Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > New Scandal in Iraq. How low can our Army sink??

New Scandal in Iraq. How low can our Army sink?? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Busemann
Well, you can disprove my original claim first: that the war is based on a lie.
Again, in order to say that, you have to prove someone was lying.

And if this war was based on a lie, so was everything Clinton did in the 90s against Iraq.
Originally Posted by itistoday
We should have done absolutely nothing about it unless the Iraqi people asked us to intervene. Do you not understand that?
Um, when we cut and run in 91 like we shouldn't have the people were WONDERING why? They thought they were being liberated.

This is one of the reasons there was certain hatred towards America.

We came in, and bombed their town and didn't save them.

Or did you forget so soon?

It was the MAIN REASON I did not vote for Bush SR the second time. But instead voted for Clinton.

Clinton said he was going to be TOUGH on Saddam and his band of torturing thugs. He was not.

And tell us itstoday, were the Iraqis supposed to send us a letter?
     
Busemann
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Again, in order to say that, you have to prove someone was lying.

And if this war was based on a lie, so was everything Clinton did in the 90s against Iraq.

Lie
• used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression : all their married life she had been living a lie.
Seems like all we have to prove is that it was founded on a mistaken impression.
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Um, when we cut and run in 91 like we shouldn't have the people were WONDERING why? They thought they were being liberated.

This is one of the reasons there was certain hatred towards America.

We came in, and bombed their town and didn't save them.

Or did you forget so soon?

It was the MAIN REASON I did not vote for Bush SR the second time. But instead voted for Clinton.

Clinton said he was going to be TOUGH on Saddam and his band of torturing thugs. He was not.
What does all this have to do with what I'm talking about and the current war in Iraq? Oh, and that first sentence there is horribly written, I can barely understand what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Kevin
And tell us itstoday, were the Iraqis supposed to send us a letter?
Precisely. I'm actually a bit surprised you got that right, was it just a random guess or are you actually getting smarter? A nice, polite letter with a beautiful embroidered insignia representing "The People's Republic of Iraq", or as Saddam would have called it: "the f*cking rebel scum!"
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Busemann
Seems like all we have to prove is that it was founded on a mistaken impression.
how low is that one on the list Busemann?

What a PATHETIC attempt that was.

We ALL know lying means passing off something as TRUTH when you know it to be FALSE.

Otherwise it simply is not a lie.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by itistoday
What does all this have to do with what I'm talking about and the current war in Iraq?
because that was the beginning of said war? They are the SAME wars? For the SAME reasons?
Precisely. I'm actually a bit surprised you got that right, was it just a random guess or are you actually getting smarter?
100% silly.
A nice, polite letter with a beautiful embroidered insignia representing "The People's Republic of Iraq", or as Saddam would have called it: "the f*cking rebel scum!"
And here comes the fuzziness.

How is such a letter supposed to get out?

Or did you not know everything was filtered through Saddam's henchman?

     
Busemann
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
how low is that one on the list Busemann?

What a PATHETIC attempt that was.

We ALL know lying means passing off something as TRUTH when you know it to be FALSE.

Otherwise it simply is not a lie.
Well, not according to the good ol' dictionary. Still waiting for you to acknowledge that the war was based on a lie. Even Bush did as much
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:43 PM
 
The media reports nothing but the negative in Iraq. Everything they do is questioned (at least under Repbulican administrations). They are ridiculed and hated by the American left at every turn.

Should they be held unaccountable? Of course not. But I'm sick of the left screaming bloody murder over every U.S. military indiscretion, yet ignoring Islam's 4th century attacks on our way of live.

The day that liberals scream as loudly about terrorists beheading American civilians than they did about Abu Ghraib is the day that I stop ignoring them.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Busemann
Well, not according to the good ol' dictionary.
Post the whole definition Busemann. For someone that is so quick to call someone a liar or dishonest. You are doing a good job yourself.
Still waiting for you to acknowledge that the war was based on a lie. Even Bush did as much
I wasn't arguing that. Put your strawmen away.
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
because that was the beginning of said war? They are the SAME wars? For the SAME reasons?
Really? I was rather young at that time so I'm not completely sure on this, and regardless it's completely besides the point, however I am rather curious as to see how they are the same war when one was finished, and the other started for completely different reasons?

Originally Posted by Kevin
100% silly.
I'm afraid I'm 100% serious.

Originally Posted by Kevin
How is such a letter supposed to get out?
Rebel scum always have ways of crossing the border, and US spies always have ways of getting in. If they were able to do it in the Soviet Union surely they'd have been able to do it in Iraq. And they were. Americans constantly went to Iraq to do interviews and such, and I'm sure many Iraqis crossed the border on a regular basis. If a rebel organization did exist it would have been cake for them to send a letter of all things.

Originally Posted by Kevin
And here comes the fuzziness.
Please, you are the last person to accuse me of being fuzzy, that's just pathetic. Kind of like a grade-schooler calling a Harvard professor silly names.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54
The media reports nothing but the negative in Iraq. Everything they do is questioned (at least under Repbulican administrations). They are ridiculed and hated by the American left at every turn.

Should they be held unaccountable? Of course not. But I'm sick of the left screaming bloody murder over every U.S. military indiscretion, yet ignoring Islam's 4th century attacks on our way of live.

The day that liberals scream as loudly about terrorists beheading American civilians than they did about Abu Ghraib is the day that I stop ignoring them.


They don't care about the people in Iraq. They don't care about Americans.

They only care about "Making the other side looking bad"


They would rather see America fail miserably, than the other side look good.

