace. The extremists are the ones who shout the loudest, so it's their viewpoints that come to represent the masses.

Barbarian
03-24-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
The extremists are the ones who shout the loudest, so it's their viewpoints that come to represent the masses.

And THAT folks... Is why I'm a moderate.

Okay... I fess up, I'm member of the extreme moderate. ;)

DeDolfan
03-24-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Actually, while you could find conservative Democrats, and Moderate Republicans, I don't think I've ever even heard of a Republican that anyone but Pat Robertson would call "Liberal". At least not in the last 50 years.

Mike Castle !!


DD...............................................

DeDolfan
03-24-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
Do you actually believe what you are writing?

Saying "Liberals and these so called peace lovers have no problem when a suicide bomber enters a bus and kills innocent women and children." ....That is just plain ridiculous and quite frankly, as a father of 2 children, and a veteran of the First Gulf War I am extremely offended by this comment.

And stating that liberals" Have no problem with the Taliban, Al Queda detainees or any other "freedom fighter" ". Is also ignorant and irresponsible, and just goes to show what kind of myopic BS you hear spewed on almost EVERY SINGLE talk radio show on the air. (liberal media my ass).

I am glad we are about to liberate Iraq, I'm very happy for the Iraqi people, and I completley support the troops. However, I think Bush's foreign policy sucks. Does that make me a communist, does that mean that I should leave my country because I expressed my opinion? I'll bet you would like me to because its fine to have an opinion as long as it is the same as yours right? Otherwise its unpatriotic and anti-american right?

Finally, someone with a "definition" of liberal !! :) I feel ya and I wish that I could say that I was at Desert Storm with ya but wasn't there. Would Viet Nam work tho ??


DD.........................................

DeDolfan
03-24-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
You must admit, the VAST majority of those who have spoken out against the war have portrayed our actions as "killing innocent Iraqi's", without any regard for the fact that MANY more Iraqi's are killed every year by Saddam than are likely to be killed in this war. It also seems to me that Bumrush apologized for including all Liberals rather than just the far left wacko's.

But why won't anyone define a liberal ???????????


DD...................................

Bumrush
03-24-2003, 07:32 PM
We can make this a long discussion of the classical, historical definition of what a "liberal" is. I apologized already for generalizing and using the word "liberal". Instead I should have used the term "far left of center". OK????

dolfan06
03-25-2003, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Bumrush
We can make this a long discussion of the classical, historical definition of what a "liberal" is. I apologized already for generalizing and using the word "liberal". Instead I should have used the term "far left of center". OK???? a liberal is fine..............to a point. its time to stop protesting and support the troops!:yell:

DeDolfan
03-25-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Bumrush
We can make this a long discussion of the classical, historical definition of what a "liberal" is. I apologized already for generalizing and using the word "liberal". Instead I should have used the term "far left of center". OK????

I only said this again after it what used in other posts. The only reason I brought it up in the first place is that when ppl speak of a liberal, they are generally referring to the Dems as a whole, which is BS. All Dems are not liberals as are all Reps not conservatives, so to speak. This whole thing got started by the Reps anyway back when Ronnie Raygun used the "L word" phrase and they all thought it was cute and when the monkey see, monkey do route with it. That's all. But careful using that far left of center cuz the far right of center folks may take offenese !! :D :D


DD................................

Dolfan984
03-25-2003, 02:16 PM
I am a Liberal, does that automatically mean I do not support the troops?

No, that's dead wrong, but it more or less means I probably don't support Bush. (and I don't)

If you think Liberals are for "child suicide bombings" than your judgment has been obviously clouded by hate and bias.

I think that Saddam needs to be taken out of there as soon as possible, and that this war, though having more than one intention, is needed and neccessary at this point. Does that make me a conservative? Not on my life.

Now please, don't stereotype us, you guys aren't peachy either. It works both ways.

Peebs
03-25-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
a liberal is fine..............to a point. its time to stop protesting and support the troops!:yell:

I'm only goning to say this one and I am about to shout...

NO ONE SAID THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST THE WAR IS AGAINST THE TROOPS!!!! I AM A MODERATE DEMOCRAT WITH LIBERAL LEANINGS AND I AM SO AGAINST THIS WAR BUT SUPPORT THE TROOPS AS DO ALL OF MY FRIENDS, SOME OF WHICH WERE AT BOTH OF THE LARGE NYC DEMOSTRATIONS


Thank you. Now stop with the generalizations because of the one or two pictures the media decides to portray as the faces of "peacenicks". We are Mothers and Fathers and Cops and Lawyers and Doctors etc....

