T1B

Dins, my friend, call your shot. We've all argued all the "going to war points," but I want to see what the dinster sees in his west side crystal ball. Will Greg Oden get gray hair like Moses and spread the word? Will Baroid flex his muscles and champion strength in hitting a fast ball or bring about peace? Will Conan move up a slot in the late night talk shows?

Predict anything...the next type of terrorist attack, will the FBI come back with another failed fingerprint result while tromping around in Beaverton? Call your shot.

Rip City

sounds real nice.....



"These darn Iraqi's just do not fight fair. I just cannot figure out how they shoot so good at us even though we are using their tactics of hiding behind trees?"

mvscal wrote: Every single intelligence agency of planet fucking earth agreed that Saddam was concealing proscribed weapons.

You my friend... are a complete fuckin' idiot!

run for your life!


"The WMD's are coming!"

mvscal wrote:Name one which didn't. Be sure to lock up when you leave.

Oh, wait a minute my fine "feathered and tard" friend... it's "YOUR" job to prove that every single intelligence agency concluded that he had WMD's...

Good luck, we're counting on you!

Dinsdale wrote:Dude... the IAEA fucking Googled information in that "slam dunk" document to disprove it...with fucking Google. They didn't even have the names of the "Nigerian officials" right. I mean, I understand there's a lot of profit to be had by rogue "intelligence sources" fabricating reports and selling thwe white papers... but they didn't even know the names of the Nigerian officials who help the relevant positions, so they just made some up. How fucking humiliating is it that US intelligence(although in fairness, most US intelligence officials called the report bullshit, as well... didn't stop Chenron) couldn't look at thosr documents, and immediately see that it didn't even refer to the correct names of these alleged uranium-suppliers? That the "author" of the white paper didn't even know the correct dates of "Iraqi businessmen" visiting Niger might have been a red flag, too, eh?

Americans aren't that stupid, no matter what the rest of the world thinks... or our leaders.
For something like that to occur, arms had to be twisted to pass bullshit on as butter. Sounds like a lot of people wanted to keep their jobs, so knowingly false information was passed up the chain.......because that's the information the end of the chain wanted.

What do people do when they want to keep their jobs? they shut up, do what they're told, and pass the buck, hoping 'one hand doesn't know what the other is doing' will keep them safe.

'I was just doing my job.'

Except there will be no Nuremburg trials over this shit.

Rocco Martino has BODE.

I don't know who that is.

Risa wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Rocco Martino has BODE.

I don't know who that is.

Then get to Googling, you tedious cunt.

mvscal wrote:Name one which didn't. Be sure to lock up when you leave.

First off, the French secret service, which is the agency that was origiannly given the report. "Groundless" was the term I believed they used for it.

The Italian Senate's commitee on secret services also told the Bushies the documents were false, reiterating their stance as late as January 2003. Oh, and Robert Muyller wrote the Italians a letter after the FBI investigation, thanking them for their help determining that the documents wre forgeries made strictly for profit.

Oh, and there was that deal where the US government sent former Ambassador Joeseph Wilson to go check out the veracity of the reports... maybe you heard about this(it's kind of been a big deal lately)? Anyhoo, Wilson said it was a crock-of-poo, too, which was apparently the wrong answer.


So, there's intelligence agencies of 3 countries(at least one of which had multiple intelligence agencies all agreeing that the white paper was crap). Would you like more? Or does 3 satisfy your challenge to "name one"? I'm thinking multiple US intelligence agencies is pretty much a slam-dunk in your "name one" contest.

Oh, btw-that white paper was originally issued in 2000. I don't remember hearing all the outrage over it at the time as a "slam dunk." Matter of fact, that "document" was regarded as a joke until the Bushies decided to use it as a rallying cry 3 years later.

Risa wrote:

Rocco Martino has BODE.

I don't know who that is.