It's such a sad affair.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by itistoday
Really? I was rather young at that time so I'm not completely sure on this, and regardless it's completely besides the point,
Not beside the point at all
however I am rather curious as to see how they are the same war when one was finished, and the other started for completely different reasons?
It wasn't finished. It was put on hold. It was giving Saddam a chance to come clean. He did not. So it was finished.
I'm afraid I'm 100% serious.
Your obnoxious trolling is of no concern to me.
Rebel scum always has a way of crossing the border, and US spies always have ways of getting in. If they were able to do it in the Soviet Union surely they'd have been able to do it in Iraq. And they were. Americans constantly went to Iraq to do interviews and such, and I'm sure many Iraqis crossed the border on a regular basis. If a rebel organization did exist it would have been cake for them to send a letter of all things.
And guess what? The Iraq people were wondering when we were coming back for them. AS I ALREADY SAID.
Please, don't accuse my brain of being fuzzy, that's just tactless and fallacious.
I never accuse your brain of being fuzzy. For one. And for two you need to take your OWN advice with this trolling below

Precisely. I'm actually a bit surprised you got that right, was it just a random guess or are you actually getting smarter?
Really, glass houses and stuff.
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Not beside the point at all
You remind me of that Monty Python skit. "No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't..."

I'm afraid I was the one making the point, therefore I'd be the best person to judge whether or not it was besides the point or not.

Originally Posted by Kevin
It wasn't finished. It was put on hold. It was giving Saddam a chance to come clean. He did not. So it was finished.

And guess what? The Iraq people were wondering when we were coming back for them. AS I ALREADY SAID.
The two wars were completely separate! You really are a dumbass aren't you? Here, let me help you out.

One was fought over Kuwait, the other as a backlash to 9/11.

In the first we were asked by the people of KUWAIT (read: not Iraq) to help the people of KUWAIT. Because of this request, the UN security council approved of the war and America lead a coalition of 34 nations to save Kuwait from Iraq's attempts to annex it.

The current war in Iraq on the other hand, was a direct reaction to 9/11, spurred on by Bush's hopes of getting its oil. See? Two completely different wars fought for completely different reasons.

Originally Posted by Kevin
I never accuse your brain of being fuzzy. For one. And for two you need to take your OWN advice with this trolling below
You said "here comes the fuzziness", meaning my statements. That's accusing me of being fuzzy. Are you a *complete* moron? Yes, I think you are.

I'm allowed to insult your stupidity, because you exhibit a real lack of understanding of history and politics, and in general your outlook on life is pretty flawed as well. Therefore, when I call you stupid, I'm not trolling, I'm merely stating the truth.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by itistoday
You remind me of that Monty Python skit. "No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't..."
Um how is it that I am reminding you, when YOU are the one that is doing it?
I'm afraid I was the one making the point, therefore I'd be the best person to judge whether or not it was besides the point or not.
No because you simply refuse to admit it has relevance. I showed it indeed did. You ADMIT you weren't young enough to even KNOW what went down.
The two wars were completely separate! You really are a dumbass aren't you? Here, let me help you out.
Ah here comes the ad-hominems. Yes, we called them separate wars. But if the FIRST war wouldn't have happened, the second war wouldn't have.

And had Clinton actually FINISHED what was supposed to happen in those 8 years it would't have lasted as long as it did.

The first war was to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. When we did that we gave them stipulations about their WMDs else we'd finish the job.

THIS WAR is because they did not follow along. DIG?
One was fought over Kuwait, the other as a backlash to 9/11.
BZZZZZZZZZZT In this VERY THREAD by someone that is on "your side" even said it was mainly about the WMD problem.

Nice spin.
In the first we were asked by the people of KUWAIT (read: not Iraq) to help the people of KUWAIT.
Because they COULD. They had that ABILITY. Irais DID NOT. Hell they couldn't even VOTE for someone other than Saddam without getting murdered. What do you think a letter to the US would do to em? I you call ME a dumbass.
Because of this request, the UN security council approved of the war and America lead a coalition of 34 nations to save Kuwait from Iraq's attempts to annex it.
No, it wasn't BECAUSE of that request. You are making things up now. They did it because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO.
The current war in Iraq on the other hand, was a direct reaction to 9/11, spurred on by Bush's hopes of getting its oil. See? Two completely different wars fought for completely different reasons.
I don't even know why I am arguing this with you. When you give answers like that. Read my explanation to you above.
You said "here comes the fuzziness", meaning my statements. That's accusing me of being fuzzy.
No, that is saying YOUR STATEMENTS are reaking of fuzziness. I did not say as you claimed your brain was fuzzy. Dig?
Are you a *complete* moron? Yes, I think you are.
Sounds like you are getting pretty desperate here itistoday.
I'm allowed to insult your stupidity, because you exhibit a real lack of understanding of history and politics, and in general your outlook on life is pretty flawed as well. Therefore, when I call you stupid, I'm not trolling, I'm merely stating the truth.
No, you are being a troll. Because it's not the truth, But your biased opinion. Keep it up though, it will get you a one way ticket out of the PL I assure you.
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Um how is it that I am reminding you, when YOU are the one that is doing it?
Nah ah! You're doing it. Ball's in your court now.

Originally Posted by Kevin
No because you simply refuse to admit it has relevance. I showed it indeed did. You ADMIT you weren't young enough to even KNOW what went down.
I only "admitted" because I was indeed young, and I currently *thought* I knew what the deal was back then from reading history, and here you come spouting nonsense. I have since refreshed my memory and see that you are indeed spouting nonsense.

Originally Posted by Kevin
Ah here comes the ad-hominems. Yes, we called them separate wars. But if the FIRST war wouldn't have happened, the second war wouldn't have.
I'd love to see some proof of that statement, just as long as it doesn't come from your ass. Here's a hint: what one says and what one thinks are two different things; politicians are well known liars.