PhinPhan1227
03-25-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
I only said this again after it what used in other posts. The only reason I brought it up in the first place is that when ppl speak of a liberal, they are generally referring to the Dems as a whole, which is BS. All Dems are not liberals as are all Reps not conservatives, so to speak. This whole thing got started by the Reps anyway back when Ronnie Raygun used the "L word" phrase and they all thought it was cute and when the monkey see, monkey do route with it. That's all. But careful using that far left of center cuz the far right of center folks may take offenese !! :D :D


DD................................


Actually, while the DNC and GOP are the standard bearers for Liberalism and Conservativism, I'd say that the most polarized elements of the two probably aren't even members of the two parties. The true idealogues belong more in the Green, and Libertarian parties. Most of the rank and file membership of the two main parties are probably moderates, with liberal or conservative leanings.

upstart
03-25-2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
But why won't anyone define a liberal ???????????


DD...................................


A liberal is a person that still thinks Bill Clinton was not
Impeached.
A liberal is a person that thinks your money is their money
A liberal is a person that feels we all should drive a hugo
A liberal is a person that thinks the Pats got luckey to win

The Super Bowl.

Penthos
03-25-2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by donshula
A liberal is a person that still thinks Bill Clinton was not
Impeached.
A liberal is a person that thinks your money is their money
A liberal is a person that feels we all should drive a hugo
A liberal is a person that thinks the Pats got luckey to win

The Super Bowl.

A liberal does not view all issues in terms of black and white and absolute rights and wrongs...
A liberal sees issues as complex and understands that there is usually (not always) some legitimacy to both sides of an issue...

and say what you like about liberals...
but at least we can spell the word "LUCKY"!

dolfan06
03-26-2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
I'm only goning to say this one and I am about to shout...

NO ONE SAID THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST THE WAR IS AGAINST THE TROOPS!!!! I AM A MODERATE DEMOCRAT WITH LIBERAL LEANINGS AND I AM SO AGAINST THIS WAR BUT SUPPORT THE TROOPS AS DO ALL OF MY FRIENDS, SOME OF WHICH WERE AT BOTH OF THE LARGE NYC DEMOSTRATIONS


Thank you. Now stop with the generalizations because of the one or two pictures the media decides to portray as the faces of "peacenicks". We are Mothers and Fathers and Cops and Lawyers and Doctors etc.... fine, lets stop the damn war now and we'll let saddam build his arsenal at his leisure, might take a few years, but i don't think i'll be around to watch you protesters cry because we didn't do something. and ya will, you know !

it'll be the same people that are crying now!:tongue:

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
So far, it doesn't seem to have done anything.

List of illegal things Iraq has done in this war

Lauched Scuds (which they claimed they didn't have)
Violation of Geneva Convention (three violations: embarassment of POWs by putting them on TV, executed POWs, and showing bodies of killed POWs on TV)

Also, they have lied about having a chemical plant, which is supposedly 100 acres. This could be the big one to justify this war.

You left out a few....

Using civilians (women and children) as human shields...
Discarding thier uniforms, and posing as civilians, then opening fire...
Not to mention ... Waving a white flag of surrender, then opening fire...

Not only is that against international law and the Genvea conventions... but it is cowardly, dispicable, and SHOULD show the world what a pack of lying scum they are........

Not everyone listens to the "bad" things though.... :rolleyes:

Peebs
03-26-2003, 02:37 AM
Darlin, if the TIGHT ASS CONSERVATIVES (for whom the asses are so tight and ridged you can't pull a needle out of there with a tractor) were paying attention to ANYTHING they would know that the UN resolution after the 91 conflict DID allow Saddam to retain SOME weapons for national security. He was not ordered to disarm completely. What does he have? Well we don't know do we? Because in our 7 day war so far we have found nothing. A chemical factory that hasn't been active in years?
Not one liberal I know ever doubted that Saddam is a evil person, we do realize however that there are many evil leaders doing heinous crimes to their people. BUT we do business with them or have some ties so therefore we turn a blind eye to them don't we?
I did not want to see ONE US Soldier killed because of Bush's personal adgenda. This is not about terrorism, we know which countries harbor, finance and train terrorists. BUT we have some financial gain with those countries ....coughcoughSaudiArabicoughcough so we won't do a damn thing.

So Liberals also question things instead of taking it for the absolute. When Bush farts we know it stinks....we don't buy the bullsh&t that it smells like Spring Time....

