allthumbs Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 jon said: AlpineK said: Electro Magnetic Pulse. It blows up all the computers. It would really fuck cc.com up. Â E-bombs in conjunction with Laser Guided Horsecock, that'll show them. Â We apparently have a weapon that is tuned to the frequency that makes your sphyncter resonate, causing you to uncontrollably crap you pants. No Trask, they aren't testing it on you, you've just got issues. Â ya know Jon, you're always so mean to me - what'd I ever do to you other than screw your girlfriends first. Quote
tomcat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 fleblebleb said: tomcat said: allison said: US invading Iraq=untenable  I hope Bush has to go the Hague and explain himself. It's been said here, this is bullshit.  Read my bit about uneducated folks asserting their opinions on this matter.  Uneducated, that's rich.  Rephrase: Read my bit about people who don't agree with me asserting their opinions about this matter.  Don't take offense Fleblebleb, it's an inside joke between myself and big Al .. I don't expect you or even her to see the humor in it, but I sure do. Quote
tomcat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Hey fleblebleb, by the way, I don't have a problem with educated people disagreeing with the war. It's when I see the "No war for oil" crowd that I begin to get condescending. If you agree with the ignorant opinion that this war is about oil, then you too are ignorant and that's a F-A-C-T Jack. If you don't agree, brush that comment aside (which should be easy to do if you don't agree) and voice your true dissent .. so I can rebuke with facts. Quote
allthumbs Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 (edited) The new army  had to take this picture out as I just got an email from the guns and gals webmaster. please, again, do not hot link images from other sites, its stealing bandwidth and their intelectual property.  gapertimmy Edited March 21, 2003 by gapertimmy Quote
allison Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 (edited) *post deleted by allison* Â (note to self: don't suffer fools!) Edited March 21, 2003 by allison Quote
Greg_W Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 COL._Von_Spanker said: My brother is sitting is Kuwait right now a mile from the Iraqi border, or he's in iraq I don't really know, with a camera doing his job with our troop as they lob short range missled into the area. Â My thoughts are with your brother, Colonel; thank him for his service next time you see him. Â Greg Quote
JoshK Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Hmm, trask...I think that makes me a gun fan now. Quote
tomcat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Allison said: You're digging yourself quite a hole Tom  Yeah quite a hole Allison. Quote
tomcat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 tomcat said: Yeah quite a hole Allison. Â The only hole around here is your big fat piehole. Â Quote
allthumbs Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 allison said: (note to self: don't suffer fools!) *note to allisin - you must be hard to live with then. har de har Quote
PullinFool Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 tomcat said: tomcat said: Yeah quite a hole Allison. Â The only hole around here is your big fat piehole. Â Â ...and the hole in your sqirrel... Quote
catbirdseat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 I believe that the hardest thing to objectively get a handle on is the degree of threat posed by Saddam and his weapons of mass distruction. It is this one point that is the source of most of the disagreement. Some people are afraid of Saddam (Tomcat, Trask, GregW, etc.) and others are not afraid of him (myself included). Why am I not afraid? Aren't WMD really bad? Yes, they are, but would he really use them against us? The answer is no. Why? Because we would nuke his ass and he's not crazy- evil yes, but not crazy. He values his life. And even if he did wish to attack us and risk horrible retribution, he doesn't have the means to deliver the weapons. Â But wait, you say, he can just use a middleman to do the dirty work. He could give the dirty bomb to Al Queda, or some other terrorist organization. Okay, suppose he did. He would have to assume we wouldn't have a way to trace the weapon back to him as the source. How does he know we wouldn't do that and then nuke him just as sure as if he'd delivered the weapon himself? Deterrance is the word. Why didn't the USSR attack us during the Cold War. Deterrance. Mutually Assured Destruction. We're all still here because of MAD. Quote
fleblebleb Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 tomcat said: Hey fleblebleb, by the way, I don't have a problem with educated people disagreeing with the war. It's when I see the "No war for oil" crowd that I begin to get condescending. If you agree with the ignorant opinion that this war is about oil, then you too are ignorant and that's a F-A-C-T Jack. If you don't agree, brush that comment aside (which should be easy to do if you don't agree) and voice your true dissent .. so I can rebuke with facts. Â Boy, you really put value on education. I have heard of arrogant academics but this is something else! You must be really upset about decreased educational spending, war budget or no. Â But then again you're not talking about that kind of education are you? I mean, the vast majority of protesters I have seen are UW students, hundreds just today, and quite a few of them waving the no-war-for-oil signs. Maybe they deserve a little condescension, or a lot, since they haven't completed their degrees yet? Hmm, unfortunately that doesn't fly though, because the perceived general opinion in academia is not exactly pro-war, not exactly pro-Bush. Â So, you're hardly talking about academic education. Which puts me back where I started, I can't seem to figure out what you mean by educated other than people who agree with me. Did you meet an educated person that disagrees with the war yet? What kind of education are we talking about? Since you're going to dispute any dissenting opinion with facts, presumably ones previously unknown to the dissenter, I guess I have to conclude that it appears you consider it impossible to be well informed yet against the war. Â Quote
allison Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 There are so many things about this Iraq invasion that I find troubling, but the thing I keep coming back to is the fact that we are not there because of anything Iraq or its leaders have done to us or our allies. Â The precedence of this arbitrary military action is downright scary. Quote
catbirdseat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Tom, a better word than educated would be INFORMED. A little bit of information is a dangerous thing. Quote