Originally Posted by Kevin
And had Clinton actually FINISHED what was supposed to happen in those 8 years it would't have lasted as long as it did.
Iraq backed off Kuwait, right? Last time I checked.

Originally Posted by Kevin
The first war was to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. When we did that we gave them stipulations about their WMDs else we'd finish the job.
The job was finished silly boy. As you say here, the war was to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, and that's exactly what they did.

Originally Posted by Kevin
THIS WAR is because they did not follow along. DIG?
No dig.

Originally Posted by Kevin
BZZZZZZZZZZT In this VERY THREAD by someone that is on "your side" even said it was mainly about the WMD problem.
"Someone"? "My side"?

Originally Posted by Kevin
Because they COULD. They had that ABILITY. Irais DID NOT. Hell they couldn't even VOTE for someone other than Saddam without getting murdered. What do you think a letter to the US would do to em?
Man oh man.... *sigh*

Maybe the reason the Iraqis couldn't vote was because there was no voting system because it was a dictatorship? Eh?

Again, they could have easily formed a rebel group, people in dictatorships do that all the time, just look at South America--f*ck, just look at us. We couldn't vote back then either. And I assure you, these rebel groups can do simple things like sending letters, especially when they also have such powerful capabilities as assassinating the dictator. You're too much Kevin.

Originally Posted by Kevin
I you call ME a dumbass.
Yes, I do, if I understand you correctly.

Originally Posted by Kevin
No, it wasn't BECAUSE of that request. You are making things up now. They did it because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO.
I will refresh your memory for you.

As a consequence of this Iran attacked Kuwait's oil tankers, and Kuwait was forced to seek protection from the United States, which sent warships to the gulf.

After being allied with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (largely due to desiring Iraqi protection from Islamic Iran), Kuwait was invaded and annexed by Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) in August 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...lict_with_Iraq

Within hours of the initial invasion, the Kuwaiti and United States of America delegations requested a meeting of the UN Security Council, which passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_War#Causes
Silly silly boy.

Originally Posted by Kevin
No, that is saying YOUR STATEMENTS are reaking of fuzziness. I did not say as you claimed your brain was fuzzy. Dig?
Wow. OK, now it seems I've changed from History teacher to Human Relations teacher. What you say, represents who you are. There is no other way to know a person on an online forum other than reading what they say. And even in real life, this is the main method of getting to know someone, you know, it's called conversation.

Again, to answer your question: no dig.

Originally Posted by Kevin
Sounds like you are getting pretty desperate here itistoday.
Yes, I am. I'm getting desperately tired of your stupidity and am hoping you'll stop saying lies and silly statements.
( Last edited by itistoday; May 29, 2006 at 06:43 PM. )
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL
Reason given for the war was weapons of mass destructions and Iraq links to Al Quaida. FACTS

Never has there been talk about liberating the Iraqi people from a dictatorship as you claim.
There were 8 objectives.

1) Rumsfeld said the first is to end the regime of Saddam Hussein "by striking with force on a scope and scale that makes clear to Iraqis that he and his regime are finished."

2) The coalition will identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

3) It will also eliminate Iraq's missiles and other delivery systems, the production capabilities and distribution networks, he said.

4) Coalition military forces will search for, capture or drive out terrorists who have found refuge in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

5) The coalition will also collect intelligence related to terrorist networks in Iraq and beyond and will collect intelligence on the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction activity.

6) It will end sanctions and immediately deliver humanitarian relief to the displaced and the many needy Iraqi citizens.

7) The coalition will secure oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect," Rumsfeld said.

8) Finally, the coalition will create the conditions for Iraq's rapid transition to a representative government "that is not a threat to its neighbors." The coalition is committed to ensuring the territorial integrity of Iraq.
Note the absence of the word "democracy".
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
[email protected]  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 06:21 PM
 
This is just like the Right. They only believe what they have been told.

When they are pushed into a corner, they lie to get out of that corner.

The right wing are the minority in this country. Minority---look up the word, I don't have time to give a vocab lesson.

As I have stated before.
80% of Americans disapprove of Bush. 80%!!!
Over 60% don't agree with the war in Iraq.

Polls don't lie. Republicians do. Then that is turned into policy. And if their lies can't change policy; then they sign lies into laws.

Well guess what? As we have seen, the lies are catching up to them. It won't be long now. Thank god we'll be able to reverse the Patriot Act, NSA Wiretapping programs, bringing the troops home,etc....When the new congress gets in place after Nov.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 06:28 PM
 
Please post the data from the polls you speak of. Because I think you're pulling those numbers out of your ass.

In the most recent Opinion Dynamics poll (May 18th) 56% of Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing.

Bush's average approval rating stands at 56%
With 35% stating they disapprove.

And if you thought the "NSA Wiretapping scandal" was a bad thing - you're in the minority.

Overall, 52 percent of Americans support the NSA intelligence program that collects phone records and analyzes calling patterns in the United States without listening to or recording the conversations and 41 percent oppose.

And you claim that 60% of Americans "don't agree with the war in Iraq"? Are you sure you aren't looking at a poll of French residents?

The last poll (Opinion Dynamics) I remember showed that something like 70% of Americans believe Iraqis are better off today than they were before the war. I'll try to locate that poll for you.

But Iraq is old news anyway.

Overall, a sizable majority thinks it would be “responsible” for the United States to have war plans for Iran already prepared. About two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) think it would be responsible; 26 percent say “irresponsible.”

To summarize, I believe that if Democrats honestly think their opinions are held by the majority of Americans - they will continue to lose elections. Americans have become more conservative, not less.

