Martlet

My family is still in Maine, and I'll be back before long. I'm currently on an island off the coast of Boston. I moved down here for work and haven't gotten around to leaving yet. Mahoosuc? Up in the western mountains? That's beautiful country. We'd hike in to camp and climb there in college. I'd use my fly rod in an aluminum case as a walking stick to catch supper.

You quoted me, but failed to answer my question. Did you just want to rant, or were you actually trying to put forth some insight? it's because your question was another example of the classic 'switch and bait' you are becoming famous for. moreover you didn't provide any substantiating evidence. HA! You're like my brother. When ever he gets backed in a corner, he starts screaming "SWITCH AND BAIT!!!" "NO EVIDENCE" Read the freaking paper once in awhile, moron, and stop making excuses for avoiding the question. Just say "geez, you got me again". It's getting to be a habit with you. then when called on the 'switch and bait', there goes the other classic: 'insult and dodge' you are a pretty pathetic little fellow. I must be pathetic to still be waiting for you to answer the question. I should keep a running tally on the number of topics you try to derail to avoid them.

speaking of juveniles.....

HAHAHAHA. You don't read much either.

Nah, Dogsnot was something I started over a year ago. When I became much busier at work, I asked two people to post with me. Now they are super busy, so it's basically just me. The traffic hasn't really gone down. I get 350 to 400 visits a day, with spikes to 1000 on some days. I just do it for shits and giggles. I do climb, although not much anymore, and yes, I am here through icegirl.

You quoted me, but failed to answer my question. Did you just want to rant, or were you actually trying to put forth some insight? it's because your question was another example of the classic 'switch and bait' you are becoming famous for. moreover you didn't provide any substantiating evidence. HA! You're like my brother. When ever he gets backed in a corner, he starts screaming "SWITCH AND BAIT!!!" "NO EVIDENCE" Read the freaking paper once in awhile, moron, and stop making excuses for avoiding the question. Just say "geez, you got me again". It's getting to be a habit with you.

Yeah, his website explains it all. Like I said last night...not a pimply faced teen. Still a pretty unattractive guy, but not a tenneager. Apparently attractive enough that you use my picture. I think you have a crush. What is this abnormal infatuation you have with me?

What's so fascinating about it? I'm the same guy.

I'm guessing you never have an empty fridge, too.

You quoted me, but failed to answer my question. Did you just want to rant, or were you actually trying to put forth some insight?

I guess if you have to be proud to be something, that's a good place to start. Strangely, I'm not surprised this is just one more thing JoshK posts about without researching. I'm seeing a pattern.

Dunno, but there must be one. You don't argue with me about politics, but you feel the need to engage me in side conversations that really don't have anything to do with anything. What's YOUR point?

Did you mean "Martlet"? Did you mean: Thank you for allowING grammar police to post?

Minxie made a funny!

Since you obviously don't follow the news, or keep your sources to moveon and NPR, allow me to educate you free of charge. Saddam supports terrorists Terrorists captured in Iraq Here too Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Clarke, and pals thought there were WMD too And yes, all he had to do was comply with the resolutions. Why didn't the UN go in? Because as we are now learning, a good portion of the UN was profiting from the standoff, and in Saddams pocket. Again, your irrational hatred and scramble for any scrap of "Bush is Hitler" to hold on to is blinding you from the truth.

Well, your definition of collateral damage surely was....

no, it was explicitly concerned with the assessment that "collateral damage has been quite minor" which i initially countered with the number of civilian casualties and in later posts included all iraqi casualties for the past year. Definition collateral damage noun during a war, the unintentional deaths and injuries of people who are not soldiers, and damage that is caused to their homes, hospitals, schools, etc.

So, is that the 3rd time, or the 4th you've been done with this? You just can't stay away. Damn teenagers.

no peter, the reason i did not answer is because you offered nothing new in your argument. as for me increasing the number of casualties to ~40,000 to include the military: i consider bombing to paste ~30,000 unmotivated, poor-as-dirt individuals wearing uniform to be as much 'collateral damage' of predatorial policies as the killing of civilians. is there any good reason why you would exclude the death of iraqi military from your grim justifications? It's amazing how far your stretches become when you've completely lost the argument. HAHAHAHAHA Let's count car accidents, too! Damn republican jackboots making the poor oppressed drive inferior automobiles.

I have yet to see you post anything even remotely accurate. I'm glad you're keeping up the trend. What's this, the 2nd or 3rd time you've been "all done with this"? Does this only happen when mom calls you down for dinner?

Other nations? Like the French, who are neck deep in the oil for food scandal and were violating Iraq sanctions? Like the Russians, who seem to be in deeper than the French. Who are you referring to?

Sorry, I missed it. For some reason the template appears to be off in this thread and I'm having trouble reading the comments. As a result, I'm not going to quote in hopes that this page stays aligned. I'll answer from memory: I don't agree that we went in because he pissed us off and we wanted a foothold. Nor do take what Paul Oneil, a disgruntled relic who was axed, says as gospel. I think the reasons we went in are obvious. Saddam had WMD. No one denied this. Saddam supported terrorists. No one denied that. WMD + terrorists = unsafe situation for the US. To avoid invasion, Saddam simply had to comply with the numerous UN resolutions. He didn't. All evidence points towards guilt. It wasn't just Bush that thought so, even most of the opponents of the war thought so. Bush just had the balls to act. As to the long term effects only time will tell. We turn over the gov't in a month and a half. We'll see what happens after. Most likely the UN will step in. Either way, the war in Iraq has produced far more good than bad. Heck, even the Arab League announced it was going to start down a path towards civil/women's rights and democracy. Unfortunately, seeing things for what they are doesn't help fuel your blind, irrational hatred for Bush. It doesn't feed your "he stole the election" agenda. Therefore, you look for the negative, and cover the whole issue with it.

Never been there, and most likely will never go there.

there are numerous sources which place the number to >500,000. as far as i am concerned, the exact number is not very important for the purpose of this 'discussion'. what really matters is noting the grim calculus performed by pp and his fellow neocons: "we only killed ~40,000 individuals which is a lot less than *another large number* we'd have killed through sanctions, so we did good" Here's the 4th time this has been asked: You've done a lot of criticizing, care to offer a solution?

No, I can't agree. I think those stupid enough to not realize the events aren't representative of the whole hated us to begin with, and those that are smart enough to see the difference understand. Do you ever read the Arab news? Even the English versions? If the entire US converted to Islam we'd still be hated.