PDA

View Full Version : Agreeing with Bush..



DolFan31
08-03-2004, 10:15 PM
To agree with Bush, you must believe:


* Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

* Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

* The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

* A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

* Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

* The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

* If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

* A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

* Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

* HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

* Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

* A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

* Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

* The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's insider trading record is none of our business.

* Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

* You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

* What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the 1980s is irrelevant.

:roflmao: :roflmao: isnt that the truth?

*gets some mops and buckets for the conservative foam that will no doubt fly everywhere*

Phinzone
08-03-2004, 10:33 PM
I thought for a minute that I would pick it apart piece by piece. Then I realized that my initial impression was true. It is by FAR the stupidest piece of literature EVER written, and thus isn't worth my time. Instead I will encourage all the conservatives to print this post off and use it as a piece of TP while not posting and let it slide to it's rightful place in the bowels of the internet.

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 10:42 PM
I thought for a minute that I would pick it apart piece by piece. Then I realized that my initial impression was true. It is by FAR the stupidest piece of literature EVER written, and thus isn't worth my time. Instead I will encourage all the conservatives to print this post off and use it as a piece of TP while not posting and let it slide to it's rightful place in the bowels of the internet.

:goof:

Actually Ann Coulter's books are the stupidest piece of literatue EVER written.

PhinPhan1227
08-03-2004, 10:57 PM
This is about as worthwhile as the same stuff printed about Kerry. It's got a 2% kernel of truth with a load of 98% crap wrapped around it.

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 11:12 PM
This is about as worthwhile as the same stuff printed about Kerry. It's got a 2% kernel of truth with a load of 98% crap wrapped around it.

But its fun to post. :D

Section126
08-03-2004, 11:18 PM
But its fun to post. :D


Lay off the drugs.

PhinPhan1227
08-03-2004, 11:28 PM
But its fun to post. :D


Maybe, but to me it just contributes to the mounds of crap that have accompanied this election. If people would just stick to the issues there wouldn't be so much hostility.

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 11:42 PM
Maybe, but to me it just contributes to the mounds of crap that have accompanied this election. If people would just stick to the issues there wouldn't be so much hostility.

I agree, but no one sticks to the issues anymore.

Clumpy
08-03-2004, 11:48 PM
Only the first one is somewhat inaccurate. Daddy Bush was justified in going to war and the UN supported it (in order to kick Saddam out of Kuwait). The problem with the "legitimate" Gulf War is that we didn't go the 100 miles to Baghdad when we had a huge coalition and the troops to occupy Iraq. The UN resolutions didn't authorize it It was also a force that would have been better able to crush insurgency.

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 11:55 PM
Only the first one is somewhat inaccurate. Daddy Bush was justified in going to war and the UN supported it (in order to kick Saddam out of Kuwait). The problem with the "legitimate" Gulf War is that we didn't go the 100 miles to Baghdad when we had a huge coalition and the troops to occupy Iraq. The UN resolutions didn't authorize it It was also a force that would have been better able to crush insurgency.

But hey, you gotta give Bush credit for trying Preemptive War( :rolleyes: ). Im for preemption too: voting Bush out before he turns this country and world into a bigger mess than it already is. :patriot:

ohall
08-04-2004, 12:02 AM
Only the first one is somewhat inaccurate. Daddy Bush was justified in going to war and the UN supported it (in order to kick Saddam out of Kuwait). The problem with the "legitimate" Gulf War is that we didn't go the 100 miles to Baghdad when we had a huge coalition and the troops to occupy Iraq. The UN resolutions didn't authorize it It was also a force that would have been better able to crush insurgency.

This is revisionist history at its finest.

Going into Baghdad was not an option, and anyone who was paying attention at that time knows the coalition for the 1st Gulf War specifically knows that France, and Saudi Arabia made it VERY clear that going into Baghdad was not an option if the US and Britain wanted them to be a part of the 1st Gulf War coalition.

Further ppl like you would simply be playing this stupid political game you are playing now back then if Bush #41 went into Baghdad. It's what DEM's like you do all the time. Only DEM's would make a case for keeping a madman like Saddam in power. Sometimes I wonder if you guys even think of the stuff you are putting out there. If we were to use the DEM's logic leaders like Hitler would have not been removed. And if you don't think Saddam was another Hitler you are more confused than I thought.

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-04-2004, 12:40 AM
This is revisionist history at its finest.