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
What does he have? Well we don't know do we? Because in our 7 day war so far we have found nothing. A chemical factory that hasn't been active in years?


This kills me...

The UN has over 12 years to look... and they "need more time"

We've been there 7 days... not really looking.. because we're too busy deciding whether that white flag REALLY means they're surrendering....

And we're supposed to have found something already?

:rolleyes:

Peebs
03-26-2003, 02:51 AM
Ummmm yea...
In 91 they seemed to be able to uncover chemical and biological weapons-disarm them etc...because they actually FOUND them.

So

where they at? With all the sophisticated up to date brandy new technology we have, where we can tell if someone is brewing a zit on their chin from a gozillion miles away....one would think they would have spotted his factories of WMD for logistical purposes?? To keep our troops safe?
OH I'm sorry I used the words "safe" and "troops" in the same sentence....that's not part of Bush's agenda.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 02:55 AM
Ummm.... yeah.... in 91 they weren't fighting back... we HAD time to look. and it wasn't until the shooting stopped that naything was found... you expect our troops to hold up thier hands and say "wait a minute Mr Republican Guard man...don't shoot yet... I'm looking in this here camouflaged bunker for WMDs...."

:rolleyes:

dolfan06
03-26-2003, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Darlin, if the TIGHT ASS CONSERVATIVES (for whom the asses are so tight and ridged you can't pull a needle out of there with a tractor) were paying attention to ANYTHING they would know that the UN resolution after the 91 conflict DID allow Saddam to retain SOME weapons for national security. He was not ordered to disarm completely. What does he have? Well we don't know do we? Because in our 7 day war so far we have found nothing. A chemical factory that hasn't been active in years?
Not one liberal I know ever doubted that Saddam is a evil person, we do realize however that there are many evil leaders doing heinous crimes to their people. BUT we do business with them or have some ties so therefore we turn a blind eye to them don't we?
I did not want to see ONE US Soldier killed because of Bush's personal adgenda. This is not about terrorism, we know which countries harbor, finance and train terrorists. BUT we have some financial gain with those countries ....coughcoughSaudiArabicoughcough so we won't do a damn thing.

So Liberals also question things instead of taking it for the absolute. When Bush farts we know it stinks....we don't buy the bullsh&t that it smells like Spring Time.... what do you mean, they didn't find anything. they found three camouflaged chemical plants the inspectors weren't told about, plus the arms and ammo that were sold to iraq 3 months ago. who knows how much they sold to iraq AFTER the embargo!:rolleyes:

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Darlin, if the TIGHT ASS CONSERVATIVES (for whom the asses are so tight and ridged you can't pull a needle out of there with a tractor) were paying attention to ANYTHING they would know that the UN resolution after the 91 conflict DID allow Saddam to retain SOME weapons for national security. He was not ordered to disarm completely. What does he have? Well we don't know do we? Because in our 7 day war so far we have found nothing. A chemical factory that hasn't been active in years?
Not one liberal I know ever doubted that Saddam is a evil person, we do realize however that there are many evil leaders doing heinous crimes to their people. BUT we do business with them or have some ties so therefore we turn a blind eye to them don't we?
I did not want to see ONE US Soldier killed because of Bush's personal adgenda. This is not about terrorism, we know which countries harbor, finance and train terrorists. BUT we have some financial gain with those countries ....coughcoughSaudiArabicoughcough so we won't do a damn thing.

So Liberals also question things instead of taking it for the absolute. When Bush farts we know it stinks....we don't buy the bullsh&t that it smells like Spring Time....


Not that any of this is the point of the war, or required for us to take action under UN mandate...but have you heard anything about some long range missiles which were shot down over Kuwait? Saddam wasn't allowed to keep anything with that kind of range, so by that single act, he's shown himself to be in violation of the UN edicts. Again, not that it's really the point since his mere act of obfuscation was enough to go in and remove him.

Peebs
03-26-2003, 11:58 AM
OH so when it comes to "weapons" and "Embargos" etc...the UN matters?? I thought you all thought the UN was a crock of ****...
And do you all know the country that breaks more weapon embargos? Our 51st State...Israel.

Hmmmm interesting.

As for the chemical weapons plant:
http://www.datekdj.newsalert.com/bin/djstory?StoryId=CpN6q0aebqLqWmduWmJu

Nada...nothing...zilch.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
As for the chemical weapons plant:
http://www.datekdj.newsalert.com/bin/djstory?StoryId=CpN6q0aebqLqWmduWmJu

Nada...nothing...zilch.

Keep clinging to that...