So stop telling us what you're against - and start telling us what you stand for.
( Last edited by Spliffdaddy; May 29, 2006 at 06:50 PM. )
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by itistoday
Nah ah! You're doing it. Ball's in your court now.
Thanks for proving my point
I only "admitted" because I was indeed young, and I currently *thought* I knew what the deal was back then from reading history, and here you come spouting nonsense. I have since refreshed my memory and see that you are indeed spouting nonsense.
Yet you have yet to disprove anything I have said. Odd.
I'd love to see some proof of that statement, just as long as it doesn't come from your ass.
You are getting very agrressive here. Why?

One of the main reasons we went to war was because of the sanctions put on Iraq during the first war.
Iraq backed off Kuwait, right? Last time I checked.
Do you have ANY idea what I am referring to or talking about? The SANCTIONS.
The job was finished silly boy.
Does calling someone much older than you a boy make you feel anymore secure? Because it's coming off as you using this as a cruch because you have no game.
As you say here, the war was to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, and that's exactly what they did.
And to disarm Iraq immediately after. Which was an ongoing process.
Man oh man.... *sigh*

Maybe the reason the Iraqis couldn't vote was because there was no voting system because it was a dictatorship? Eh?
Saddam himself claims Everyone voted for him.

Least you forget http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm

100% of the votes he got. How about that!

Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years.
There were 11,445,638 eligible voters - and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council.


Do you honestly have ANY clue or history about this at all? Or are you just arguing to be arguing?
Again, they could have easily formed a rebel group, people in dictatorships do that all the time, just look at South America--f*ck, just look at us. We couldn't vote back then either. And I assure you, these rebel groups can do simple things like sending letters, especially when they also have such powerful capabilities as assassinating the dictator. You're too much Kevin.
With what? They had no weapons.
I will refresh your memory for you.
No, that is what happened. Not WHY the UN did it.
Wow. OK, now it seems I've changed from History teacher to Human Relations teacher.
Nope, you are still being pretentious. That is all.
What you say, represents who you are.
Yes, but I can say something incorrect, and still have intelligence. You can say something fuzzy, and still not be fuzzy brained.

So what were you supposed to "teach" me young grasshoppaah?
Yes, I am. I'm getting desperately tired of your stupidity and am hoping you'll stop saying lies and silly statements.
The only thing you have brought to the plate is personal attacks. Your game sucks.

I suggest you go back and learn all the stuff you missed when you were playing with your transformers.
( Last edited by Kevin; May 29, 2006 at 06:56 PM. )
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 06:51 PM
 
The "most people do it so it's OK" argument never worked because most people are idiots. People, stop using popularity polls as cornerstones for your arguments.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 06:53 PM
 
Again, believing that most people are idiots and religion sucks - is the basis for Democratic losses in the polls.

Most Americans don't believe they're idiots and most Americans are religious.
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
I think you missed the part where I said I wasn't excusing anything. Not in the least. You are right that if it really happened in the way being reported (an enormous "if") then it most certainly would be a breakdown in both discipline and leadership-which I also noted.

If this event did indeed happen as reported, then the people who did the crime WILL DO LONG, HARD TIME IN A VERY NASTY PRISON. Guaranteed. The USMC will not put up with anyone sullying their reputation as professional and well-disciplined military men and women.

I did not defend ANYONE. I merely pointed out that people who have never served a minute in a military organization are the last people to make judgements about those who do serve. Quite different, don't you think? I spent over 23 years in uniform. I had Noriega's goons point weapons at my wife and baby every single day of the two years we were in Panama, and could do nothing about it. I volunteered to go back to Panama once the invasion started (we left three days before), and I volunteered to go to Desert Shield (and would have been there for the whole thing if I'd been sent) as well as the build up to the current conflict. I've been shot at, and more importantly, I have been responsible for the lives and actions of a number of people assigned under me. I have standing to say "this is not for civilians to decide." Most people do not.

Recap: don't twist my words-I didn't defend anyone, instead I said that if the allegations prove correct, this was a serious and dangerous breakdown in discipline and leadership. Let's keep facts straight, shall we?
Fair enough. I might have been too hard on you in my post. I apologise.

But unfortunately I fear that if (not such a big if IMO) they are guilty of this the punishment won't be that severe. Look at the people responsible for torturing two innocent Afghanis to death in Bagram Airbase and their punishment. The harshest punishment was 5 months in prison IIRC. That's only a slap on the wrist. So forgive me if I doubt that the US military takes these things seriously.

And the problem is that most of you will blindly believe the story the US military will come up with. As so often before.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
Nobody's even been charged yet. This event will require a lot of investigation. There's a problem, a big problem with such investigations, in that the locals may have altered the evidence in the area, may have been organized to report events that did not happen, or change the order in which they report what they really saw. And we are talking about an event that happened six months ago, so there's darn little forensic evidence left, even if the location was left completely untouched-which I seriously doubt.

Expect the investigation to be done by a number of agencies, including the DoD Inspector General, Naval CID, and probably others, just to ensure that all the facts are known and well documented. It sounds very much like there may have been a very complex situation that went very wrong, whether because the Marines lost their cool, or because other agents were involved, or because some outside organization has manipulated things to cause negative publicity. Or all three.
As per usual the ground is prepared for saying that the "others" are liars......

I guarantee that if any Marines can be shown to have violated the Law of Armed Conflict (a real, binding set of rules for the conduct of warfare that the U.S. tries valiantly to adhere to, in spite of the fact that most of our adversaries have ignored such rules).......
Where's the flag waving smiley when you need it?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Fair enough. I might have been too hard on you in my post. I apologise.

But unfortunately I fear that if (not such a big if IMO) they are guilty of this the punishment won't be that severe. Look at the people responsible for torturing two innocent Afghanis to death in Bagram Airbase and their punishment. The harshest punishment was 5 months in prison IIRC. That's only a slap on the wrist. So forgive me if I doubt that the US military takes these things seriously.