Going into Baghdad was not an option, and anyone who was paying attention at that time knows the coalition for the 1st Gulf War specifically knows that France, and Saudi Arabia made it VERY clear that going into Baghdad was not an option if the US and Britain wanted them to be a part of the 1st Gulf War coalition.

Further ppl like you would simply be playing this stupid political game you are playing now back then if Bush #41 went into Baghdad. It's what DEM's like you do all the time. Only DEM's would make a case for keeping a madman like Saddam in power. Sometimes I wonder if you guys even think of the stuff you are putting out there. If we were to use the DEM's logic leaders like Hitler would have not been removed. And if you don't think Saddam was another Hitler you are more confused than I thought.

Oliver...

:rolleyes: More right-wing Coulter/Hannity/Savage/Limbaugh crap.

Clumpy
08-04-2004, 01:49 AM
This is revisionist history at its finest.

Going into Baghdad was not an option, and anyone who was paying attention at that time knows the coalition for the 1st Gulf War specifically knows that France, and Saudi Arabia made it VERY clear that going into Baghdad was not an option if the US and Britain wanted them to be a part of the 1st Gulf War coalition.

Further ppl like you would simply be playing this stupid political game you are playing now back then if Bush #41 went into Baghdad. It's what DEM's like you do all the time. Only DEM's would make a case for keeping a madman like Saddam in power. Sometimes I wonder if you guys even think of the stuff you are putting out there. If we were to use the DEM's logic leaders like Hitler would have not been removed. And if you don't think Saddam was another Hitler you are more confused than I thought.

Oliver...


I know all about the 1st Persian Gulf war because I WAS THERE in uniform for 6 frickin months !!! So get off your frickin' high horse.

I know that the UN resolutions prevented marching into Baghdad. I was only saying it's too bad we couldn't have taken him out then

This Gulf War was based on "imminent threat" based on non-existent WMDs and link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. North Korea and Iran HAVE active nuclear capabilities, harbour & support terrorism, and have violated the civil rights of their populations. Why didn't we go into those countries? Under the same justifications for war in Iraq, we should be bombing the he!! out of them. It was clearly not necessary to go into Iraq when we did. Our military assets should have been focused on Al-Qaeda and bin Laden. We should have made more of an effort to verify if WMDs still existed in Iraq. Once bin Laden was eliminated, then focus could then have been shifted, if necessary, to Iraq.

PhinPhan1227
08-04-2004, 02:29 AM
Only the first one is somewhat inaccurate. Daddy Bush was justified in going to war and the UN supported it (in order to kick Saddam out of Kuwait). The problem with the "legitimate" Gulf War is that we didn't go the 100 miles to Baghdad when we had a huge coalition and the troops to occupy Iraq. The UN resolutions didn't authorize it It was also a force that would have been better able to crush insurgency.


"Huge Coalition"? Do you know what percentage of troops were NOT American or Birtish?

Clumpy
08-04-2004, 02:40 AM
"Huge Coalition"? Do you know what percentage of troops were NOT American or Birtish?


Coalition doesn't mean only "boots on the ground". it also means support and money. Japan was a large financial contributor

ohall
08-04-2004, 02:46 AM
I know all about the 1st Persian Gulf war because I WAS THERE in uniform for 6 frickin months !!! So get off your frickin' high horse.

I know that the UN resolutions prevented marching into Baghdad. I was only saying it's too bad we couldn't have taken him out then

This Gulf War was based on "imminent threat" based on non-existent WMDs and link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. North Korea and Iran HAVE active nuclear capabilities, harbour & support terrorism, and have violated the civil rights of their populations. Why didn't we go into those countries? Under the same justifications for war in Iraq, we should be bombing the he!! out of them. It was clearly not necessary to go into Iraq when we did. Our military assets should have been focused on Al-Qaeda and bin Laden. We should have made more of an effort to verify if WMDs still existed in Iraq. Once bin Laden was eliminated, then focus could then have been shifted, if necessary, to Iraq.

I'm not on any FREAKING high horse. You being in Iraq during that time doesn't mean a damn thing to this dicussion of politics. So why don't you get off your HIGH HORSE?!

There was no IMMINENT threat to this country during the 1st Gulf War. So if we apply the same logic that you and your BUDDIES from the DEM party are using today we never should have gone into Kuwait as well. I keep saying I have no idea why ppl like you continue to make a case for a madman like Saddam. Why go there, why go there over and over, just to make a counter argument to the current President? I wish the DEM party would regain it's pride and its stature it once had. The state of the DEM party and how it has been hijacked by LEFT wing wackos IMO is a very sad thing.