Martino used to be a bigwig for Italian Intelligence(I'll leave the "oxymoron" jokes for others). He's retired since then, and works as the dreaded "freelance intelligence operative." These people are essentaially rogue spies who use connections from their past employment to drum up intelligence leads, and sell them to government agencies -- it's a money thing. Basically, some low-level Niger official decided they needed some cayshe, so they fabricated a story about Saddam buying uranium from Niger, and they knew who to sell the info to -- Martino, since he's a big player in that "business." Martino, presumably for a fee, passed that "info" on to French intelligence, who investigated, and pretty much laughed and sais "whatever, dude. Completely unfounded, groundless report." But, once one major intelligence angency gets a "whire paper"(intelligence lead), they share it with all of the other major intel agencies, like the US and UK for example. 3 years later, this white paper, one of many of falsified-for-profit reports these intel agencies frequently recieve, got pulled out of the dead-letter-room, and somebody found a use for it.

Let it be known that both the US State Department and the CIA thought the reports were hogwash at the time, as well... props to them, since they were, in fact, hogwash.



That shit goes on all the time, worldwide. Usually tards don't use hogwash intelligence-for-hire white papers as the basis to rally support for foreign invasions, though. That was a new twist on a very old game.

The Democrats will continue the push to get the troops out of Iraq as a pure publicity stunt in order to help them win a landslide presidential election in 2008.
There is no way that Bush in his final year will withdraw any significant amount of troops from Iraq. Nor should he, think of what the implications of pulling out of Iraq will be. The US will need a President that has 2-3 years left on his / her presidency in order to pull out of Iraq diplomatically.

Reality is, a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would serve as an ideological victory for al-Qaeda and radical Islamists and the civil unrest that is currently present in Iraq will become civil war which will involve the entire Middle East and most likely lead to a 3rd World War. Iraq is too important an area to leave out of control.

We cannot leave until there is some semblance of control and order in Iraq and IMO that will not be for many many years.

mvscal wrote:Yes, that's exactly what we did after beating Nazi Germany...tard.

The de-Nazification program started after the Allies had Germany under control, including basic institutions and infrustructure. Obviously, we've never had control of Iraq -- either directly or with what was left of the existing beuracracy -- and Bremer put the fucking cart before the horse there.

Jack wrote:The Democrats will continue the push to get the troops out of Iraq as a pure publicity stunt in order to help them win a landslide presidential election in 2008.

So, see if I've got this right...

In a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, elected representatives might actually act on the wishes of the majority of their CONSTITUENTS, so as to get continued support from those same constituents in the future?

Wow. Maybe the system isn't broken quite as badly as I thought.

I know your stupidity is legendary around here Jack, but you just raised the fucking bar dude.

Holy crap... that's just plain kicking "stupid" up a notch.

Ever heard the phrase "of the People, for the People, by the People" Jack? If so, which "people" did you think it refers to, exactly?

Reality is, a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would serve as an ideological victory for al-Qaeda and radical Islamists

And it would serve as an even bigger ideological victory for the People of the United States of America. They'd know that their will had been done(since it's what the MAJORITY want), and it would certainly be a moral/ideological victory knwoing that the great People of this country aren't afraid to admit to their mistakes, and they'd know that they'd at least have taken the first small step down the long road of undoing the damage our very, very ill-conceived foreign policy of the last several decades has done. And I firmly believe that many other people we share this planet with would see that we're taking steps to correct our wrongful policies, and were taking steps to try and not micromanage their daily lives from the other side of the planet in whatever way is most profitable to us.

The day we walk out of Iraq will be a huge victory for all Americans, regardless what happens there.

The Democrats will continue the push to get the troops out of Iraq as a pure publicity stunt

Sure, some of them are making political hay of this - just like many Republicans have done in other similar situations.

Not ALL of them are disingenuous on the issue, though. Many of them are merely reflecting the wishes of their constituents.

We're working towards 4K US dead in Iraq. I'm not sure about you, but I think it's time they announced some goals, maybe a timeline, etc. It looks like a lot of folks agree with that, what's more.

