T1B

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Once again Terry brings a haymaker response.

He brought all that was necessary.

Frat Boy Nation wrote: I forgot. Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any form of terrorism whatsoever. In fact, Hussein was a swell guy who was just misunderstood.

Windshield. Five feet. You're a dumbfuck.

This is almost sig material, but not for the reasons you'd like.

Jimmy Medalions wrote: I forgot. Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any form of terrorism whatsoever. In fact, Hussein was a swell guy who was just misunderstood.

Better rush out and get up on that soapbox, bud...

You've got to convince The People that we need to attack Saudi Arabia, NOW!!!!!!

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Left unchecked, these assholes will find a way to launch an attack whose bodycount will dwarf 9-11. But instead of stepping on this bug and crushing it, you'd rather let it grow into a more dangerous threat.

So we invaded Iraq???

Stop implying that a majority of voters invaded Iraq.

--Dumbfuck in Crapchester

But you might want to tell Bush to stop implying that Saddam masterminded 9/11.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Left unchecked, these assholes will find a way to launch an attack whose bodycount will dwarf 9-11. But instead of stepping on this bug and crushing it, you'd rather let it grow into a more dangerous threat.

So we invaded Iraq???

I forgot. Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any form of terrorism whatsoever.

That's what the bipartisan 9-11 Commission had to say. The Bush family has had more extensive ties with bin Laden than Saddam.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun16.html

BSmack wrote:The Bush family has had more extensive ties with bin Laden than Saddam.

Should label this post as "an inconvenient truth."

Bush and Co. had some pretty serious ties to the Taliban, when they were agreeing to cowtow to Halliburton. The Bush Cartel and the Taliban were best of friends...right up through 9/10/2001.


But Strawman Hussein was in the right place at the right time, I guess.

Dinsdale shows up just in time to take the moneyshot from Terry and BTard's circle jerk. No real surprise there.

Liberal dumbfucks tend to come in threes.

Still waiting on those links to where the Iraqi Navy was heading for the USA, ones I obviously missed.


I'll bet Noriega had something to do with 9/11, too.

I wouldn't rule out Venezuala, either...they've got oil, right?

You can always count on good 'ole Dinsy to pad the denominator of any equation.

In case you hadn't noticed, dumbfuck, the last successful terrorist attack didn't involve boats or navies.

You'd remember this, if you weren't such a dumbfuck.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Dinsdale shows up just in time to take the moneyshot from Terry and BTard's circle jerk. No real surprise there.

Liberal dumbfucks tend to come in threes.

Yeah, once again, Jimmah runs to the homosmack card while getting his ass kicked. No real surprise.

He'll undoubtedly fool some of the board into thinking that he got over, but anyone who walks upright and has a triple-digit IQ will be able to see through that ruse.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:In case you hadn't noticed, dumbfuck, the last successful terrorist attack didn't involve boats or navies.

You'd remember this, if you weren't such a dumbfuck.

In case you hadn't noticed, dumbfuck, the last successful terrorist attack didn't involve any Iraqis, either.


You'd remember this, if you weren't such a dumbfuck.

Dinsdale wrote:I wouldn't rule out Venezuala, either...they've got oil, right?

Not to mention Hugo Chavez, another convenient bogeyman for W and those of his ilk. http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006

Terry, you wouldn't know your ass from a hole in the ground, unless Clinton slapped you accross the forehead with his dick.

Ruling in your own favor based on what you think someone else implied makes you a dumbfuck with zero credibility in this thread. To take it a step further and turn it into a college rivalry issue makes you look even weaker.

But props for keeping all posts in this thread under four paragraphs.

Dinsdale wrote:In case you hadn't noticed, dumbfuck, the last successful terrorist attack didn't involve any Iraqis, either.

I guess we should then assume that all al qaeda members and radical muslims are non-Iraqis

Dinsdale wrote:

Jimmy Medalions wrote:In case you hadn't noticed, dumbfuck, the last successful terrorist attack didn't involve boats or navies.

You'd remember this, if you weren't such a dumbfuck.

In case you hadn't noticed, dumbfuck, the last successful terrorist attack didn't involve any Iraqis, either.


You'd remember this, if you weren't such a dumbfuck.

There goes Dinsy the village idiot again, conveniently holding onto the belief that terrorism had no ties to Iraq before 9-11.

When they say ignorance is bliss, I guess they mean you're one seriously happy mother fucker.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Terry, you wouldn't know your ass from a hole in the ground, unless Clinton slapped you accross the forehead with his dick.

You obviously haven't read what I've written about Clinton. But keep getting your info from Rush, Hannity and the like. Don't change a thing in that regard. It just proves how idiotic your party really is.

Ruling in your own favor based on what you think someone else implied makes you a dumbfuck with zero credibility in this thread.