Tell me...why do you think the Iraqi army has gas masks and chem suits?
We've found them stored, and along with discarded uniforms on the front lines...
If they have no chemical weapons...why on earth would they be carrying that stuff around?

hmmmmmmmmm......


Marines on Tuesday raised a hospital that Iraqi paramilitaries were using as a headquarters in an-Nasariyah. Central Command claims they found 3,000 chemical protection suits and injections of antidotes to chemical weapons.


CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml)

Sniper
03-26-2003, 12:29 PM
Iraq could very well have chem suits for protection from Israel.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Iraq could very well have chem suits for protection from Israel.

Oh c'mon Sniper.... that's a huge stretch and you know it.... :rolleyes:

Does the possibility exist? well... yes, but you have to admit it's more remote than the Australian outback...

How many times have the Isreali's used chemicals? How many times have the Iraqi's?
How many missiles have the Isreali's fired recently? How many have Iraq fired?

Sniper
03-26-2003, 12:38 PM
Why is that a huge stretch? If you were Israel's neighbor, wouldn't you be worried?

Sniper
03-26-2003, 12:40 PM
The possibility may be remote, but it still exists. We have these suits, so does it mean we are going to use these weapons?

The value of these suits, to me, seems to be more for defensive purposes rather than offensive.

Barbarian
03-26-2003, 12:40 PM
Ohhhh geeze... c'mon Sniper... I'm trying to see your side here man, I really am... I've been trying to be the moderate voice of reason between the Libs and the conservatives on this... but dude... that is really way out in left field. And I mean WAY OUT! :rolleyes:

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Why is that a huge stretch? If you were Israel's neighbor, wouldn't you be worried?

Only if I were hiding something.....

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
The possibility may be remote, but it still exists. We have these suits, so does it mean we are going to use these weapons?

The value of these suits, to me, seems to be more for defensive purposes rather than offensive.

Sniper!!!

Geez - oh - man ... you can't be serious!!!

Why do we have the suits? for protection against IRAQ'S chemical weapons...
You're now saying that the US is known to use chem weapon??? and that any country need to "defend" themselves against a possible US chem attack?

Please dude... there is NO reason for them to be concerned about chemical warfare, unless they intend to wage it themselves...they know it, I know it, and deep down, I think you know it too.....

Sniper
03-26-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Ohhhh geeze... c'mon Sniper... I'm trying to see your side here man, I really am... I've been trying to be the moderate voice of reason between the Libs and the conservatives on this... but dude... that is really way out in left field. And I mean WAY OUT! :rolleyes:

Way out? There are many countries that have these suits. Does this make them automatically guilty of having chemical weapons? Or does it mean that their governments are protecting their troops from a possible chemical attack?

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
OH so when it comes to "weapons" and "Embargos" etc...the UN matters?? I thought you all thought the UN was a crock of ****...
And do you all know the country that breaks more weapon embargos? Our 51st State...Israel.

Hmmmm interesting.

As for the chemical weapons plant:
http://www.datekdj.newsalert.com/bin/djstory?StoryId=CpN6q0aebqLqWmduWmJu

Nada...nothing...zilch.


When it comes to one nation invading it's neighbor without provocation, yes, it matters. When the UN is hamstrung by 1-2 nations who are willing to put arms sales and oil contracts ahead of world security, no it doesn't matter. Purely subjective, but that's my opinion. The facts are, we ARE carrying out the UN mandate, and we ARE in the right legaly. ALL of this boils down to Saddam invading Kuwait. If he hadn't taken that action, we wouldn't be there now. He commited the crime, and now he has to do the time. He even got a 1st time offender bye...which he blew.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Sniper!!!

Geez - oh - man ... you can't be serious!!!

Why do we have the suits? for protection against IRAQ'S chemical weapons...
You're now saying that the US is known to use chem weapon??? and that any country need to "defend" themselves against a possible US chem attack?

Please dude... there is NO reason for them to be concerned about chemical warfare, unless they intend to wage it themselves...they know it, I know it, and deep down, I think you know it too.....

So they are going to launch these artillary shells into their own troops? I'm not buying that.

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Way out? There are many countries that have these suits. Does this make them automatically guilty of having chemical weapons? Or does it mean that their governments are protecting their troops from a possible chemical attack?


Of the two countries, which are known Chemical weapons users, Israel or Iraq? As such, who has the burden of proof that they WON'T use chemical weapons, Israel or Iraq? Lastly, of the two countries, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations, Israel or Iraq? I think calling that theory a stretch is perfectly justified.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Way out? There are many countries that have these suits. Does this make them automatically guilty of having chemical weapons? Or does it mean that their governments are protecting their troops from a possible chemical attack?