And the problem is that most of you will blindly believe the story the US military will come up with. As so often before.
What about those who do all the bad things on the opposing side?

Where is your concern about their punishment?

This is why no one can honestly take you seriously when you don't act biased in that way.
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Thanks for proving my point
*WHOOOOSHHHH* Hear that? That's the sound of the point flying over your head.

While reading your reply I noticed that a sizable portion of it was completely immaterial to the argument at hand. Just to illustrate this to you I'm going to group all of these useless statements into a box called "BULLSHIT":

Bullshit Box:

Yet you have yet to disprove anything I have said. Odd.

You are getting very agrressive here. Why?

Does calling someone much older than you a boy make you feel anymore secure? Because it's coming off as you using this as a cruch because you have no game.

Do you honestly have ANY clue or history about this at all? Or are you just arguing to be arguing?

Nope, you are still being pretentious. That is all.

So what were you supposed to "teach" me young grasshoppaah?
The only thing you have brought to the plate is personal attacks. Your game sucks.

I suggest you go back and learn all the stuff you missed when you were playing with your transformers.
Wow that's a lot of bullshit. It reeks! To it my response shall be laughter!

OK. Now that we've got that out of the way let's address those statements of yours that actually had substance.

Originally Posted by Kevin
One of the main reasons we went to war was because of the sanctions put on Iraq during the first war.
These were used as an excuse, they were not the reason for going to war. Those sanctions were imposed by the UN, not the USA alone. Let's not forget that the UN did follow through on the inspections and FOUND NO WMDs! And after we invaded? WE FOUND NO WMDs! It was several years into Bush's term before he even spoke of them, and he only spoke of them because of 9/11, because he wanted to get as many excuses as possible to invade Iraq, and invade it not to "liberate its people", no, he wanted to invade it to get its oil. If he was such a humanitarian then why didn't he even consider taking any action against any of the other hundred countries that were oppressing people. You know, those countries in Africa, in Asia, etc? BECAUSE HE COULD GIVE LESS OF A SH*T about "liberating" people from oppressing "regimes". Not to mention the fact that most Iraqis didn't even want the USA to invade!

Originally Posted by Kevin
Saddam himself claims Everyone voted for him.

Least you forget http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm

100% of the votes he got. How about that!

Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years.
There were 11,445,638 eligible voters - and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council.
This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted. Don't flatter yourself though, you haven't yet beaten Spliffdaddy. Oh, btw, sorry to be offtopic, but how does it feel to have that moron on "your side"? Frankly, I'd be embarrassed.

Back to your statements. Maybe the reason why he got 100% of the votes was because... oh, I don't know, let's look at the article you linked to:

Saddam Hussein - who has ruled Iraq since 1979 - was the only candidate.


Yes, what a great democracy Iraq was.

Oh, and FURTHERMORE! Even IF they all really wanted him to be their leader for the next seven years, doesn't that mean that they liked him??? I THINK IT DOES!

What does that mean? It means YOU LOSE EITHER WAY! It means that the USA didn't "liberate" them because they didn't want to be liberated! In either case! In reality! They DIDN'T ASK!

Originally Posted by Kevin
With what? They had no weapons.
Since when do you need a kalashnikov to send a letter?

Originally Posted by Kevin
Yes, but I can say something incorrect, and still have intelligence. You can say something fuzzy, and still not be fuzzy brained.
Except what I said was not incorrect. Sure, one could have made a factual error by mistake, but then he'd be liable to acknowledge it. I made no such mistakes.

One last thing Kevin, something else you need to learn. Saying that your opponent lost, or saying that their "game sucks", doesn't make it so. You need to *prove* that somehow.
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by davesimondotcom
Um, reverted or converted?
Muslims believe every human being is born a Muslim so when we "convert" we are actually reverting.
What's whale meat taste like? Not that I'll be having any anytime soon (try finding a whale in Montana!) I'm just curious.

And please don't say "like chicken." Because its got to taste like at least a few thousand chickens...


It's basically like beef. If you ever come to Iceland I'll BBQ some for you.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by itistoday
*WHOOOOSHHHH* Hear that? That's the sound of the point flying over your head.
More silliness.
While reading your reply I noticed that a sizable portion of it was completely immaterial to the argument at hand. Just to illustrate this to you I'm going to group all of these useless statements into a box called "BULLSHIT":
In other words. You still have no game.
Wow that's a lot of bullshit. It reeks! To it my response shall be laughter!

OK. Now that we've got that out of the way let's address those statements of yours that actually had substance.
If I were to do that to you, I'd have nothing to reply to

These were used as an excuse, they were not the reason for going to war.
In your opinion you mean. These were indeed reasons used and given. You don't believe them. And that is fine. But your OPINION cannot be used as FACT to back up your beliefs.
Those sanctions were imposed by the UN, not the USA alone.
Indeed.
Let's not forget that the UN did follow through on the inspections and FOUND NO WMDs!
You mean like...