What I thought had nothing to do with it. mvscal made a blanket statement to the effect that we can execute anyone we want at anytime with Constitutional impunity. I took exception to that, and I'm right. The fact that mvscal doesn't like that is irrelevant.

To take it a step further and turn it into a college rivalry issue makes you look even weaker.

College smack is certainly a lot fresher than homosmack, at least in these environs. Just sayin'.

But props for keeping all posts in this thread under four paragraphs.

Like I said, I know you have attention span problems. Just trying to do my part to help.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Sorry Terry, but nobody's buying the bullshit you're selling.

Attention spans are held when the material presented is halfway interesting. On the other hand, when the material comes in a long-winded and pseudo-intellectual fashion, it is boring and thus diregarded.

Every lawyer I know has excellent writing skills. I guess it's coincidence and not a part of the job description.

mvscal wrote:I implied that we can change the rules to suit our purposes. The relative difficulty of said changes was not explicitly or implicitly suggested. I simply stated that it could be done.

Well, at least we're getting somewhere now.

Problem is, you laid it out as a practical solution to a problem. The difficulty which you now concede in your suggestion belies its practicality, however.

mvscal wrote:I do not believe that it is outside the realm of practicality to terminate habitual offenders.

Moving the goalposts again? You didn't say "habitual offenders." You said "criminals." Anyone who has been convicted of a single crime, ever, could be considered a "criminal."

Now, I suppose you can argue that I should read your reference to "criminals" as a reference to "habitual offenders." It would make your premise somewhat more valid, after all. Then again, I'm quite certain that you wouldn't extend the same courtesy to me, were the positions reversed.

All that is needed is the will to do so. It wouldn't be as difficult as you might think to drum up the support needed to flush these turds. Just think if the media hammered every murder in this country with the same outrage and intensity that they devote to every casualty in Iraq.

We've moved the goalposts yet again. Now we've gone from "criminals" to "habitual offenders" to "murderers." And comparing every murder in this country to every casualty in Iraq is a red herring. We've had murders in the U.S. since the beginning of the Republic, and we will continue to do so regardless of the laws we pass. We could end the U.S. casualties in Iraq tomorrow if we were so inclined.

Don't belive me? Go ahead and make a case for why it is a good idea to keep these pieces of shit alive. One that doesn't rely on obscure, masturbatory legal bullshit. You know...one that will fly in the real world.

A few just off the top of my head . . .

1. The Bill of Rights has been read in a more expansive manner throughout our country's history. This would be a step in the opposite direction.

2. Moral opposition to capital punishment among some religious groups. Not all, granted, but there are quite possibly enough practitioners in this country to defeat a proposed Constitutional amendment.

3. Going back to where you initially set the goalposts, there will never be enough moral outrage in this country to execute petty thieves, adulterers and the like. Isn't that what they do in some of those Middle Eastern nations you yourself have described as "sub-human"?

mvscal wrote:I do not believe that it is outside the realm of practicality to terminate habitual offenders.

It was not long ago that you could hang a motherfucker for stealing your horse.

The tears of laughter are now flowing freely down my face.


Please....fucking PUH-LEEZ tell me that a guy who spent a couple of days telling us that "nobody should be allowed to smoke, because it affects MY HEALTHCARE COSTS"

didn't just fucking type out --

Jimmy Medalions wrote: Liberal dumbfucks tend to come in threes.

Please tell me Mr. You Can't Smoke Because It Benefits Me DID NOT just use the word "liberal" in a derogotory way?



FUCKING TEARS, JERRY. TEARS.


On the bright side...you've taken some of the pressure off mvscal's public display of self-abuse.

CLASSIC!


What a microcosm this board is...here, as in real life, those who claim to be "conservative," or somehow identify with the right, are absolutely MELTING.

Awesome. Now, if we can get the extreme lefties to return the favor, we'd have some even better comedy on our hands.

Finding anything remotely meaningful in a Dinsy post is like finding a needle in a hay stack.

mvscal is right. Libbies always focus on the problem, never the solution. But don't worry. The big people will solve the problems for them.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Libbies

"They should pass laws against smoking, because it affects MY healthcare costs" sayswhat?


You make fun of "Libbies," yet you're their leader...ponderous.

Dinsdale wrote:

Get back to us when you're ready to upgrade from being the board's resident gnat. Thanks.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Get back to us when you're ready to upgrade from being the board's resident gnat. Thanks.

Nice Red X, dumbass.

Why don't you get back to us after you're done minding somebody elses business, you simple minded drooling retard?

Being as that will probably happen sometime right around never, we should be able to expect an extended absence.

Lower Middle Class Wagon wrote:Nice Red X, dumbass.

Good job knowing how to use a web browser, dumbfuck.

Tell me. What kinds of perks does a senior warehouse employee get? Can you be senior warehouse employee of the month and get a parking space right up front, away from the loading docks? Do you get an extra five minutes on each smoke break?