As far as "ideological victories"...well, this might be news to you, but a good wordsmith can slap together an "ideological victory" lickety-split, quite apart from what actually occurs. Muzzie Radical wordsmiths have it easy, also - they're dealing with some of the most trenchantly ignorant folks alive on Earth. There's little in the way of "ideological victory" that they aren't claiming already, for what it's worth.

As for the trenchantly ignorant...it's time for you folks to fucking get a clue, already. As much fun as we have with you here, it can't be forgotten that you're really becoming a drag on your fellow Americans. Get smart, or FUCK OFF, jackasses.

PSUFAN wrote: We're working towards 4K US dead in Iraq. I'm not sure about you, but I think it's time they announced some goals, maybe a timeline, etc. It looks like a lot of folks agree with that, what's more.

Not much of a historian, are you. 4k dead in 4 years is an amazingly low number.

As for the trenchantly ignorant...it's time for you folks to fucking get a clue, already. As much fun as we have with you here, it can't be forgotten that you're really becoming a drag on your fellow Americans. Get smart, or FUCK OFF, jackasses.

If you're asking me to vote for Hillary, the answer is still "no."

There's a flaw in my post. If you can/will respond substantially to "trenchantly ignorant", then that doesn't really describe you.

As for the death toll - 1 dead American is too many - that's where I'm starting from. No death of an American in Iraq is acceptable to me, especially while our leaders have yet to clearly define what their goals happen to be.

PSUFAN wrote: As for the death toll - 1 dead American is too many - that's where I'm starting from. No death of an American in Iraq is acceptable to me, especially while our leaders have yet to clearly define what their goals happen to be.

Didn't you hear? Report cards just came out. I think Iraq is grounded.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi "government" is THIS CLOSE to providing security to its citizenry:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 8920070712

I find it deplorable to blame the Iraqis for 'not holding up their end of the bargain', when the US hasn't held up its end and is the one who foisted all this shit on them -- for the sake of US interests, not Iraqi -- in the first place.

God help them, and us.

OCmike wrote:

PSUFAN wrote: We're working towards 4K US dead in Iraq. I'm not sure about you, but I think it's time they announced some goals, maybe a timeline, etc. It looks like a lot of folks agree with that, what's more.

Not much of a historian, are you. 4k dead in 4 years is an amazingly low number.

I'd say that 0 would be an amazingly low number. 4k is about four thousand too many in this quagmire.

Basically, it's quite simple:

Those Iraqis that were able to leave the country have done so. Those that remain have no choice in the matter.

Risa wrote:I find it deplorable to blame the Iraqis for 'not holding up their end of the bargain', when the US hasn't held up its end and is the one who foisted all this shit on them -- for the sake of US interests, not Iraqi -- in the first place.

God help them, and us.

Risa

Please stop asking for prayers. I honestly don't have enough fucken time in the day to respond to each and every one of your assinine prayer requests. Seriously I thought this whole creator thing would be a breeze but you're making my little sand box a miserable fucking disaster everytime you open your mouth to ask for something.

So do me and the rest of the world a favor and become satanic or something. Really, I don't care at this point. That whole unconditional love thing really isn't working here. Thanks in advance.

GOD

PSUFAN wrote:Basically, it's quite simple:

Those Iraqis that were able to leave the country have done so. Those that remain have no choice in the matter.

Katrina reset.......

So do me and the rest of the world a favor and become satanic or something.

..a LOL'er. RACK

mvscal wrote:the KKK quickly shifted their focus from terrorizing Yankee carpetbaggers to terrorizing blacks.

50 years is "quickly" in your book?

Wow...for a guy who claims to be a history buff/major, you sure don't know shit about the KKKs.

The KKK that was formed with the intention of "putting blacks in their place" and whatnot was formed in 1915, or thereabouts. And it had nothing to do whatsoever with the KKK formed in 1867, except for using the same name.


While the original Klan of 1867 certainly had no problem terrorizing blacks, it was done pretty much as an "incidental bonus," and certainly wasn't their main focus. Don't get me wrong -- the original Klan wasn't petitioning Congress to acknowledge Juneteenth as a federal holiday, but racial persecution wasn't something they spent their days planning. Their focus was to serve as a defacto army to defend the South from the Carpetbaggers and all of the other Northern evils. And of course, all military actions are ultimately based on economics, and somebody had to work the decimated plantations... we all gotta eat.