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

??
It was several years into Bush's term before he even spoke of them, and he only spoke of them
WRONG. Before he was elected he made it PLAIN he planned on taking care of Iraq.
because of 9/11, because he wanted to get as many excuses as possible to invade Iraq, and invade it not to "liberate its people", no, he wanted to invade it to get its oil.
More personal jibberish treated as fact. Sorry, that doesn't work here.
If he was such a humanitarian then why didn't he even consider taking any action against any of the other hundred countries that were oppressing people. You know, those countries in Africa, in Asia, etc?
Because we ALREADY STARTED IN IRAQ BACK IN 1991! I've been telling you this now all day.
BECAUSE HE COULD GIVE LESS OF A SH*T about "liberating" people from oppressing "regimes". Not to mention the fact that most Iraqis didn't even want the USA to invade!
More baseless accusations. You aren't doing very well here. See, when attempting to back up your assumptions, you use facts. Not personal opinions. Esp highly biased ones.
This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted. Don't flatter yourself though, you haven't yet beaten Spliffdaddy. Oh, btw, sorry to be offtopic, but how does it feel to have that moron on "your side"? Frankly, I'd be embarrassed.
More personal attacks with no substance. Dumbest things you have ever seen posted? I was simply showing you something you had no clue of. Dig?
Back to your statements. Maybe the reason why he got 100% of the votes was because... oh, I don't know, let's look at the article you linked to:

You are missing the point. The fact that there was only ONE choice goes on to show what I was saying. They didn't HAVE a choice. And if you believe EVERY SINGLE Iraqi voted in the election, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

They had NOTHING.

Tell me, what do you think would happen to a person that wrote in someone other than Saddam?
Yes, what a great democracy Iraq was.

Oh, and FURTHERMORE! Even IF they all really wanted him to be their leader for the next seven years, doesn't that mean that they liked him??? I THINK IT DOES!
Um clearly from what the Iraqis have told us, they did not. They had no choice.
Except what I said was not incorrect. Sure, one could have made a factual error by mistake, but then he'd be liable to acknowledge it. I made no such mistakes.
I've already pointed out said mistake. You just refuse to recognize it.
One last thing Kevin, something else you need to learn. Saying that your opponent lost, or saying that their "game sucks", doesn't make it so. You need to *prove* that somehow.
1. You aren't able to teach someone when you yourself have lots to learn.
2. I think I've proven enough.

You need to brush up on your history, and debating skills. AKA cut back on the personal attacks. They make you look desperate.

This "You learning me" stuff is fun.
     
[email protected]  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 07:49 PM
 
Spliffdaddy you need to stop smoking, based on your rants, and right wing rambles your way too high.

Here are links to some polls so you can see some real #'s

USA Today/ Gallop NSA Poll: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/t...4-nsa-poll.htm

Zogby Iraq poll:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Washington Post GOP poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051601264.html

USA Today Bush Poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...approval_x.htm

All these polls were conducted in the Month of May 06'. These are the polls that matter. These polls are the one that are in the Media. Has anyone else heard of opinion dynamics as a valid poll? I didn't think so.
Please list one crediable news program other than FOX news that uses their polls?
I'll wait.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 07:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by kobi
Spliffdaddy you need to stop smoking, based on your rants, and right wing rambles your way too high.
kobi you are embarrassing yourself when you say that. Just so you know for future references.
     
[email protected]  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 07:52 PM
 
Kevin I call it like I see them.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 07:55 PM
 
The only thing you see is text. You just started here.

You are still a student.

You aren't that good.

How about them ad-hominems.

Does that mean I won?

One thing I've noticed about NN's political forums.

You know you've hit pretty close to the mark when the natives start getting pissy.
     
[email protected]  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 08:09 PM
 
Kevin I totally agree.

I never claimed to be good. I was just stating facts.

I'm a 30 year old J1 Law student btw. I got a late start at the college thing.

I'll watch the personal attacks/ad-hominems.

I thought we were having a discussion.

If I've personally offended anybody, I'm sorry.

Life is too short to offend people that you don't know.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 08:10 PM
 
The "Facts" part is debatable.

as far as the other

No problem.
     
[email protected]  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 08:13 PM
 
I'm with ya.
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 08:25 PM
 
Great - we needed another lawyer in this place... just in case Simey cannot perform his duties...
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 08:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by davesimondotcom
Great - we needed another lawyer in this place... just in case Simey cannot perform his duties...
Well, I have always thought that a lawyer ought to strive to at least get the basic facts of a situation straight. It's hard to make a cogent argument that will stand up when you make howlers like the first post. To whit:

The Army isn't involved, it is the Marine Corps.

The "young reporter from Iraq" who prevented the "Army" (sic) from going "in and do[ing] a clean-up job" appear actually to have been two Marines in the platoon:

AP

Lance Cpl. Andrew Wright, 20, and Lance Cpl. Roel Ryan Briones, 21, both members of the Marine unit based at Camp Pendleton, photographed the scene in the western Iraqi city of Haditha with personal cameras they happened to be carrying the day of the attack.

Briones later had his camera confiscated by Navy investigators, his mother said, while Wright's parents said their son was cooperating with the Navy investigation, but declined to comment further.
And as for the alleged "cover up," the Navy is investigating that as well:

The incident at Haditha has sparked two investigations - one into the deadly encounter itself and another into whether it was the subject of a cover-up. The Marine Corps had initially attributed 15 civilian deaths to the car bombing and a firefight with insurgents, eight of whom the Marines reported had been killed.
Make those corrections and there isn't much to the original post except the obvious fact that the Navy is investigating an alleged crime. And a lawyer, more than anyone, should understand the difference between an allegation and a conviction.

By the way, what is a "J1" law student? Do you mean a 1L?
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; May 29, 2006 at 08:42 PM. )
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
And a lawyer, more than anyone, should understand the difference between an allegation and a conviction.
Says the lawyer who continually supports keeping people without any representation or a chance of a day in a court of law in Guantanamo........

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Says the lawyer who continually supports keeping people without any representation or a chance of a day in a court of law in Guantanamo........
The guarantee of a lawyer applies to someone IN THE US who has been CHARGED WITH A CIVIL CRIME IN THE US. Allowing prisoners who were illegal combatants (no uniform as required by international convention, not following the Laws of Armed Conflict, etc.) to have legal representation BEFORE they are formally charged with anything is very exceptional.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
The guarantee of a lawyer applies to someone IN THE US who has been CHARGED WITH A CIVIL CRIME IN THE US. Allowing prisoners who were illegal combatants (no uniform as required by international convention, not following the Laws of Armed Conflict, etc.) to have legal representation BEFORE they are formally charged with anything is very exceptional.
One rule for Americans and one rule for foreigners.