Sniper ... yes almost every military is issued chem suits... however, if a US unit was deployed in an area that posed no threat of chemical attack, they wouldn't bother toting them around....
I was deployed in operations to countries that did not pose a chemical threat, suits were left behind....

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
So they are going to launch these artillary shells into their own troops? I'm not buying that.


Dude, buy a clue! You issue your own troops chem suits and atropine because the weapons are completely unpredictable. The weapons are deployed in aerosol form, so if the wind blows the wrong way, you get your own weapon back in your face. It's SOP to have the troops that deploy these weapons issued chem suits and atropine for that VERY reason.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
So they are going to launch these artillary shells into their own troops? I'm not buying that.

Sniper... get with it... you drop chem weapons...THEY SPREAD.... it's not a precision thing... you think mustard gas stays where you aim it? Of course not... the wind blows it, it drifts, it spreads... and then... do you want to take the position just vacated by the now burned up enemy? If so... you'd better have a suit...

Sniper
03-26-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Of the two countries, which are known Chemical weapons users, Israel or Iraq?

I agree that Iraq has... But, who supplied them with these weapons at that time and who trained them?


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
As such, who has the burden of proof that they WON'T use chemical weapons, Israel or Iraq?

Hence, the need for inspections.


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lastly, of the two countries, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations, Israel or Iraq? I think calling that theory a stretch is perfectly justified.

Ask the Palistineans if they are civilians... also ask them who routinely launches attacks against them?

Penthos
03-26-2003, 01:06 PM
Isreal has been violating UN resolutions for years... I guess we go after them next.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
I agree that Iraq has... But, who supplied them with these weapons at that time and who trained them?

good question... who did?




Hence, the need for inspections.

12 more years? Is that enough time?




Ask the Palistineans if they are civilians... also ask them who routinely launches attacks against them?

conversly...ask the students in the Mall if they were civilians... before the Palestinian "civilian" marched in there with a bomb strapped to his ass....

Sniper
03-26-2003, 01:09 PM
Does Israel have chemical weapons?

Does Israel have missiles capable of reaching Iraq?

Does Israel have chemical weapons warheads for this missiles?

Does israel have jets that can drop these weapons?

Sniper
03-26-2003, 01:14 PM
My point is these chem suits are not a huge smoking gun... Every country has them. If Iraq is allowed to have them under the U.N. sanctions then I don't see how this is proof.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Sniper!!!

Geez - oh - man ... you can't be serious!!!

Why do we have the suits? for protection against IRAQ'S chemical weapons...
You're now saying that the US is known to use chem weapon??? and that any country need to "defend" themselves against a possible US chem attack?

Please dude... there is NO reason for them to be concerned about chemical warfare, unless they intend to wage it themselves...they know it, I know it, and deep down, I think you know it too.....

That's the response I was hoping to get... We have these suits for protection and not to wage chemical warfare. I don't think it is unreasonable at all for Iraq to have these suits for protection from Israel.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
My point is these chem suits are not a huge smoking gun... Every country has them. If Iraq is allowed to have them under the U.N. sanctions then I don't see how this is proof.

No...they're not a huge smoking gun... but even you have to admit that it lends to suspicion... c'mon Snipe, let's get real here... do you honestly think Isreal is going to launch chemical weapons at Iraq?
They may or may not have them ... I don't know...they certainly have never used them... Iraq has a long history of putting them to use though....

Sniper
03-26-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
No...they're not a huge smoking gun... but even you have to admit that it lends to suspicion... c'mon Snipe, let's get real here... do you honestly think Isreal is going to launch chemical weapons at Iraq?
They may or may not have them ... I don't know...they certainly have never used them... Iraq has a long history of putting them to use though....

I don't disagree with what you are saying... Sure it lends suspicion, but there are other reasons for them to have these suits as well. I think it is equally as likely that these suits are for protection from Isreal, Iran, or even the Kurds.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
I don't disagree with what you are saying... Sure it lends suspicion, but there are other reasons for them to have these suits as well. I think it is equally as likely that these suits are for protection from Isreal, Iran, or even the Kurds.

I agree it's a possibility... but equally? I don't think so....

The Kurds??? Good Grief...they can't even afford bullets for their kalishnakovs...much less have the capability of developing or pruchasing chemical agents...Saddam has made sure of that with his oppression of anyone that is NOT Sunni Muslim....