And the original Klan was fairly small, by comparison, and somewhat informal. The Klan that we know today, which came to be around 1915, was a whole different animal. It was, in fact, about persecuting blacks. It was also organized with a military-like rank structure, to an extent.


The Second Klan was a nasty entity. I think there's a lot of people who aren't fully aware of Klan history, which is a fascinating little sidebar in American History. The second time around, they weren't joking -- improved communications over 50 years made organization much easier. Fron Georgia, they quickly set up shop throughout the South. But what was interesting, is how they picked other places around the country as "strategic strongholds." They essentiallyu took over two western states -- Oregon and California. Their capitals were Anaheim, Ca., and Dallas, Or(sidenote -- it was just in the last few years that Dallas High School stopped using the Klan Dragon-Logo as their mascot... their team name of course being The Dragons). They chose their strongholds wisely, and were quite organized "back in the day"("the day" probably best describes the 1920's).


Which brings up another little historic sidebar -- it can be argues that Birth Of A Nation is the most influential film in American history. I mean, sure -- After Star Wars, everybody wanted to be a galactic avenger. After Fast Times At Ridgemont High, everyone wanted to be a stoner. But Birth Of A Nation? People actually went out and wrapped themselves up in bedsheets and started killing and torturing black people. THAT'S an influential film.


But over time, I guess the people involved finally realized how silly they looked wearing linnens, and pretty much gave it a rest, to the point where the Klan is almost nonexistant today. Hell, they can't even sustain their ranks in Northern Idaho, which pretty much indicates the swansong of the Klan.

mvscal wrote: The orginal KKK formed in 1867 was ostensibly formed to combat Yankee Carpetbaggers and Southern Scalawags like the Tennessee Unionists;

Agreed.

however, they spiraled way out of control and blacks became targets very quickly.

Agreed. Although I believe the original Klan(many people don't understand there was multiple incarnations) were kind of racist terrorists of opportunity. They seemed to focus on the perception that black men were out of control rapists, and were more into giving severe vigilante justice to any black they believe might have comitted a crime. The later incarnations were opportunists -- they were into doling out vigilante justice as a preventative measure.

That was kinda the point I was making. The second-coming of the Klan was fuelled by fantasies drawn from The Birth Of A Nation(I guess it's getting off track, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on this -- the Klan was like the original role-models of Trekkies and Star Wars Geek and all of the people who took a freaking movie too seriously from that day on).

Nor was the original Klan fairly small unless you call 500,000 small.

All things being relative -- it certainly doesn't compare to 5% of the country's adult males, the peak they reached in the mid-20's.

Risa wrote: The South won the civil war because of the North was more eager to reconcile with the traitors than it was in ensuring that all members of the nation -- regardless of skin color or ethnicity -- received equal justice.

I hate to tell you but the north hated blacks more than the south. Atleast in the south, blacks had a purpose. Up north, what purpose did they serve in the 1800s?

Who had slavery last? North

Who had the biggest klan following? Indiana

Who formed the underground railroad? Southerners

The South lost the civil war. They wanted to get away from the north. The right to secede was what they were after. Did they get it?

The South won. They even wrote the history books afterwards.

Yeah. That is why all history books say the "civil war", haha....if southerners wrote it, it would be called the War of Northern Aggression. The history books also say the war was only about slavery, the south was the bad guys, and the north was the good guys. Nothing about how sick of a mother fucker lincoln was. Nothing about how the south just wanted the right to secede from the union and do their own thing. Yeah the south wrote the history books and won the war.

Germany was invaded by whom? they had that war won. They owned everybody. They cowed everybody. They had sympathizers in ever major country, including the US and the UK. The US continues to play Switzerland while taking Nazi money, different outcome. They get those revolutionary jets up and running that after the war the US and Russia were modifying plans to, different outcome. They get the bomb first, doesn't matter how many lives were lost before, they would have had The Bomb and the bomb's present would have trumped the lives lost and destruction of past.

