I guess it doesn't matter that many of the people in the Bush admin were members of the reagan admin.
And, more importantly, I guess it doesn't matter that Elliot Abrams, who actually was convicted during the Iran-Contra scandal, is a senior official with the NSC under Bush.
\
Funny, because the Iraq war has been in the works for a long, long time.
Maybe you didn't notice that Chalabi, yes, that Chalabi, studied under Wohlstetter with Wolfowitz and Shulsky at university of chicago all the way back in the late 60's and early 70's. Wolfowitz has been arguing for a full invasion since at least the late 70's and throughout the 90's (Clinton's weak Iraq policy was basically the neo-cons') planning for the war accelerated.
I regret there is no intelligent form of communication possible with giant.
I regret there is no intelligent form of communication possible with giant.
You posted "But that was the past. This is now."
Giant then posted very pertinent and apparently irrefutable facts that suggest that the past it still very relevant.
Then you say it's impossible to communicate with him intelligently.
Right. It's your job to refute his facts and his argument now, having posted what you posted, rather than to call the guy mad, stupid, or impossible to communicate with. If you don't you'll look rather silly; it'll seem like you don't have an answer. No?
And in the end that's the rub, isn't it? How many of you assclown, crybaby left-wing conspiracy theorists have actually put your money and ideals where your mouths are, aside from the clusterf**k you always manage to create during your useless, self-absorbed marches and sit-ins while I'm trying to work and become rich and powerful? (And don't get me started on the religious zealotry located on the right side of the scale, either!) \
I should preface these comments by telling you that I'm apolitical, so save yourself the keyboard time by trying to attack my politics. I don't have any to attack, so you're stuck attacking me personally. I warn you in advance, I already realize I'm an asshole!
By the way, long time lurker, first time poster. Hell of a thread to weigh in on, but sometimes you just gotta say WTF!!!
-BBVD
I've come to the conclusion that this is Randycat99's new tactic. I've never said that. EVER.
I don't know if it's just to be distracting or if he's been drinking or smoking too much of something but he's just simply wrong here and this is the last time I'm addressing it.
Someone here already has claimed to be apolitical but from their comments it's apparent which way they lean ( heavily ).
I guess it doesn't matter that many of the people in the Bush admin were members of the reagan admin.
And, more importantly, I guess it doesn't matter that Elliot Abrams, who actually was convicted during the Iran-Contra scandal, is a senior official with the NSC under Bush.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I know little about the subject and we are talking pre 9/11.
Funny, because the Iraq war has been in the works for a long, long time.
Maybe you didn't notice that Chalabi, yes, that Chalabi, studied under Wohlstetter with Wolfowitz and Shulsky at university of chicago all the way back in the late 60's and early 70's. Wolfowitz has been arguing for a full invasion since at least the late 70's and throughout the 90's (Clinton's weak Iraq policy was basically the neo-cons') planning for the war accelerated.
Giant then posted very pertinent and apparently irrefutable facts that suggest that the past it still very relevant.
Then you say it's impossible to communicate with him intelligently.
Right. It's your job to refute his facts and his argument now, having posted what you posted, rather than to call the guy mad, stupid, or impossible to communicate with. If you don't you'll look rather silly; it'll seem like you don't have an answer. No?
I won't explain it again, but there is no debating with him in an intellectually honest or intelligent way. If I post a reply to anything he says, he will just tell me to do more research and call me stupid in one way or another.
He is a pompous boob, IMO, and I don't really care how anyone interprets what I say here in these forums. I have found that just about everything that giant says is refutable. He loves to argue, that's why he comes to these discussions.
I hope you do not form you world view on what giant says.
Oh BTW, don't take from what I just said that I think none of what giant says is correct, He and others just don't seem to be able to debate in a civil and respectful manner.
I won't explain it again, but there is no debating with him in an intellectually honest or intelligent way. If I post a reply to anything he says, he will just tell me to do more research and call me stupid in one way or another.
He is a pompous boob, IMO, and I don't really care how anyone interprets what I say here in these forums. I have found that just about everything that giant says is refutable. He loves to argue, that's why he comes to these discussions.
I hope you do not form you world view on what giant says.
Oh BTW, don't take from what I just said that I think none of what giant says is correct, He and others just don't seem to be able to debate in a civil and respectful manner.
NaplesX,
This is the same thing that you do. When someone presents you with a counter to your argument you either don't agknowlege it or dismiss it.
As far as " loves to argue "......who's name is here more than anyone on this thread?
Or should I assume that you just wanted to ask the exact thing he did?
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I guess it doesn't matter that many of the people in the Bush admin were members of the reagan admin.
No, I did not say it does not matter. But move on. Get over it. That is what I am saying. There are more important issues than that.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
And, more importantly, I guess it doesn't matter that Elliot Abrams, who actually was convicted during the Iran-Contra scandal, is a senior official with the NSC under Bush.