Oliver...

Clumpy
08-04-2004, 03:02 AM
I'm not on any FREAKING high horse. You being in Iraq during that time doesn't mean a damn thing to this dicussion of politics. So why don't you get off your HIGH HORSE?!

There was no IMMINENT threat to this country during the 1st Gulf War. So if we apply the same logic that you and your BUDDIES from the DEM party are using today we never should have gone into Kuwait as well. I keep saying I have no idea why ppl like you continue to make a case for a madman like Saddam. Why go there, why go there over and over, just to make a counter argument to the current President? I wish the DEM party would regain it's pride and its stature it once had. The state of the DEM party and how it has been hijacked by LEFT wing wackos IMO is a very sad thing.

Oliver...


Do you even know the reason why the 1st Gulf War was fought? Saddam marched his troops into Kuwait because of 3 reasons: 1) He was militarily far superior 2) Unresolved border/Oil dispute with Kuwait 3) Did not believe the countries of the world would have the resolve to fight back. UN supported the Daddy Bush administration because they clearly identified the reasons to go to war. Puppet Bush Admin. misled this country to believe that an "imminent threat" existed and we went to war on false pretenses. If the Puppet Bush admin had said we were going to war because Saddam was a "bad man" who brutalized his people as their justification, it would be different. HOWEVER, they knew that would not be enough to get support, so they trumped up the "imminent threat/WMD" justification, which has proven to be FALSE!

ohall
08-04-2004, 03:23 AM
Do you even know the reason why the 1st Gulf War was fought? Saddam marched his troops into Kuwait because of 3 reasons: 1) He was militarily far superior 2) Unresolved border/Oil dispute with Kuwait 3) Did not believe the countries of the world would have the resolve to fight back. UN supported the Daddy Bush administration because they clearly identified the reasons to go to war. Puppet Bush Admin. misled this country to believe that an "imminent threat" existed and we went to war on false pretenses. If the Puppet Bush admin had said we were going to war because Saddam was a "bad man" who brutalized his people as their justification, it would be different. HOWEVER, they knew that would not be enough to get support, so they trumped up the "imminent threat/WMD" justification, which has proven to be FALSE!

Explain to me using your logic, how Saddam invading Kuwait in 1990 was an IMMINENT threat to this country? If that invasion was an IMMINENT THREAT the fact that the world all agreed Saddam had WMD's after 9/11 makes this invasion an IMMINENT THREAT war as well. Sorry you cannot have it both ways my friend. Neither time was Saddam capable of invading the USA!

It doesn't make it wrong just because the French, Germans and Russians didn't agree with our government’s decision to invade Iraq. All those countries greed Saddam had WMD's, it was a fact as far as world leaders were concerned. They were just unwilling to cut off the illegal $ flowing into their countries from Saddam. The UN food for oil scandal makes their motives for not going along very clear. I deal with facts not MM's insane rantings and wet dreams.

Bush mislead no one, those types of lies are going to do in your candidate in, along with your political party as well. After Bush beats your party once again this November the DEM's will be sitting there scratching their heads blaming others for their own actions. When your political party realizes it has VENTURED FAR from its roots then and only then will they regain their once proud stature. Your political party has been hijacked by ppl like you. You spew and spit venom at our President while defending and supporting a madman with those rantings and ravings directed at our President and government. I cannot believe how lost some of you ppl are. It's just amazing to me you actually believe the things you type. It's freaking scary!

And your last sentence proves my point once again. Playing the political gotcha games DEM's are currently playing only implies you all want a Saddam back in power. After all using your logic we shouldn't have invaded Iraq and in that inaction that would mean he'd still be in power. I wish you ppl would think things thru, rather than over reacting to your 1st gotcha impulse. Americans may have short memories, but contrary to MM’s opinion, Americans are not DUMB or STUPID. When they spend the time thinking thru the DEM’s logic most ppl will not support that type of thinking. They know that type of thinking only enables terrorism and in turn makes our country more unsafe when compared to fighting the war on terror on a foreign countries land.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-04-2004, 03:47 AM
Coalition doesn't mean only "boots on the ground". it also means support and money. Japan was a large financial contributor

None of the financial contributors were going to contribute one penny if we had gone on into Baghdad. They were only helping to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