Barbarian
03-26-2003, 01:59 PM
Guys... just give it up, it's like talking to a brick wall... this is why I get disgusted with both extreems, because both sides take rediculous stands and refuse to budge or compromise.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Guys... just give it up, it's like talking to a brick wall... this is why I get disgusted with both extreems, because both sides take rediculous stands and refuse to budge or compromise.

No offense Barbarian... but if you're getting disgusted with it...walk away. Nobody is forcing you to read or participate in these discussions....
If we want to have an intelligent debate.... then we have every right to.... that's what this forum is for isn't it?

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 02:10 PM
Congrats...you've redefined the Straw Man fallacy...





Originally posted by Sniper
I agree that Iraq has... But, who supplied them with these weapons at that time and who trained them?


Ask the Palistineans if they are civilians... also ask them who routinely launches attacks against them?


What the HECK does that have to do with ANYTHING in this thread? You were talking about them having the suits as a precaution against Israel...where the HECK does the US giving them weapons come in?

And on the last point, I asked "of the two countries, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations, Israel or Iraq? " Unless the Palestinians have taken up residence in IRAQ, your answer in no way, shape, or form answers my question. The ONLY substantive answer you gave was to the question of who has the burden of proof, and even that was inane since Saddam has had 12 years to comply....perhaps a couple more decades would have been enough?

Barbarian
03-26-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
No offense Barbarian... but if you're getting disgusted with it...walk away. Nobody is forcing you to read or participate in these discussions....
If we want to have an intelligent debate.... then we have every right to.... that's what this forum is for isn't it?

I'm not disgusted with intelligent debate.. actually what i was referring to is more a general disgust with both extreems, the far right and far left in general.

This debate has just broken down and is no longer intelligent debate, but don't worry though wharf, I'm actually on your guy's side on this one it has just reached the point where no matter wht you say, the opposition will come back with something even more rediculous to attempt to counter it...

Sniper
03-26-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Congrats...you've redefined the Straw Man fallacy...







What the HECK does that have to do with ANYTHING in this thread? You were talking about them having the suits as a precaution against Israel...where the HECK does the US giving them weapons come in?

And on the last point, I asked "of the two countries, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations, Israel or Iraq? " Unless the Palestinians have taken up residence in IRAQ, your answer in no way, shape, or form answers my question. The ONLY substantive answer you gave was to the question of who has the burden of proof, and even that was inane since Saddam has had 12 years to comply....perhaps a couple more decades would have been enough?

Read your question again.

"of the two countries, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations, Israel or Iraq? "

My answer of "Ask the Palistinians if they are civilians... also ask them who routinely launches attacks against them?" does in fact answer that your question. It implies that Israel has attacked civilian populations.

So how does this not answer the question you asked?

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Read your question again.

"of the two countries, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations, Israel or Iraq? "

My answer of "Ask the Palistinians if they are civilians... also ask them who routinely launches attacks against them?" does in fact answer that your question. It implies that Israel has attacked civilian populations.

So how does this not answer the question you asked?


What part of "against the OTHERS civilian populations" is too complicated to grasp? Is "the others" beyond your understanding? The Palestinians do not LIVE in Iraq, therefore they can NOT be counted as part of Iraq's population. In NO part of my question did it state "which of the two countries has attacked A civilian population". In fact, I don't see any way that I could have BEEN more specific. "The others"....it's an integral part of the question Snippy, try reading it again....slowly if needed....sheesh.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
My answer of "Ask the Palistinians if they are civilians... also ask them who routinely launches attacks against them?" does in fact answer that your question. It implies that Israel has attacked civilian populations.



However, my point was, those "civilian" Palestinians are the ones carrying out suicide bomb attacks against the civilians in Israel... where should Israel draw the line? Seems to me, the Israeli attacks on "civilian" areas in Palestine, are in response to "civilian" Palestinians bombing malls, school buses and the like.....

I don't see reports of Iraqi civilians bombing Jeruselem... nor do I see Israeli troops at the border of Iraq....

Sniper
03-26-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
However, my point was, those "civilian" Palestinians are the ones carrying out suicide bomb attacks against the civilians in Israel... where should Israel draw the line? Seems to me, the Israeli attacks on "civilian" areas in Palestine, are in response to "civilian" Palestinians bombing malls, school buses and the like.....

I don't see reports of Iraqi civilians bombing Jeruselem... nore do I see Israeli troops at the border of Iraq....