That may be so. I don't know.
Maybe I am wrong, someone that has debated with giant in the past could comment, but I would put money on the fact that he didn't complain about the myriad of people in the Clinton admin that were crooked and had questionable ties and convictions. I started to research that and I got lost with all of the connections with nefarious characters and such. It was almost never ending.
Before you you say it, I am not defending bad behavior with other bad behavior. I am just pointing out the agenda and bias on the part of giant/bunge. It tends to discredit IMO.
QUOTE]Originally posted by bunge
Funny, because the Iraq war has been in the works for a long, long time.[/QUOTE]I see someone went to the same school as Larry Bird.
QUOTE]Originally posted by bunge
Maybe you didn't notice that Chalabi, yes, that Chalabi, studied under Wohlstetter with Wolfowitz and Shulsky at university of chicago all the way back in the late 60's and early 70's. Wolfowitz has been arguing for a full invasion since at least the late 70's and throughout the 90's (Clinton's weak Iraq policy was basically the neo-cons') planning for the war accelerated.
Sorry, I hate smilies.
[/QUOTE] A lot of foreign leaders studied in the states. i am not sure if that means anything. So they both attended the same school, well that clinches it.
How did they get SH to go along with that plan so nicely?
How can you sit there and make a leap like that but when someone says "SH used chemicals on his own people, we found components used in WMD production, so it goes to reason he was pursuing WMD.", you say that that person is reaching.
I'll go along with that stretch if you go along with mine. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with planning to remove SH. Maybe someone back then knew what would happen now. Maybe they were right. Give them credit for being persistent.
Or should I assume that you just wanted to ask the exact thing he did?
No, I did not say it does not matter. But move on. Get over it. That is what I am saying. There are more important issues than that.
That may be so. I don't know.
Maybe I am wrong, someone that has debated with giant in the past could comment, but I would put money on the fact that he didn't complain about the myriad of people in the Clinton admin that were crooked and had questionable ties and convictions. I started to research that and I got lost with all of the connections with nefarious characters and such. It was almost never ending.
Before you you say it, I am not defending bad behavior with other bad behavior. I am just pointing out the agenda and bias on the part of giant/bunge. It tends to discredit IMO.
QUOTE]Originally posted by bunge
Funny, because the Iraq war has been in the works for a long, long time.
I see someone went to the same school as Larry Bird.
QUOTE]Originally posted by bunge
Maybe you didn't notice that Chalabi, yes, that Chalabi, studied under Wohlstetter with Wolfowitz and Shulsky at university of chicago all the way back in the late 60's and early 70's. Wolfowitz has been arguing for a full invasion since at least the late 70's and throughout the 90's (Clinton's weak Iraq policy was basically the neo-cons') planning for the war accelerated.
Sorry, I hate smilies.
[/QUOTE] A lot of foreign leaders studied in the states. i am not sure if that means anything. So they both attended the same school, well that clinches it.
How did they get SH to go along with that plan so nicely?
How can you sit there and make a leap like that but when someone says "SH used chemicals on his own people, we found components used in WMD production, so it goes to reason he was pursuing WMD.", you say that that person is reaching.
I'll go along with that stretch if you go along with mine. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with planning to remove SH. Maybe someone back then knew what would happen now. Maybe they were right. Give them credit for being persistent. [/QUOTE]
Like I said " Who's name is here more? "
That boy loves to argue.
By the way we all know that Saddam had chemical weapons at one time. But did he have them shortly before the war?
It doesn't look like it.
That's what the focus is here. This war started on that premise. If he had them 10 years ago doesn't count for this subject matter.
"May be so?" How about you actually bother to look?
Iran-Contra was the neo-cons first big failure. Iraq was their second. It matters 100% when discussing american foriegn policy.
Quote:
would put money on the fact that he didn't complain about the myriad of people in the Clinton admin that were crooked and had questionable ties and convictions.
And you would lose your money.
Bets like that are probably why you can't afford proper hosting (which, BTW, you still have a few days to sign up to get it for free for the next couple years ).
Quote:
A lot of foreign leaders studied in the states. i am not sure if that means anything. So they both attended the same school, well that clinches it.
Maybe you should read up on it, then, since you don't know. It might help.
Quote:
we found components used in WMD production, so it goes to reason he was pursuing WMD.", you say that that person is reaching.
You mean the same 'components' and error-filled diagrams that the head of the IAEA team pointed out would have been 'virtually impossible' for Iraq to revive a nuclear bomb program with?
"May be so?" How about you actually bother to look?
Iran-Contra was the neo-cons first big failure. Iraq was their second. It matters 100% when discussing american foriegn policy.
And you would lose your money.