PhinPhan1227
08-04-2004, 03:48 AM
Do you even know the reason why the 1st Gulf War was fought? Saddam marched his troops into Kuwait because of 3 reasons: 1) He was militarily far superior 2) Unresolved border/Oil dispute with Kuwait 3) Did not believe the countries of the world would have the resolve to fight back. UN supported the Daddy Bush administration because they clearly identified the reasons to go to war. Puppet Bush Admin. misled this country to believe that an "imminent threat" existed and we went to war on false pretenses. If the Puppet Bush admin had said we were going to war because Saddam was a "bad man" who brutalized his people as their justification, it would be different. HOWEVER, they knew that would not be enough to get support, so they trumped up the "imminent threat/WMD" justification, which has proven to be FALSE!


"Mislead" is another word for "lie". Sentate Democrats say that there was no "lie", only an honest mistake.

Clumpy
08-04-2004, 04:23 AM
Plain and simple, so you can understand.

1st Gulf War: we went to war because Saddam moved on Kuwait and threatened to move into Saudi oil fields. Bush admin went to UN and seek approval to get saddam out of Kuwait. We did that and stopped. That war was never presented as an "imminent threat". This was a war that needed to be fought

2nd Gulf War: The justifications presented by the Puppet Bush admin have proven to be false. The Puppet Bush admin knew they couldn't go to war on "Saddam is bad man". Regardless of what you think, this was not an "imminent threat" as presented and could have been a war fought at a later time once bin Laden was captured/killed. Saddam wasn't going anywhere

Clumpy
08-04-2004, 04:24 AM
None of the financial contributors were going to contribute one penny if we had gone on into Baghdad. They were only helping to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

Yes, I know. I have already stated this twice :rolleyes:

Ross
08-04-2004, 08:14 AM
2nd Gulf War: The justifications presented by the Puppet Bush admin have proven to be false. The Puppet Bush admin knew they couldn't go to war on "Saddam is bad man". Regardless of what you think, this was not an "imminent threat" as presented and could have been a war fought at a later time once bin Laden was captured/killed. Saddam wasn't going anywhere

Spoken like a man who hasn't read any of the 9/11 commission's report. I suggest page 66 where Iraqi ties to terrorism is discussed...

--Ross

Section126
08-04-2004, 08:48 AM
Clumpy doesn't bother to read anything.......If Bush cured Cancer...Clump woul be on here saying that it was a conspiracy between Haliburton and Cheney.......

BTW.....if you do a search of every single speech delivered by Bush in the runnup to the War...you WILL NEVER find him saying "Imminent"....in fact what you do find is Bush saying we will fight this War NOW to not fight it LATER........

I love liberals.....they just make up the facts to suit their arguments.....

I also like the Paranoid nature of his post where he keeps saying "Puppet Bush Admin".....

Section126
08-04-2004, 08:50 AM
Spoken like a man who hasn't read any of the 9/11 commission's report. I suggest page 66 where Iraqi ties to terrorism is discussed...

--Ross

Or how bout the Senate Intelligence report (That Kerry was on BTW) that says that Saddam was trying to aquirre Nukes.......I guess Clump would have rather we attacked Iraq AFTER they had a NUKE to lob on us..... :shakeno:

PhinPhan1227
08-04-2004, 10:07 AM
Plain and simple, so you can understand.

1st Gulf War: we went to war because Saddam moved on Kuwait and threatened to move into Saudi oil fields. Bush admin went to UN and seek approval to get saddam out of Kuwait. We did that and stopped. That war was never presented as an "imminent threat". This was a war that needed to be fought

2nd Gulf War: The justifications presented by the Puppet Bush admin have proven to be false. The Puppet Bush admin knew they couldn't go to war on "Saddam is bad man". Regardless of what you think, this was not an "imminent threat" as presented and could have been a war fought at a later time once bin Laden was captured/killed. Saddam wasn't going anywhere

#1-Bush thought the information was accurate. That's according to a bipartisan decision which is as close to getting the word straight from God as you'll ever get.

#2-Bringing stability to the region as a long term solution is still the strongest response to the problem I've seen. And that response would have been impossible later once the usual American enui settled in.

ohall
08-04-2004, 03:27 PM
Plain and simple, so you can understand.