I think both actions are reprehensible Wharf

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
However, my point was, those "civilian" Palestinians are the ones carrying out suicide bomb attacks against the civilians in Israel... where should Israel draw the line? Seems to me, the Israeli attacks on "civilian" areas in Palestine, are in response to "civilian" Palestinians bombing malls, school buses and the like.....

I don't see reports of Iraqi civilians bombing Jeruselem... nor do I see Israeli troops at the border of Iraq....


I do however remember a few Scuds launched at civilian targets in Israel.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
I think both actions are reprehensible Wharf

So do I sniper...and I won't bother getting into a "chicken or the egg" argument about who started it....
My point was... how can Iraq feel threatened by Israel? Barring a blatant air strike or missile launch through Jordanian, or Syrian airspace (something not very likely to happen at this time of heightened awareness), Israel has no means to deliver such weapons into Iraq....

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I do however remember a few Scuds launched at civilian targets in Israel.

True... and while that was 12 years ago... it shows that the Israeli's practiced a considerable amount of restraint... something not characteristic of a country who would launch chem weapons into Iraq for no apparent reason....

Sniper
03-26-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
What part of "against the OTHERS civilian populations" is too complicated to grasp? Is "the others" beyond your understanding? The Palestinians do not LIVE in Iraq, therefore they can NOT be counted as part of Iraq's population. In NO part of my question did it state "which of the two countries has attacked A civilian population". In fact, I don't see any way that I could have BEEN more specific. "The others"....it's an integral part of the question Snippy, try reading it again....slowly if needed....sheesh.

No friggin kidding the Palestinians don't live in Iraq... that was never part of your original question. In no way, shape, or form does your question state that my answer had to be confined to civilians living in Iraq.

Again and again, the common theme seems to be you can't post what you mean.

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
No friggin kidding the Palestinians don't live in Iraq... that was never part of your original question. In no way, shape, or form does your question state that my answer had to be confined to civilians living in Iraq.

Again and again, the common theme seems to be you can't post what you mean.


Jesus Sniper!! Is english your second language? How can you not understand "of the two countries, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations, Israel or Iraq?

"? AGAINST THE OTHERS CIVILIAN POPULATIONS!!!!

"The others" is right there, and it was right there in the original post!! Good lord man!! If english isn't your first language, just tell me and I'll understand, but DAMN, how thick headed can you get? It was an easy question, and your never ending BS has drawn it out into a page long mess. If you want an english lesson, I'm sure I can find someone to explain to you how sentance structure works.

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
True... and while that was 12 years ago... it shows that the Israeli's practiced a considerable amount of restraint... something not characteristic of a country who would launch chem weapons into Iraq for no apparent reason....


EXACTLY!! And if you want to talk about restraint...if the Israeli's even HAVE chem/bio weapons, I'm reasonably certain that SOMEONE in their military would have gotten mad enough to use them after any one of the almost innumerable terrorist attacks they've suffered. Heck, we got hit ONCE and we had people running around calling for us to nuke every middle east country in the world!

Sniper
03-26-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Jesus Sniper!! Is english your second language? How can you not understand "of the two countries, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations, Israel or Iraq?

"? AGAINST THE OTHERS CIVILIAN POPULATIONS!!!!

"The others" is right there, and it was right there in the original post!! Good lord man!! If english isn't your first language, just tell me and I'll understand, but DAMN, how thick headed can you get? It was an easy question, and your never ending BS has drawn it out into a page long mess. If you want an english lesson, I'm sure I can find someone to explain to you how sentance structure works.

Wharf.. can we get a ruling on this.. :lol:

Did I answer his question as he stated it?

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Wharf.. can we get a ruling on this.. :lol:

Did I answer his question as he stated it?

Technically, this forum is out of my juristiction.... :cool:

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Technically, this forum is out of my juristiction.... :cool:


Damn....Wharf is pursuing a career in politics!!....:lol:

Sniper
03-26-2003, 03:25 PM
Rephrase you question and I will answer it

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Damn....Wharf is pursuing a career in politics!!....:lol:

:eek: Perish the thought!!!

I'd like to think I have a slightly higher moral standard than that....

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Rephrase you question and I will answer it


Oh give me a break Snippy...the question was phrased EXACTLY the way it should have been. Would you like me to reverse the order?

"Of the two countries, Israel or Iraq, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations?"

Is that somehow easier to grasp for you than

"of the two countries, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations, Israel or Iraq?"

Either way, it was a rhetorical question. Israel has never launched an attack against Iraq's civilian population, while Iraq has lauched Scud missiles at Israel. Heck, I'm even willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't purposely lie in an attempt to twist the argument. I'll allow for the possibility that you made an error. But if that's true, why is it so difficult for you to admit that you just read the question wrong and made a mistake?