Always sad to see such blatant hypocrisy.......

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by kobi
This is just like the Right. They only believe what they have been told.

When they are pushed into a corner, they lie to get out of that corner.

Well guess what? As we have seen, the lies are catching up to them. It won't be long now. Thank god we'll be able to reverse the Patriot Act, NSA Wiretapping programs, bringing the troops home,etc....When the new congress gets in place after Nov.
Ahahahahaha. Try looking past your own borders.

The UK:

Population believes what they're been told.
Government consistently lies to get themselves out of a corner (and at all other times too).
Acts on the cards which make your NSA wiretapping look like a Sunday picnic.

And guess what? It's got a leftist government with a leftist majority.

Keep believing the blogs, dude.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
One rule for Americans and one rule for foreigners.
Hmmm... Shall we mention internal vs external EU trade regulations or not? And don't worry von, the EU is now gunning for Iceland so you'll soon be part of it.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:02 PM
 
I'd love to charge those illegal combatants in a US court. That way we could sentence them to death.

And we wouldn't be hypocrites.
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
More silliness.
Or perhaps I was saying that you missed the point?

Originally Posted by Kevin
In other words. You still have no game.
In other words, your post contained a remarkable amount of bullshit. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by Kevin
If I were to do that to you, I'd have nothing to reply to
Would that mean that you'd stop posting? Because that'd be great!

Originally Posted by Kevin
In your opinion you mean. These were indeed reasons used and given. You don't believe them. And that is fine. But your OPINION cannot be used as FACT to back up your beliefs.
It's called logical reasoning. The fact is that no one on this forum knows the "facts", but you don't have to be a genius to connect the dots.

Originally Posted by Kevin
You mean like...

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

??
What on earth does this prove??? Vapidity! Clinton said a lot of things, as we all know.

Originally Posted by Kevin
WRONG. Before he was elected he made it PLAIN he planned on taking care of Iraq.
Which election are we talking here? The one before his first term? If so some links would be nice.

Originally Posted by Kevin
More personal jibberish treated as fact. Sorry, that doesn't work here.
Again, no one here knows the real facts. All we know is what they say, and what they say by no means necessarily represents reality, therefore based on plenty evidence and a little thinking I can make those statements. I never said I was there at the Oval office to witness the decisions and the reasoning first hand, no one here, including you, had that privilege.

Originally Posted by Kevin
Because we ALREADY STARTED IN IRAQ BACK IN 1991! I've been telling you this now all day.
And I keep telling you that the two wars had nothing to do with each other. It was merely a convenience for Bush that we had fought Iraq before (and again, for a completely different reason). The Persian Gulf War was over in 1994. Iraq accepted UN's terms. The war was over. What part of that do you not understand?

Originally Posted by Kevin
More baseless accusations. You aren't doing very well here. See, when attempting to back up your assumptions, you use facts. Not personal opinions. Esp highly biased ones.
In addition to my previous statements on this "factual" accusation of yours, let me just say that for this point I did provide facts. The US's indifference towards human suffering in Africa, China and North Korea are prime examples. It really seems like you have problems reading.

Originally Posted by Kevin
Tell me, what do you think would happen to a person that wrote in someone other than Saddam?
They would die? Duh.

Originally Posted by Kevin
You are missing the point. The fact that there was only ONE choice goes on to show what I was saying. They didn't HAVE a choice. And if you believe EVERY SINGLE Iraqi voted in the election, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

They had NOTHING.
Talk about missing the point. OK, let's refresh your old memory as to what the point was.

I said the people of Kuwait, unlike Iraq, asked for help. To this you responded that the people of Iraq couldn't even vote. To that I pointed out the obvious reasons as to why they could not vote. MY POINT was to show you that them not being able to vote had no bearing on their ability to start a rebellion. OK?

Originally Posted by Kevin
Um clearly from what the Iraqis have told us, they did not. They had no choice.
No sh*t. That's exactly what I said. You're so eager to say "NAH AH!!" that you don't even realize what you're disagreeing with!

Originally Posted by Kevin
I've already pointed out said mistake. You just refuse to recognize it.
Refresh my memory?

Originally Posted by Kevin
2. I think I've proven enough.
What on earth have you proven? In order to win this debate you have to *prove* that the people of Iraq actively wanted the USA to invade and "liberate" them, meaning you have to prove that a *significant* amount asked the US of A for help. So far all you have done is given evidence in direct contradiction to your argument, for example, from the article you linked to:

During polling, many voters trampled American flags and some signed their ballot-papers in their own blood in a display of loyalty to their leader.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm
Oh yeah, they sure loved us. They really wanted us to come and save them. One by one your statements drop like flies.

Oh, one more suggestion for you, to add to my growing list of suggestions for you (I'm real generous aren't I?): Read and Comprehend my entire post before replying. Don't methodically reply as you read, because that causes you to miss the "bigger picture" and make a fool out of yourself. Good day, grasshoppah.
( Last edited by itistoday; May 29, 2006 at 09:54 PM. )
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by kobi
Spliffdaddy you need to stop smoking, based on your rants, and right wing rambles your way too high.

