Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:45 pm
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:58 pm
^^^^^^^
Take that, you liberals!
NOTE: there is no correlation between the banner and the President's glorious entrance. None. Whatsoever. Honest!
Take that, you liberals!
NOTE: there is no correlation between the banner and the President's glorious entrance. None. Whatsoever. Honest!
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:12 pm
ftfymvscal wrote:Getting rid of human scab like the Rothchilds is "unjust"? Fighting the most violent subhuman Jewish scum on the face of the earth is "unjust"? What fucking planet are you on?Dinsdale wrote:your cause is not just,
sin
Joseph Geobbels
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:53 pm
Rack mvscal. We had to take out the Iraqis after what they did on 9/11.mvscal wrote:Getting rid of a human scab like Saddam Hussein is "unjust"?Dinsdale wrote:your cause is not just,
Fighting the most violent subhuman Islamist scum on the face of the earth is "unjust"?
What fucking planet are you on?
Sin,
Fraudo
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:22 am
Maybe Hamilton was correct after all.Terry in Crapchester wrote:Rack mvscal. We had to take out the Iraqis after what they did on 9/11.mvscal wrote:Getting rid of a human scab like Saddam Hussein is "unjust"?Dinsdale wrote:your cause is not just,
Fighting the most violent subhuman Islamist scum on the face of the earth is "unjust"?
What fucking planet are you on?
Sin,
Fraudo and a majority of the American public.
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:57 am
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.Dinsdale wrote:Whenm you lie and your cause is not just, you will NEVER get support for violent actions. The agressor in an unneccessary war is NEVER going to get much support, except for from blind flag-waving wannabe "patriots."
And leave us out of this anyway.
Sin,
Abraham Lincoln.
Thomas Woodrow Wilson.
Franklin Rooseveldt.
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:03 am
Lincoln responded to Ft. Sumter.Diogenes wrote:You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.Dinsdale wrote:Whenm you lie and your cause is not just, you will NEVER get support for violent actions. The agressor in an unneccessary war is NEVER going to get much support, except for from blind flag-waving wannabe "patriots."
And leave us out of this anyway.
Sin,
Abraham Lincoln.
Thomas Woodrow Wilson.
Franklin Rooseveldt.
Wilson joined a conflict already in progress.
Roosevlet ... huh?
Oh yeah, I forgot. You believe that Roosevelt orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor, not to mention Germany's declaration of War ON the U.S..
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:29 am
All of which is debatable...RadioFan wrote:Lincoln provoked Ft. Sumter.Diogenes wrote:You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.Dinsdale wrote:Whenm you lie and your cause is not just, you will NEVER get support for violent actions. The agressor in an unneccessary war is NEVER going to get much support, except for from blind flag-waving wannabe "patriots."
And leave us out of this anyway.
Sin,
Abraham Lincoln.
Thomas Woodrow Wilson.
Franklin Rooseveldt.
Wilson joined a conflict already in progress after running for reelection on a promise to stay out of it.
Roosevlet ... huh?
Oh yeah, I forgot. You believe that Roosevelt provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor, after running the same campaign that worked so well for Wilson.
What is not is that Bush didn't either 'lie' or 'wage an unjust war'.
Unless you are still bitter over the 2000 election that is (some of these fuckers will still be obsessing silently over that in 2020).
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:53 am
Ah, my bad.Diogenes wrote:All of which is debatable...
What is not is that Bush didn't either 'lie' or 'wage an unjust war'.
Unless you are still bitter over the 2000 election that is (some of these fuckers will still be obsessing silently over that in 2020).
And No. I'm not a Bush hater. He's my president. And as I've posted before, I think he is honestly trying to do the right thing, and isn't able to articulate it, niether before, nor after, despite probably the best political strategists, this side of the 20th century. That being, a rearranging of the political map of the Mideast. At least that being the aim, with the hope, of course, a quasi-democracy in Iraq.
It is a response to the war on terror, but not directly. That was done in Afghanistan.
But hell, you and I may as well be at Bilderberger conference. :twisted:
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:23 am
My only point in mention the former CinCs names was to point out that if they were held to the same standards as Bush is being accused falsely of violating, the only one who passes is GWB.
And under the doctrine Bush put forward, state sponsors of terrorism were on notice.
Iraq was one such, Sadaam got warned, decided to listen to the UN, protesters and dems instead of Bush, and found out the hard way GWB was serious.
And under the doctrine Bush put forward, state sponsors of terrorism were on notice.
Iraq was one such, Sadaam got warned, decided to listen to the UN, protesters and dems instead of Bush, and found out the hard way GWB was serious.
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:42 am
Exactly.Diogenes wrote:My only point in mention the former CinCs names was to point out that if they were held to the same standards as Bush is being accused falsely of violating, the only one who passes is GWB.
And under the doctrine Bush put forward, state sponsors of terrorism were on notice.
Iraq was one such, Sadaam got warned, decided to listen to the UN, protesters and dems instead of Bush, and found out the hard way GWB was serious.
Only, I highly doubt Saddam "decided to listen" to anyone, least of all the UN and Bush. He gambled and he lost. And now we get to clean up the inevitable mess.
Quasi-democracy that's friendly to the U.S. in a best-case scenario.
That's the gamble, along with about 5,000 U.S. troops, give or take a few thousand.
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:47 am
My point was that the vociferous opposition to Bush probably influenced said gamble.RadioFan wrote:Exactly.Diogenes wrote:My only point in mention the former CinCs names was to point out that if they were held to the same standards as Bush is being accused falsely of violating, the only one who passes is GWB.
And under the doctrine Bush put forward, state sponsors of terrorism were on notice.
Iraq was one such, Sadaam got warned, decided to listen to the UN, protesters and dems instead of Bush, and found out the hard way GWB was serious.
Only, I highly doubt Saddam "decided to listen" to anyone, least of all the UN and Bush. He gambled and he lost.
"Peace' protesters (actually America protesters) insuring war, as it were.
Worked for Giap.
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:12 pm
Not sure what that has to do with the Bush Administration now negotiating with terrorists.mvscal wrote:BSmack wrote:So that's what the kids are calling negotiating with terrorists these days?mvscal wrote:It's called divide and conquer, dumbfuck. We are successfully driving a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and the foreign al-Qaeda fighters.C&P snipped
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:32 pm
That's better than your long list of things you THINK you know.mvscal wrote:Add that to the long list of things you aren't sure about or know nothing about.