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
:eek: Perish the thought!!!

I'd like to think I have a slightly higher moral standard than that....

Better be careful then...learning the rhetoric is the first step down that long dark path...:lol:

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 03:51 PM
The only attack by Israel against Iraq came in the 80's I believe, when they launched an airstrike against a nuclear "power plant" near the Iranian border... personally I don't think it counts as a civilian attack, since it was government run, and allegedly being used to refine ore for weapons...
While at the time, most of the world condemed the act... I personally am glad they took the initiative... if they hadn't, Iraq would have nuclear weapons by now, and Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia (at least) would all be provinces of Iraq today....

Sniper
03-26-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Oh give me a break Snippy...the question was phrased EXACTLY the way it should have been. Would you like me to reverse the order?

"Of the two countries, Israel or Iraq, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations?"

Is that somehow easier to grasp for you than

"of the two countries, who has launched attacks against the others civilian populations, Israel or Iraq?"

Either way, it was a rhetorical question. Israel has never launched an attack against Iraq's civilian population, while Iraq has lauched Scud missiles at Israel. Heck, I'm even willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't purposely lie in an attempt to twist the argument. I'll allow for the possibility that you made an error. But if that's true, why is it so difficult for you to admit that you just read the question wrong and made a mistake?

Given the way you phrased that, I would agree. Iraq is guilty. ("others" should be written as "other's" to show possession, this is why I misread it. Typos happen. No big deal)

Admitting that, I think the civilian population argument is kind of besides the point.

How about this question:

Has Israel ever attacked Iraq?

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Sniper

How about this question:

Has Israel ever attacked Iraq?

See my above post .... ;)

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Given the way you phrased that, I would agree. Iraq is guilty. ("others" should be wriiten as "other's" to show possession, this is why I misread it.)

Admitting that, I think the civilian population argument is kind of besides the point.

How about this question:

Has Israel ever attacked Iraq?

Oh please....now you're hiding behind an apostrophe? Weak Snippy, very weak. In answer to your question, Israel has attacked an Iraqi site which was set to refine uranium for nukes. They've never launched an attack on any civilian or military sites, just the nuke plant. By contrast, they REFRAINED from launching an COUNTER attack on Iraq despite the fact that Iraq launched multiple scuds at Israel. I'll concede that some truly paranoid official in Iraq could fear a nucclear attack by Israel, but thinking that they are issuing chem suits/atropine to their troops to protect against a chem/bio attack by Israel IS a stretch.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Oh please....now you're hiding behind an apostrophe? Weak Snippy, very weak. In answer to your question, Israel has attacked an Iraqi site which was set to refine uranium for nukes. They've never launched an attack on any civilian or military sites, just the nuke plant. By contrast, they REFRAINED from launching an COUNTER attack on Iraq despite the fact that Iraq launched multiple scuds at Israel. I'll concede that some truly paranoid official in Iraq could fear a nucclear attack by Israel, but thinking that they are issuing chem suits/atropine to their troops to protect against a chem/bio attack by Israel IS a stretch.

Typos happen.. Which isn't a big deal, but it is also why I misread your post. I'm not hiding behind anything. I admit I misread it, but the way you wrote that contributed to why I misread it. Not a big deal because we understand each other now.

Secondly... I don't think it is a stretch at all. Israel is known to be aggressive by many countries in the Middle East... Who else have they struck in the past? Libya.. Egypt...

iceblizzard69
03-26-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Typos happen.. Which isn't a big deal, but it is also why I misread your post. I'm not hiding behind anything. I admit I misread it, but the way you wrote that contributed to why I misread it. Not a big deal because we understand each other now.

Secondly... I don't think it is a stretch at all. Israel is known to be aggressive by many countries in the Middle East... Who else have they struck in the past? Libya.. Egypt...

Calling Israel aggressive is an understatement.

PhinPhan1227
03-26-2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Typos happen.. Which isn't a big deal, but it is also why I misread your post. I'm not hiding behind anything. I admit I misread it, but the way you wrote that contributed to why I misread it. Not a big deal because we understand each other now.

Secondly... I don't think it is a stretch at all. Israel is known to be aggressive by many countries in the Middle East... Who else have they struck in the past? Libya.. Egypt...

Only after being struck first. Israel is a tiny country surrounded by nations who have launched attack after attack. I bet you'd call a guy aggressive for fighting back after being mugged.