Demoralizing the Troops

[erik]

[iain]

[iain]

[Greg_W]

Dr_Flash_Amazing said:

Greg_W said:

Oh, I see, YOU should be allowed to express YOUR opinion, but Mike can't express his? Who are you to tell anyone how they can express their opinion? Fuck off, dick!!

 

From the latest issue of Field & Stream:

 

" ... and it is also worth noting that when trolling the crystalline waters of the Pacific Northwest for trophy-sized mikeadams, one can often land a perfectly respectable gregw using the same lure. While the gregw is not as violent a fighter as the mikeadam, the gregw will give most trollers a worthwhile run for their money before tiring out and allowing itself to be reeled in."

 

Natch, bro. Still, hope I meet you at Smith sometime.

[tomcat]

erik said:

tomcat said:

erik said:

interesting how none of the "experts" commented on what my brother had to say??

 

you know since he was actually over there and shit...i would have to think that kinda of quashes part of the ingornace? maybe they ahve slipped too far!??

 

maybe they are talking out their ass, the "experts" that is......

 

 

Nobody cares about your brother .. you're obviously both from the same dumb source.

 

tom

 

i really dig your posting style.

and i was shedding light on your hatred towards the "hippies" that you say are ruining our troops moral. well since my brother is one of our troops and he has been over there doing your killing for you. i thought maybe it would and some perspective towards your worhtless rants.

 

also i will let him know. what part of the armed forces were you with again??

 

and to let you know i am the first male in my family not to serve in combat.

 

well if my family is a dumb source, then the rodent corpse your dad raped in the ass to procreate you must be the cream of the crop!

 

All joking aside, who really cares what your brother thinks? He's just another fool.

 

I like your posting style too mister moderator. Instigate, point the finger, suck Dru's dick, fondle Iain's breasts, coddle with your lover boy brother, then ban and delete posts you don't agree with citing harrassment. You're nothing more than a breathing vagina.

[allthumbs]

WOW

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

HEY! "WOW" upside-down spells "MOM"!

[Greg_W]

Necronomicon said:

Maybe you need some anger management courses...

 

Been there, done that. It didn't take; the guy facilitating the group pissed me off!!!! (Seriously)

[allthumbs]

Oh brother

[erik]

actually tom

 

i reread my post and deceided that i didnt not want to lower myself to your level.

 

and i never erase posts that i dont disagree with. i erase posts that are offense to a select audience and i could care less what you think of me. and i dont think i have erased a single bit of that oh so magical and insightful banter in which you claim to be "fact".

 

you are so easy to troll. i mean seriously easy!

 

all i can do is laugh and laugh and laugh when i see yout screen name.

 

i still think it is funny, now since my brother who has seen combat(have you?) goes against what you believe that makes him a fool. funny stuff.

 

smoke some more pot. your brain cell is working overtime! it needs a break!

 

and now i bid adieu to this think tank of critical thinkers!!!

 

 

 

[lummox]

As it turns out, the micks are good for something: they've trained the British troops how to fight in urban settings.

[Greg_W]

lummox said:

As it turns out, the micks are good for something: they've trained the British troops how to fight in urban settings.

 

Watch it, lummox, Sexual Chocolate will jump your shit for being racist.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Stifle it, whitebread!

[lummox]

Greg_W said:

lummox said:

As it turns out, the micks are good for something: they've trained the British troops how to fight in urban settings.

 

Watch it, lummox, Sexual Chocolate will jump your shit for being racist.

watch it yourself. I ain't got nothing against the irish. I like em alot. I've banged plenty colleens, and will screw plenty more. But not too many would like to see em wearing thong bikinis. Okay, jenny mccarthy, yea. but she's a hybrid.

[mr.radon]

Necronomicon said:

tomcat said:

Necronomicon said:

vegetablebelay said:

Not to mention the estimated 1 million it cost Seattle to keep peace at the protests last week!

 

Not to mention the 500 MILLION it cost for the air campaign on Saturday.

 

Money well spent.

 

Do you have kids? They may benefit more from 500M$ spent on education than 500$M spent on war.

 

I'd rather see the 500M blow up parts of Iraq then see it wasted in the failing public schools of America. In Iraq it would have some positive effect. The US pays the most money per student, more money isn't the answer.

My kid is currently attending an American public school, what a shame. I was lucky to get a majority of my education in German schools. Until the schools are reformed and the NEA is banned the extra funds will just be wasted.