1st Gulf War: we went to war because Saddam moved on Kuwait and threatened to move into Saudi oil fields. Bush admin went to UN and seek approval to get saddam out of Kuwait. We did that and stopped. That war was never presented as an "imminent threat". This was a war that needed to be fought

2nd Gulf War: The justifications presented by the Puppet Bush admin have proven to be false. The Puppet Bush admin knew they couldn't go to war on "Saddam is bad man". Regardless of what you think, this was not an "imminent threat" as presented and could have been a war fought at a later time once bin Laden was captured/killed. Saddam wasn't going anywhere

Fine, then both wars were unjustified by your current definition of what it takes for this country to invade another country. Unless a country is going to invade this country (IMMINENT THREAT) ppl like you can always whine about military action so long as it is not a DEM President doing the invading.

You're a hypocrite. What's funny is you don't think you are being a hypocrite.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 12:09 AM
I thought for a minute that I would pick it apart piece by piece. Then I realized that my initial impression was true. It is by FAR the stupidest piece of literature EVER written, and thus isn't worth my time. Instead I will encourage all the conservatives to print this post off and use it as a piece of TP while not posting and let it slide to it's rightful place in the bowels of the internet.

Actually Phinzone, a lot of what he said is really true, reread recent history..a lot of this I know because I was a officer in the military and kept up on stuff like this..we did have a problem in the middle east of presenting too many faces and dissing friends when it met our purpose..that is a reason that a lot of people of that region don't like us. Our policies in the area has help crave a niche for the anti american hatred. I'm not sure if you've been out of this country, but we have a tendency to try to make everything a America in other lands...We expect other countries to respect us, but we don't neccessarily respect them, wether allied or foe. It's tough business and I'm not sure what the answer, but I do know we need to be more consistence in our foreign policies.

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 01:29 AM
Actually Phinzone, a lot of what he said is really true, reread recent history..a lot of this I know because I was a officer in the military and kept up on stuff like this..we did have a problem in the middle east of presenting too many faces and dissing friends when it met our purpose..that is a reason that a lot of people of that region don't like us. Our policies in the area has help crave a niche for the anti american hatred. I'm not sure if you've been out of this country, but we have a tendency to try to make everything a America in other lands...We expect other countries to respect us, but we don't neccessarily respect them, wether allied or foe. It's tough business and I'm not sure what the answer, but I do know we need to be more consistence in our foreign policies.


Once again...if you served MD, what was your MOS and unit?

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 03:37 AM
Once again...if you served MD, what was your MOS and unit?

I answered that in some other threats, I didn't know knowing my MOS was that important..what different does my MOS made...all you have to know is I served and I don't think everyone would really understand my assignments in the MOS's I was in. But if it helps you I was a 13 and 54 series Officer in the Army..

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 04:32 AM
I answered that in some other threats, I didn't know knowing my MOS was that important..what different does my MOS made...all you have to know is I served and I don't think everyone would really understand my assignments in the MOS's I was in. But if it helps you I was a 13 and 54 series Officer in the Army..


Honestly I'm asking because I don't believe you served. There are about a dozen reasons why I hold that opinion, not the least of which is your apparent grasp of the english language. Even a lowly 2nd LT has to write enough reports that eventually he HAS to get a decent grasp of the language. I've seen SEVERAL of your posts in which you've used the wrong word because it sounded close to the actual word you meant to use. I've never met a single officer who has diction and syntax this poor. And if you were stationed in DC I REALLY don't believe your assertions. They'd jump on mistakes like this in a HEARTBEAT!

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 01:05 PM
Honestly I'm asking because I don't believe you served. There are about a dozen reasons why I hold that opinion, not the least of which is your apparent grasp of the english language. Even a lowly 2nd LT has to write enough reports that eventually he HAS to get a decent grasp of the language. I've seen SEVERAL of your posts in which you've used the wrong word because it sounded close to the actual word you meant to use. I've never met a single officer who has diction and syntax this poor. And if you were stationed in DC I REALLY don't believe your assertions. They'd jump on mistakes like this in a HEARTBEAT!

LOL, I agree with you, I write fast and then don't read the post before I submit it, I've reread a couple and try to remind myself to edit before submitting and I get caught up in the moment and don't. I do write bad now. As a computer guy I don't get to practice much anymore..it's not about writing but about physically getting the machines to work properly with a mixture of softeware interface. I admit I was never a great writer, but believe me, I did what I had to do while I was in the Military. Bush's inability to talk should prove to you that you don't have to be a great English major to succeed. When I was in the Military I spend a lot of time with writing knowing I had to do it for critiques and writing OER's and NCO evaluations. When I take my time I'm usually more effective at it..Here I just go for it. Sorry it bothers you..but yes I was an Officer and that much is very true..If you don't believe, it won't change the facts, just like the facts in the history of this administration won't change because you guys don't believe the truth. Sad but I hope my poor writing don't take away from the truth of our discussions here.