I'm fascinated to hear how the other half of the world lives. Do tell.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:

Lower Middle Class Wagon wrote:Nice Red X, dumbass.

Good job knowing how to use a web browser, dumbfuck.

Tell me. What kinds of perks does a senior warehouse employee get? Can you be senior warehouse employee of the month and get a parking space right up front, away from the loading docks? Do you get an extra five minutes on each smoke break?

I'm fascinated to hear how the other half of the world lives. Do tell.

What other half would that be? The NON spoiled-pompous-mindless-asshole half?

Jimmy Medalions wrote: Good job knowing how to use a web browser...

I can browse just fine, and you posted a red X, dipshit.

I'm fascinated to hear how the other half of the world lives.

Me too. How many cocks do you have to suck on a daily basis?

Guess again, WT Wagon.

By the way- your career ceiling just called, and said it's nice to know you're so close to it.

Enjoy your bud light. It's great to be an expert on something, however irrelevant it might be.

Must suck to have grown up all rich with no spine.

What time is tennis tomorrow, Spaulding?

What a fucking douchebag.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:
By the way- your career ceiling just called, and said it's nice to know you're so close to it.

Ok...thanks for relaying the message.

That wasn't half bad, even though you don't know wtf you're talking about.

Despite everything posted in this thread here is where I found the most compelling truth...

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:From everything I've heard and read, there are plenty of generals who would beg to differ with you on that point.

Funny how none of them have commanded troops in Iraq. Oh yes, there were two and they were of the opinion that we aren't being ruthless enough in our prosecution of the war.

Since you seem to be looking for some kind of Oprah-esqe confessional, now would be a good time to admit that liberal faggots like you would shit the bed if we took the gloves off.

I'm in no way going to call Terry a liberal faggot but I will say that mvscal's point that the Left would shit the bed if the U.S. government and specifically the U.S. military were truly allowed to take the gloves off and prosecute this war (or any recent war) in a manner consistent with other dynasties throughout history.

The ease with which we could end these issues would be startling, and historically unprecedented, if only we didn't allow ourselves as a nation to become bogged down in hand wringing over world opinion and homeland consensus building...

...neither of which amount to a hill of beans in the face of another U.S. soldier who was blown up while having to tip toe through a piece of territory that would've been leveled and entirely cleared of enemies by any other army in history that held anything like the equivalent advantages we hold over our enemies.

Fight, or don't fight, period. Once you make the political decision to spill blood then do so with steadfast conviction and the utmost in finality; any other political mindset will necessarily entail otherwise preventable bloodshed of your own.

We do our military a grave injustice with the limpwristed way we fight our political wars and yes, some of the blame for this must fall at the feet of the (too) Far Left.

When the time comes and the decision is made to send our troops into battle we really need our generals and not our pop singers and talk show hosts dictating what does and doesn't happen on the battle field.

On their own, the United States military will likely never truly lose in a miltary conflict against any other nation. Only these damnable handicaps applied to them by our own insipid citizenry could ever place them in the position where such a thing might ever occur...

Van wrote:The ease with which we could end these issues would be startling, and historically unprecedented, if only we didn't allow ourselves as a nation to become bogged down in hand wringing over world opinion and homeland consensus building...

It isn't just about "world opinion and consensus building." This is a global war on terror. We need our allies in order to fight it.

And the problem in Iraq was, and continues to be, identifying the enemy and killing him, without killing people we're supposed to be helping.

Rack Van.

RadioFan wrote:
And the problem in Iraq was, and continues to be, identifying the enemy and killing him, without killing people we're supposed to be helping.

Agreed, to an extent. I see where you're coming from and going to with this line of reasoning.

But let's remember why we went there in the first place: To remove Saddam as a threat to... anything. WMD be damned, that fucker and all his minions needed to be taken out. And much like Saddam, I don't give two shits about the welfare of the Iraqi people. Fuck the ungrateful bastards if they get in the way. We didn't go there to offer them jack shit.

When in doubt, shoot first, let Lou Dobbs and CNN ask questions later.

Your ability to redefine what it means to be a dumbfuck, and with such regularity, is remarkable.

RF, what you're saying dovetails with what I'm saying. In dynasties past the conquering nation wouldn't have troubled themselves with such political niceties.

If the enemy was hiding within and being aided and abetted by their people, well, I think you know the usual course of action taken by the hunters...

Also, in reality, at least insofar as our own borders and interests go, no, we don't need allies in order to prosecute the war on terror to a satisfactory conclusion. We would simply need to take an isolationist stance where our own national security is concerned.

If France or Australia don't wish to join us in chasing down terrorists and eliminating them wherever they may hide, so be it.

Don't help us. Just make goddamn sure you stay the fuck out of our way. You sure as hell don't have the ability to stop us so just stay out of the way and we'll deal with it ourselves, in our own fashion.