Bets like that are probably why you can't afford proper hosting (which, BTW, you still have a few days to sign up to get it for free for the next couple years ).
Maybe you should read up on it, then, since you don't know. It might help, ya?
You mean the same 'components' and error-filled diagrams that the head of the IAEA team pointed out would have been 'virtually impossible' for Iraq to revive a nuclear bomb program with?
I regret that there is no honest and intelligent form communication possible with giant.
You did not just misunderstand it, you also tried to lead everyone here to believe I actually typed that in by deliberately posting false information that I never typed. I searched all of my comments in AO. I haven't been around here that long so it was a quick search.
I will ask you sir to not comment on anything that I post. You are a dishonest person, and this does prove it. I will reply only with "Honest communication is not possible with giant.", if you choose to do so.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
I guess it doesn't matter that many of the people in the Bush admin were members of the reagan admin.
And, more importantly, I guess it doesn't matter that Elliot Abrams, who actually was convicted during the Iran-Contra scandal, is a senior official with the NSC under Bush.
Funny, because the Iraq war has been in the works for a long, long time.
Maybe you didn't notice that Chalabi, yes, that Chalabi, studied under Wohlstetter with Wolfowitz and Shulsky at university of chicago all the way back in the late 60's and early 70's. Wolfowitz has been arguing for a full invasion since at least the late 70's and throughout the 90's (Clinton's weak Iraq policy was basically the neo-cons') planning for the war accelerated.
I regret there is no intelligent form of communication possible with giant.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I regret there is no intelligent form of communication possible with giant.
You posted "But that was the past. This is now."
Giant then posted very pertinent and apparently irrefutable facts that suggest that the past it still very relevant.
Then you say it's impossible to communicate with him intelligently.
Right. It's your job to refute his facts and his argument now, having posted what you posted, rather than to call the guy mad, stupid, or impossible to communicate with. If you don't you'll look rather silly; it'll seem like you don't have an answer. No?
Originally posted by Big Bad Voodoo
And in the end that's the rub, isn't it? How many of you assclown, crybaby left-wing conspiracy theorists have actually put your money and ideals where your mouths are, aside from the clusterf**k you always manage to create during your useless, self-absorbed marches and sit-ins while I'm trying to work and become rich and powerful? (And don't get me started on the religious zealotry located on the right side of the scale, either!)
I should preface these comments by telling you that I'm apolitical, so save yourself the keyboard time by trying to attack my politics. I don't have any to attack, so you're stuck attacking me personally. I warn you in advance, I already realize I'm an asshole!
By the way, long time lurker, first time poster. Hell of a thread to weigh in on, but sometimes you just gotta say WTF!!!
-BBVD
I've come to the conclusion that this is Randycat99's new tactic. I've never said that. EVER.
I don't know if it's just to be distracting or if he's been drinking or smoking too much of something but he's just simply wrong here and this is the last time I'm addressing it.
Someone here already has claimed to be apolitical but from their comments it's apparent which way they lean ( heavily ).
Originally posted by NaplesX
I regret there is no intelligent form of communication possible with giant.
Backed into a corner again I see.
Originally posted by NaplesX
But that was the past, this is now.
I guess it doesn't matter that many of the people in the Bush admin were members of the reagan admin.
And, more importantly, I guess it doesn't matter that Elliot Abrams, who actually was convicted during the Iran-Contra scandal, is a senior official with the NSC under Bush.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I know little about the subject and we are talking pre 9/11.
Funny, because the Iraq war has been in the works for a long, long time.
Maybe you didn't notice that Chalabi, yes, that Chalabi, studied under Wohlstetter with Wolfowitz and Shulsky at university of chicago all the way back in the late 60's and early 70's. Wolfowitz has been arguing for a full invasion since at least the late 70's and throughout the 90's (Clinton's weak Iraq policy was basically the neo-cons') planning for the war accelerated.
Sorry, I hate smilies.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Eh?
You posted "But that was the past. This is now."
Giant then posted very pertinent and apparently irrefutable facts that suggest that the past it still very relevant.
Then you say it's impossible to communicate with him intelligently.
Right. It's your job to refute his facts and his argument now, having posted what you posted, rather than to call the guy mad, stupid, or impossible to communicate with. If you don't you'll look rather silly; it'll seem like you don't have an answer. No?
I won't explain it again, but there is no debating with him in an intellectually honest or intelligent way. If I post a reply to anything he says, he will just tell me to do more research and call me stupid in one way or another.
He is a pompous boob, IMO, and I don't really care how anyone interprets what I say here in these forums. I have found that just about everything that giant says is refutable. He loves to argue, that's why he comes to these discussions.
I hope you do not form you world view on what giant says.
Oh BTW, don't take from what I just said that I think none of what giant says is correct, He and others just don't seem to be able to debate in a civil and respectful manner.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. The "peace" movement has almost never been right. About anything.