CirclingWagons
08-06-2004, 03:31 PM
Honestly I'm asking because I don't believe you served. There are about a dozen reasons why I hold that opinion, not the least of which is your apparent grasp of the english language. Even a lowly 2nd LT has to write enough reports that eventually he HAS to get a decent grasp of the language. I've seen SEVERAL of your posts in which you've used the wrong word because it sounded close to the actual word you meant to use. I've never met a single officer who has diction and syntax this poor. And if you were stationed in DC I REALLY don't believe your assertions. They'd jump on mistakes like this in a HEARTBEAT!
An officer with a poor grasp of the english language is nowhere near as bad as our Commander in Chief's blatant misuse of the language. Mike Tyson has better diction than Bush for phucksake.

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 05:16 PM
An officer with a poor grasp of the english language is nowhere near as bad as our Commander in Chief's blatant misuse of the language. Mike Tyson has better diction than Bush for phucksake.

CW I didn't say I didn't have a grasp on English, I just don't care when I write here, when it's something for work or official use, I take my time and ensure it's correct. There's a difference. At least when I speak, people understand. When Bush speaks, people laugh...(at him, not with him) :lol:

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 05:25 PM
LOL, I agree with you, I write fast and then don't read the post before I submit it, I've reread a couple and try to remind myself to edit before submitting and I get caught up in the moment and don't. I do write bad now. As a computer guy I don't get to practice much anymore..it's not about writing but about physically getting the machines to work properly with a mixture of softeware interface. I admit I was never a great writer, but believe me, I did what I had to do while I was in the Military. Bush's inability to talk should prove to you that you don't have to be a great English major to succeed. When I was in the Military I spend a lot of time with writing knowing I had to do it for critiques and writing OER's and NCO evaluations. When I take my time I'm usually more effective at it..Here I just go for it. Sorry it bothers you..but yes I was an Officer and that much is very true..If you don't believe, it won't change the facts, just like the facts in the history of this administration won't change because you guys don't believe the truth. Sad but I hope my poor writing don't take away from the truth of our discussions here.


Lol...honestly I don't expect you to be concerned that I doubt the fact that you served. I would say however that your tendency to back up your arguments with statements like "I've seen things that you should believe, but that I can't talk about" is #1, the source of my doubt, and #2, a piss poor way of discussing/debating issues. Firstly, if you were involved in black projects, just stating that you were involved in black projects is a criminal offense. Secondly, you shouldn't need that "unspeakable" information to back up an argument. Logic and other experience should certainly be enough. And lastly, I tend to rush through my posts as well, and I still just can't buy you as a former officer, and certainly not a former officer that worked in one of the most paperwork intensive facets of the military. Bad spelling I could expect and certainly typo's, but in virtually every one of your posts I see repeated uses of the wrong words over and over. Basically the "Jesse Jackson" syndrome :rolleyes: .Again, I don't expect you to care, but just as an FYI, I don't buy it. Peace and much love to you though, if everyone on the Internet was 100% honest about their backgrounds it would probably shut down half the BBS' on the internet :lol:

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 06:22 PM
Lol...honestly I don't expect you to be concerned that I doubt the fact that you served. I would say however that your tendency to back up your arguments with statements like "I've seen things that you should believe, but that I can't talk about" is #1, the source of my doubt, and #2, a piss poor way of discussing/debating issues. Firstly, if you were involved in black projects, just stating that you were involved in black projects is a criminal offense. Secondly, you shouldn't need that "unspeakable" information to back up an argument. Logic and other experience should certainly be enough. And lastly, I tend to rush through my posts as well, and I still just can't buy you as a former officer, and certainly not a former officer that worked in one of the most paperwork intensive facets of the military. Bad spelling I could expect and certainly typo's, but in virtually every one of your posts I see repeated uses of the wrong words over and over. Basically the "Jesse Jackson" syndrome :rolleyes: .Again, I don't expect you to care, but just as an FYI, I don't buy it. Peace and much love to you though, if everyone on the Internet was 100% honest about their backgrounds it would probably shut down half the BBS' on the internet :lol:

I do understand, but I swore to keep things I was involved in a secret and I will carry them to my grave. Saying I was in black programs is not a criminal offense, that I do know. stating what kind is. I generally use the I've seen the info" as a way of stating that I was studying these foreign countries and their ways of life and what was going on with them as we prepared weapons, tactics, and just know your enemy type stuff that applied. Since I was on a program that was being used in the first gulf was, I read and learned a lot about that area, it included the culture, the politics and any other info we thought necessary to help us defeat or defend a part of the area. That's how I'm using the I use to be in the Military..I've probably done more studying and indepth research of that area than you. Plus I attended briefings on it alot. We did do "after action reports" you know in the Military. So after the war we tried to correct any info we had on the place and what we've learn. Plus we correct tactics and learn how certain systems worked vs terrain, climate and other things. These aren't classified in terms of what we do. Well if you come up here, I'll show you where I worked, but I could really care less weather you believe me or not, it really doesn't matter, does it? If writing is a big thing to you, be a english teacher and correct poor people like me before we get out into the world..otherwise shove it. The facts as I've stated them is true, sad as my forum board writing is, which I generally don't care about. It earns me nothing financially or mentally disputes me. I have fun doing this and I'm having fun debating with you, and for all of my non writing skills, we're still communicating, isn't that amazing, Or do I have to go back to the "aplumb" days of writing while in the Military. When you have to do something, you do it, when you don't and don't care, you write like I do here. But I'll always agree with you, I'm not the best writer or come close, but I generally get my point across.

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 06:36 PM
I do understand, but I swore to keep things I was involved in a secret and I will carry them to my grave. Saying I was in black programs is not a criminal offense, that I do know. stating what kind is. I generally use the I've seen the info" as a way of stating that I was studying these foreign countries and their ways of life and what was going on with them as we prepared weapons, tactics, and just know your enemy type stuff that applied. Since I was on a program that was being used in the first gulf was, I read and learned a lot about that area, it included the culture, the politics and any other info we thought necessary to help us defeat or defend a part of the area. That's how I'm using the I use to be in the Military..I've probably done more studying and indepth research of that area than you. Plus I attended briefings on it alot. We did do "after action reports" you know in the Military. So after the war we tried to correct any info we had on the place and what we've learn. Plus we correct tactics and learn how certain systems worked vs terrain, climate and other things. These aren't classified in terms of what we do. Well if you come up here, I'll show you where I worked, but I could really care less weather you believe me or not, it really doesn't matter, does it? If writing is a big thing to you, be a english teacher and correct poor people like me before we get out into the world..otherwise shove it. The facts as I've stated them is true, sad as my forum board writing is, which I generally don't care about. It earns me nothing financially or mentally disputes me. I have fun doing this and I'm having fun debating with you, and for all of my non writing skills, we're still communicating, isn't that amazing, Or do I have to go back to the "aplumb" days of writing while in the Military. When you have to do something, you do it, when you don't and don't care, you write like I do here. But I'll always agree with you, I'm not the best writer or come close, but I generally get my point across.

See..."disturbs", "distresses", heck, "destabilizes" might even work...but "disputes" just isn't the right word. As for Gulf War I, it was a while ago and all, but I don't recall us using any ground weapons systems that weren't common knowledge, for all that they might not have been used in combat before. Must have been a REALLY black program if nobody even saw it being used :lol: Bottom line, it's great if you swore to keep things secret to your grave(actually, it goes beyond that), but again, why bring it up? Why bring it up as a black program? You could certainly say that you were involved in research on the middle east during your service without the black program crap. We aren't having a discussion on the targeting system of the Paladin SPG. We aren't discussing new downlink systems for FO's. Nothing involved in a black program on weapons development has any bearing on this discussion. The research you did or didn't do on the Middle East has no bearing, so why mention it? Again...I am of the opinion that your story is in large part made up. Again I don't expect you to care, just sharing my opinion.

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 06:43 PM
As for Gulf War I, it was a while ago and all, but I don't recall us using any ground weapons systems that weren't common knowledge, .

Of course not. :lol: and you shouldn't have... :D At least you keep engaging me, even if you have such a hard time reading my writing..way to go.. :roflmao:

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 08:03 PM
Of course not. :lol: and you shouldn't have... :D At least you keep engaging me, even if you have such a hard time reading my writing..way to go.. :roflmao:


Lol...I was a bighorn sheep in another life...(requires a visual)