fleblebleb Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 What are we educating Tom now? Isn't that a little condescending? Â China in Taiwan, around the new year, eh Allison? Quote
allthumbs Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 catbirdseat said: I believe that the hardest thing to objectively get a handle on is the degree of threat posed by Saddam and his weapons of mass distruction. It is this one point that is the source of most of the disagreement. Some people are afraid of Saddam (Tomcat, Trask, GregW, etc.) and others are not afraid of him (myself included). Why am I not afraid? Aren't WMD really bad? Yes, they are, but would he really use them against us? The answer is no. Why? Because we would nuke his ass and he's not crazy- evil yes, but not crazy. He values his life. And even if he did wish to attack us and risk horrible retribution, he doesn't have the means to deliver the weapons. Â But wait, you say, he can just use a middleman to do the dirty work. He could give the dirty bomb to Al Queda, or some other terrorist organization. Okay, suppose he did. He would have to assume we wouldn't have a way to trace the weapon back to him as the source. How does he know we wouldn't do that and then nuke him just as sure as if he'd delivered the weapon himself? Deterrance is the word. Why didn't the USSR attack us during the Cold War. Deterrance. Mutually Assured Destruction. We're all still here because of MAD. Â Catturd, why live through another cold war situation (by leaving saddam in power) for another 50 years when we can take his ass out now and set up a new democratic government in the region and perhaps bring a true change to the middle east. If we'd taken care of the Russians in the 40's when we had the chance (as Churchill recommended) we wouldn't have had to go through the cold war. Think about the big picture rather than the immediate gain. Quote
catbirdseat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Allison, you are so right. It's not about what they have done, but about what they might be able to do to us. Bush assumes that Saddam would forfeit his life and country by attacking us and therefore poses a threat. North Korea poses a much greater potential than does Saddam. They have nukes now AND the means to deliver them, but Bush doesn't seem to worry too much about them. NK knows we'd nuke them back, so they won't attack us. So why wouldn't this same principle apply to Iraq? Quote
fleblebleb Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Hnng Trask, it's the bigger (fine, even bigger) picture that's the scary part. Quote
PullinFool Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 I just recently heard that Russia and France have a "deal" with Saddam giving them exploration rights to oil - if this is so, no wonder we are not getting their support. A regime change means no deal! Â I really get bugged about the "good .vs evil" thing, cuz if "they" are evil, than that makes what we do "good" ? Quote
catbirdseat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Trash, you think the Cold War is over. Think again. Nothing has changed other than the rate of increase of military spending has slowed somewhat. All the conditions that existed between the USSR and the US for four decades still are in place. Russia still has weapons, China has weapons, Korea. Nothing has changed, except that countries have been talking to one another more and have been trading with one another. A measure of trust has built up. Well, we're not doing much to instill trust in the North Koreans, are we? Bush is refusing to talk with them. Not too smart if you ask me. Quote
tomcat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 fleblebleb said: tomcat said: Hey fleblebleb, by the way, I don't have a problem with educated people disagreeing with the war. It's when I see the "No war for oil" crowd that I begin to get condescending. If you agree with the ignorant opinion that this war is about oil, then you too are ignorant and that's a F-A-C-T Jack. If you don't agree, brush that comment aside (which should be easy to do if you don't agree) and voice your true dissent .. so I can rebuke with facts. Â Boy, you really put value on education. I have heard of arrogant academics but this is something else! You must be really upset about decreased educational spending, war budget or no. Â But then again you're not talking about that kind of education are you? I mean, the vast majority of protesters I have seen are UW students, hundreds just today, and quite a few of them waving the no-war-for-oil signs. Maybe they deserve a little condescension, or a lot, since they haven't completed their degrees yet? Hmm, unfortunately that doesn't fly though, because the perceived general opinion in academia is not exactly pro-war, not exactly pro-Bush. Â So, you're hardly talking about academic education. Which puts me back where I started, I can't seem to figure out what you mean by educated other than people who agree with me. Did you meet an educated person that disagrees with the war yet? What kind of education are we talking about? Since you're going to dispute any dissenting opinion with facts, presumably ones previously unknown to the dissenter, I guess I have to conclude that it appears you consider it impossible to be well informed yet against the war. Â That's the fallacy .. just because you're a UW student, that doesn't make you educated. You can fake your way through an education -- no problem. Most of the war protesters are college students .. this doesn't make them smart. If they actually had some intelligent arguments for their cause, I'd listen to them. But they don't. Â To answer your question, I've met several people who disagree with the war that are educated .. educated NOT because they agree with me (because they don't), but educated because they take the time to figure things out on their own .. and not take someone else's word for it. Had you read my prior posts in this thread, you'd understand that that's how I see it. Â It is not impossible to be informed and at the same time disagree with the war. But come with some factual arguments against the war then, don't keep shoving these ignorant arguments in my face and tell me they're fact .. just because your buddy said it's a fact doesn't make it so. Â Now, let's hear your rebuttals to my argument. You seem like you want some of this discussion, but I haven't seen any rebuttals -- just idle drivel. Prove me wrong. Â Â Quote
catbirdseat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Tom, please do us all a favor and cut out the nested quotes. They are tiresome. Just quote the particular paragraph you are replying to, if you would. Quote
tomcat Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 catbirdseat said: Tom, please do us all a favor and cut out the nested quotes. They are tiresome. Just quote the particular paragraph you are replying to, if you would. Â You don't have to read it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.