More fucking retard rambling about nothing

What I meant by abortion and marijuana and gay marriage is that the feds have laid the law down that abortion will be legal in every state. Certain places like South Dakota can make noise, but their restrictions don't mean illegality. State's rights win what they can, but they lost the right not to allow abortion period. Meanwhile certain places like Massachusetts and Vermont can approve gay marriage within their state. The feds won't recognize it, but Massachusetts and Vermont will, right? No half ass 'domestic partner' measures, you can be married if you're gay. State's rights won when it came to Gay Marriage, after all. But there is no state where you can smoke out just to smoke out and get away with it. State's rights lost with marijuana. Texas capital punishment is not Minnesota capital punishment is not Utah capital punishment. State's rights won.

That doesnt involve the south or the war you were talking about though. The south wasnt fighting for two faggots having the right to file taxes together but maybe I am wrong.

mvscal wrote: The North didn't have slavery, dimwit. What part of Free State are you struggling to wrap your pointy little head around?

HAHA...check again.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_S ... p_1865.svg
The yellow shows the slave union states

Who formed the underground railroad? Southerners

Try again, you crackheaded dumbfuck.

Excuse me not formed but mostly ran the underground railroad.

Nothing about how sick of a mother fucker lincoln was.

Mostly likely due to fact that he wasn't. I can see the mushroom treatment did a number on you.

So he didnt dig up his dead son?

mvscal wrote:

So he didnt dig up his dead son?

Uh, no he didn't.

Oh, just great.

I suppose next, you're going to tell me he really didn't chop down that cherry tree, either.

Dinsdale wrote:

Jack wrote:The Democrats will continue the push to get the troops out of Iraq as a pure publicity stunt in order to help them win a landslide presidential election in 2008.

So, see if I've got this right...

In a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, elected representatives might actually act on the wishes of the majority of their CONSTITUENTS, so as to get continued support from those same constituents in the future?

Wow. Maybe the system isn't broken quite as badly as I thought.

I know your stupidity is legendary around here Jack, but you just raised the fucking bar dude.

Holy crap... that's just plain kicking "stupid" up a notch.

Ever heard the phrase "of the People, for the People, by the People" Jack? If so, which "people" did you think it refers to, exactly?

Reality is, a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would serve as an ideological victory for al-Qaeda and radical Islamists

And it would serve as an even bigger ideological victory for the People of the United States of America. They'd know that their will had been done(since it's what the MAJORITY want), and it would certainly be a moral/ideological victory knwoing that the great People of this country aren't afraid to admit to their mistakes, and they'd know that they'd at least have taken the first small step down the long road of undoing the damage our very, very ill-conceived foreign policy of the last several decades has done. And I firmly believe that many other people we share this planet with would see that we're taking steps to correct our wrongful policies, and were taking steps to try and not micromanage their daily lives from the other side of the planet in whatever way is most profitable to us.

The day we walk out of Iraq will be a huge victory for all Americans, regardless what happens there.

So, when an idiot calls you an idiot...what does that make you??

I will make a sig bet open to anyone on this board that we will maintain at least 80,000 troops in IRAQ on November 4, 2008 (election day for those that couldn't figure this out).

Hell, if we completely withdraw from IRAQ by November 2008, I will never post in here again (but whoever takes me up on this must do the same! (when, on Nov. 4th 2008, we are still in IRAQ!)

Jack wrote:Hell, if we completely withdraw from IRAQ by November 2008, I will never post in here again (but whoever takes me up on this must do the same! (when, on Nov. 4th 2008, we are still in IRAQ!)

Boy, nice of you to go way out there on a limb with that epic callout. Fucking tard.

DEATHMATCH!!!!!!!!!

Death Cult?

CALL IT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12 ... ed&search=

Here's yer boy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqUsryqX ... ed&search=

you know, the fact that none of you got the Clubber Lang reference just shows what a bunch of retarded faggots you all are.