Anybody got a problem with that? Too bad. Your feelings aren't our problem. Our people's safety is our problem. You? Let's not kid ourselves here. While this is going on and afterwards once the dust settles you'll keep buying our goods and we'll keep buying yours, same as it ever was. We'll also maintain our alliance with you, provided you don't cross us. When you need us, same as always, we'll be there.

We don't need you, not militarily, but if and when we do, yep, we'll expect you to answer the call in the same way we've always answered yours.

That's it. Simple. In the meantime either join us in this thing or sit back and play Switzerland for awhile. We've got some trash to take out and we're risking our soldier's lives here in this endeavor. So, rather than worry about your feelings about us we're going to instead make sure that an absolute minimum of our soldiers die during this shindig.

Plenty of the enemy will die though, and so will their friends and families.

Once.

There won't be a second time. Of those who remain alive, the lesson will be learned and regardless of what you do and regardless of what you think about what we do, we're going to make sure this lesson gets learned.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

That's how our military should be used, if the goal was to achieve a quick deterrent with a minimum of casualties on our side.

So, of course, nope, that's not what we do. Instead, we take polls. We glad hand public leaders. We nitpick and satirize our president. We make fifteen minute heroes out of opportunistic media whore housewives. We sate our national cynicism with Bill Maher playing the Pied Piper and far too many lemmings sagely nod their heads in robotic acquiescence.

Wakey Wake, indeed.

Saddam failed to live up to the cease-fire agreement following his ILLEGAL invasion of Kuwait.
To say the very least, he failed miserably .... and over a LONG period of time.
As such, the US military action to remove him from power was, again to say the very least, warranted.
Once his regime was terminated it had to be replaced with something.
What else would one suggest it be replaced with other than a democracy ... ?
So the US proceeds to oversee the establishment of a democracy there.

If the Frenchies (and whoever else) can't get on board with the basic logic of the above paragraph, .... then to hell with them.

Yes, RF, we WANT global support in the war on terror, but if 'friends' can't sack up and get with that program then we ought not lower our OWN standard to fit their demented world view.

The 'insurgents' can't win anything in Iraq.
They want to establish NOTHING there.
They want to wage an anti-US propoganda war and hope that the US effort crumbles from within due to a lack of gonad.
Our own media is, to a disturbingly large extent, more than happy to aid they enemy in the propoganda campaign they are waging.

What is distressing to conservatives is that the pussyfoot war approach that Bush & Co. are using in Iraq gives the appearance of capitualtion to the hand-wringing pantloads on the left.

Innocent Iraqis getting killed is regretable, yes, but that is NOT the fault of the United States.

It is the fault of ......

1. piece of shit Saddam
2. insurgent pieces of shit


You've got to fight a fucking WAR like you mean it, or get the hell out.

I know what you're saying Van. From a military standpoint, I don't think we're playing tiddlywinks.

This war has much more than a military aspect to it. The important part of winning it has nothing to do with the military, and everything to do with ending the mindset that produces the scum we're fighting.

Van wrote:Also, in reality, at least insofar as our own borders and interests go, no, we don't need allies in order to prosecute the war on terror to a satisfactory conclusion. We would simply need to take an isolationist stance where our own national security is concerned.

Since these guys would have to come from somewhere in order to get here, I'd sure as hell rather have them stopped before they even got here, rather than us taking an "isolationist" stance once they're already here.

I've said from the very beginning that we've done a shitty job of getting our message out to the Arab World in general. And not just since we went into Iraq. Sure, we all know we're the good guys, but if we can't convice the guy on the street we are, it doesn't matter how many bad guys we kill.

The military aspect of this war won't end the causes that result in the generation of more of the enemy.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Every lawyer I know has excellent writing skills.

I laughed.

RF, the point of the military shouldn't necessarily be to end the existence of all our future enemies.

The point of the military should be to provide an overwhelming deterrent to any objectionable activities committed against the United States by those future enemies. They can hate us all they want, fine, but in the immortal words of one Eric Cartman...

"Respect my..."

You get the drift.

That's where we succeeded with Japan. We properly put the fear of god into them and finished the job with no further casualties of our own, once we had the upper hand. (And no, I'm not suggesting the use of nukes in the here and now. We have the upper hand already, minus nukes.)

That's where we're failing here. We're using our military, and we're allowing our soldiers to die, but we're not using them in such a manner as to provide the proper deterrent to our enemies. Failing this, we're also exposing our soliders to needless danger. In trying to prevent innocent casualties on the other side we're taking too many of our own, plus we're giving the enemy the mindset that it's okay to keep fighting us.

The enemy (wherever they may be, ever and anon) needs to learn once and for all that for all their "jihad!" we are one enemy they're better off leaving alone. Better to go find somebody to fight who makes for a more tenable opponent...