[allthumbs]

The American public school system is in the shitter. The teachers are useless and pouring more money to it isn't the answer.

[lummox]

trask said:

The teachers are useless

local talent is looking fine for me. typical elementary teacher is female, single, and on the pill. what the fuck do you want?

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Wow, three complete idiots in a row!

 

What next?

[tomcat]

The US forces have been finding gas masks on Iraqi troops. Of particular note is the shipment of hundreds of atropine injections found in an Iraqi bunker. The funny thing is, the coalition forces don't use chemical/biological weapons. Maybe they just like to carry the extra weight?

[tomcat]

I bet you'll be the next idiot to post. IMHO.

[freeclimb9]

In reference to the suicide carbomb that killed four US marines, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan commented "This is just the beginning. You'll hear more pleasant news later." That's a sick mind on display.

I cannot fathom why a person (the bomber was a father of several children, too) would kill themselves to keep Saddam Hussein in power. I wonder how many Iraqis are appalled by the cowardly and inhumane tactics endorsed by the Ba'ath party in control? The vaunted US psy-ops must suck. And speaking of shitty PR, I'm not impressed with the recent appearance of Saddam posters and t-shirts displayed by the Palestinians. If they really want their own country, why do they keep flipping the bird towards the one power in the world that can best make it happen? Screw 'em all, I'm going climbing.

 

[chucK]

freeclimb9 said:

And speaking of shitty PR, I'm not impressed with the recent appearance of Saddam posters and t-shirts displayed by the Palestinians. If they really want their own country, why do they keep flipping the bird towards the one power in the world that can best make it happen?

 

Maybe because they consider that power to be the one that has singlehandedly kept Israel in power?

[Dru]

I found this interesting "debate" while surfing www.orwelltoday.com

 

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK

By Anonymous

 

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

 

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

 

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

 

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

 

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

 

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

 

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

 

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

 

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

 

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

 

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

 

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

 

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

 

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

 

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

 

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

 

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

 

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

 

PN: He did?

 

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

 

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

 

WM: And a British intelligence report...

 

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

 

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

 

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

 

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

 

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

 

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

 

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

 

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

 

PN: So what is the point?

 

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

 

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

 

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

 

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

 

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

 

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

 

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

 

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

 

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

 

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

 

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

 

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

 

WM: Yes.

 

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-

 

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

 

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

 

WM: I never said that.

 

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

 

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

 

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

 

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

 

PN: You know this? How?

 

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

 

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

 

WM: Precisely.

 

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

 

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

 

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

 

WM: Exactly.

 

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

 

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

 

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

 

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

 

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

 

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

 

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

 

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

 

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

 

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

 

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

 

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

 

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

 

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

 

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

 

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

 

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

 

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

 

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

 

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

 

PN: In which case?

 

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

 

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

 

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

 

PN: That makes no sense.

 

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

 

PN: I give up!

 

(Source: Unknown)

 

 

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

A wonderful synopsis of the level of current debate.

One aspect was left out though, and that has to do with civilians....

 

WM: Plus, the civilians are living under torture imposed by Saddam. We need to save them.

 

PN: So once we move in, they will welcome us.

 

WM: Yes.

 

PN: So we actually moved in, but the civilians keep throwing grenades at us.

 

WM: Well, Saddam forces them to.

 

PN: How about the reports of Shiites in the south claiming they hate Saddam, but they hate us even more?

 

WM: Well, Saddam forces them to say that.

 

PN: But they are saying they also hate Saddam. I thought that was a capital offense.

 

WM: Saddam is tricky.

 

PN: How about the protests in Cairo where people were chanting "Suicide bombing will defeat the enemy."

 

WM: Well, Saddam forces them to say that.

 

PN: But it's happening in Egypt!

 

WM: Well, they are just ignorant civilians.

 

PN: Are these the same "ignorant civilians" that would elect the leadership if democracy were brought to the middle east?

 

WM: Well, they have to have their voice.

 

PN: But all indications point to the probability that the politician who best exploits the virulent anti-americanism would be assured of victory.

 

WM: Umm well perhaps we'll have to have another "war for peace" in the future! Haha! Just joking....

 

PN: Oh really?

 

 

 

[JoshK]

Yup, this faux debate pretty much sums it up. Bush and co's. tired cliches are getting old.