Here are links to some polls so you can see some real #'s

USA Today/ Gallop NSA Poll: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/t...4-nsa-poll.htm

Zogby Iraq poll:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Washington Post GOP poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051601264.html

USA Today Bush Poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...approval_x.htm

All these polls were conducted in the Month of May 06'. These are the polls that matter. These polls are the one that are in the Media. Has anyone else heard of opinion dynamics as a valid poll? I didn't think so.
Please list one crediable news program other than FOX news that uses their polls?
I'll wait.
Dude. Stop for a minute. Compare the questions asked in those polls to the questions asked in the Opinion Dynamics polls. Do you see how your polls might be misleading?

Here's a quick example:

"Is that mainly because you do not think the program seriously violates Americans’ civil liberties, (or is it mainly because) you think investigating terrorism is the more important goal, even if it violates some Americans’ civil liberties?

BASED ON 349 ADULTS WHO APPROVE OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM


OMG! Is that a question? Looks more like a misleading statement followed by a question mark.

For a respondent to be able to answer *all* the questions - he must successfully answer the first few in the politically correct manner. In effect, those who disagree with the basic premise are excluded from answering the remaining questions. Statistically, it would be impossible to glean any useful information from the poll data. This is freakin hilarious.


Here's a typical question that was asked by Opinion Dynamics:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?"

See the difference?

So where does it say that Bush has an 80% disapproval rating like you claimed?

As I have stated before.
80% of Americans disapprove of Bush. 80%!!!
Over 60% don't agree with the war in Iraq.
And I said you pulled those numbers out of your ass.

Looks like you pulled those numbers out of your ass to me.

If I were you I'd ask for a refund of my college tuition. You aren't gonna make a very good attorney.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:35 PM
 
That would appear to have been a *smackdown*.

Now, I know you're in charge of smackdowns Spliffy, but it wouldn't be within the bounds of modesty to award yourself one, would it?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:43 PM
 
I didn't want to waste a smackdown on a naive newbie.

smackdowns don't grow on trees ya know.

I have to handcraft each one in a climate-controlled environment.

edited: and it's no damned small wonder that CNN and USA Today choose not to use Opinion Dynamics polls. Why would a liberal organization wish to undermine their efforts by disclosing that their liberal beliefs aren't widely held? Opinion Dynamics only asks likely voters or registered voters (nationwide) for their opinion. Gallup asks "adults" - and they don't say from where. From the looks of their responses, I'd have to suggest that they primarily poll Berkeley students and professors.
( Last edited by Spliffdaddy; May 29, 2006 at 09:50 PM. )
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by kobi
Kevin I call it like I see them.
Spliffdaddy you need to stop smoking, based on your rants, and right wing rambles your way too high.

Here are links to some polls so you can see some real #'s

USA Today/ Gallop NSA Poll: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/t...4-nsa-poll.htm

Zogby Iraq poll:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Washington Post GOP poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051601264.html

USA Today Bush Poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...approval_x.htm

All these polls were conducted in the Month of May 06'. These are the polls that matter. These polls are the one that are in the Media. Has anyone else heard of opinion dynamics as a valid poll? I didn't think so.
Please list one crediable news program other than FOX news that uses their polls?
I'll wait.
No, I don't think you do. I think you are seriously challenged by the simple task of calling them as you see them.

The USMC is NOT the US Army. Are you a J1 or a 1L or LJ or WHAT? And throughout this thread you have misspelling after misspelling.

You may even be aware that you don't REALLY call them as you see them. You just want to try to convince US that you call them as you see them. We're not convinced.

You CALL them incorrectly because you SEE them inaccurately.

This will plague your posts and it will be a challenge for your legal career.

Pay special attention to this as you go along and you might be able to ameliorate the negative aspects of this problem.

But in the meantime, if you can't get the BASICS correct how can anyone possibly trust your political observations or opinions?

And anyone who finds your posts to be admirable and worthy of commendation or holds you in admiration is obviously not able to recognize the flaws in your perception and recognition. And this fact suggests that they are...?

And I hope you really can call THIS ONE as you see it.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
[email protected]  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:47 PM
 
once agian Spliff your showing that your a tool. I know you know how to read but your basic comprehension skills are seriously lacking.

Only you can be given facts and still have the stupidity to say that their wrong.

Ask someone else to read the polls and explain them to you.
That way you can get a clue.

No wonder this country is in the shape that it's in.
How sad it must be to actually believe what you write.

I'll be sure to ask for my college money back, so I can send you to reading class.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
I didn't want to waste a smackdown on a naive newbie.

smackdowns don't grow on trees ya know.

I have to handcraft each one in a climate-controlled environment.
ROFLMAO!
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by kobi
once agian Spliff your showing that your a tool. I know you know how to read but your basic comprehension skills are seriously lacking.

Only you can be given facts and still have the stupidity to say that their wrong.

Ask someone else to read the polls and explain them to you.
That way you can get a clue.

No wonder this country is in the shape that it's in.
How sad it must be to actually believe what you write.

I'll be sure to ask for my college money back, so I can send you to reading class.


once agian Spliff your showing that your a tool. I know you know how to read but your basic comprehension skills are seriously lacking.

Only you can be given facts and still have the stupidity to say that their wrong.

Ask someone else to read the polls and explain them to you.
That way you can get a clue.

No wonder this country is in the shape that it's in.
How sad it must be to actually believe what you write.

I'll be sure to ask for my college money back, so I can send you to reading class.
Your posts are a bad joke.

Too bad you can't back up your big talk with even average performance.

You just can't be trusted to get even the BASICS correct.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by kobi
once agian Spliff your showing that your a tool. (snip)
you're

not your

And you misspelled 'again'.


I may be a tool, but I'm a tool with a firm grasp of English grammar and sentence structure.

Seriously, look for employment in the "blue collar" sector. Else you'll be spending everyday getting your ass handed to you.

Are you any good with drywall? How about a pneumatic framing nailer?

I'm looking for employees with skills like yours.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,