Except about peace!
Originally posted by NaplesX
I won't explain it again, but there is no debating with him in an intellectually honest or intelligent way. If I post a reply to anything he says, he will just tell me to do more research and call me stupid in one way or another.
He is a pompous boob, IMO, and I don't really care how anyone interprets what I say here in these forums. I have found that just about everything that giant says is refutable. He loves to argue, that's why he comes to these discussions.
I hope you do not form you world view on what giant says.
Oh BTW, don't take from what I just said that I think none of what giant says is correct, He and others just don't seem to be able to debate in a civil and respectful manner.
NaplesX,
This is the same thing that you do. When someone presents you with a counter to your argument you either don't agknowlege it or dismiss it.
As far as " loves to argue "......who's name is here more than anyone on this thread?
Hmmmm?
Or should I assume that you just wanted to ask the exact thing he did?
Originally posted by bunge
I guess it doesn't matter that many of the people in the Bush admin were members of the reagan admin.
No, I did not say it does not matter. But move on. Get over it. That is what I am saying. There are more important issues than that.
Originally posted by bunge
And, more importantly, I guess it doesn't matter that Elliot Abrams, who actually was convicted during the Iran-Contra scandal, is a senior official with the NSC under Bush.
That may be so. I don't know.
Maybe I am wrong, someone that has debated with giant in the past could comment, but I would put money on the fact that he didn't complain about the myriad of people in the Clinton admin that were crooked and had questionable ties and convictions. I started to research that and I got lost with all of the connections with nefarious characters and such. It was almost never ending.
Before you you say it, I am not defending bad behavior with other bad behavior. I am just pointing out the agenda and bias on the part of giant/bunge. It tends to discredit IMO.
QUOTE]Originally posted by bunge
Funny, because the Iraq war has been in the works for a long, long time.[/QUOTE]I see someone went to the same school as Larry Bird.
QUOTE]Originally posted by bunge
Maybe you didn't notice that Chalabi, yes, that Chalabi, studied under Wohlstetter with Wolfowitz and Shulsky at university of chicago all the way back in the late 60's and early 70's. Wolfowitz has been arguing for a full invasion since at least the late 70's and throughout the 90's (Clinton's weak Iraq policy was basically the neo-cons') planning for the war accelerated.
Sorry, I hate smilies.
How did they get SH to go along with that plan so nicely?
How can you sit there and make a leap like that but when someone says "SH used chemicals on his own people, we found components used in WMD production, so it goes to reason he was pursuing WMD.", you say that that person is reaching.
I'll go along with that stretch if you go along with mine. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with planning to remove SH. Maybe someone back then knew what would happen now. Maybe they were right. Give them credit for being persistent.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I think none of what giant says is correct
So wolfowitz and chalabi didn't go to university of chicago, and CCHF has been weaponized? Dream on, dream on...
At least you are aware that you have decided to live in fantasy land.
Originally posted by NaplesX
So are you now the official parrot for giant?
Or should I assume that you just wanted to ask the exact thing he did?
No, I did not say it does not matter. But move on. Get over it. That is what I am saying. There are more important issues than that.
That may be so. I don't know.
Maybe I am wrong, someone that has debated with giant in the past could comment, but I would put money on the fact that he didn't complain about the myriad of people in the Clinton admin that were crooked and had questionable ties and convictions. I started to research that and I got lost with all of the connections with nefarious characters and such. It was almost never ending.
Before you you say it, I am not defending bad behavior with other bad behavior. I am just pointing out the agenda and bias on the part of giant/bunge. It tends to discredit IMO.
QUOTE]Originally posted by bunge
Funny, because the Iraq war has been in the works for a long, long time.
I see someone went to the same school as Larry Bird.
QUOTE]Originally posted by bunge
Maybe you didn't notice that Chalabi, yes, that Chalabi, studied under Wohlstetter with Wolfowitz and Shulsky at university of chicago all the way back in the late 60's and early 70's. Wolfowitz has been arguing for a full invasion since at least the late 70's and throughout the 90's (Clinton's weak Iraq policy was basically the neo-cons') planning for the war accelerated.
Sorry, I hate smilies.
How did they get SH to go along with that plan so nicely?
How can you sit there and make a leap like that but when someone says "SH used chemicals on his own people, we found components used in WMD production, so it goes to reason he was pursuing WMD.", you say that that person is reaching.
I'll go along with that stretch if you go along with mine. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with planning to remove SH. Maybe someone back then knew what would happen now. Maybe they were right. Give them credit for being persistent. [/QUOTE]
Like I said " Who's name is here more? "
That boy loves to argue.
By the way we all know that Saddam had chemical weapons at one time. But did he have them shortly before the war?
It doesn't look like it.
That's what the focus is here. This war started on that premise. If he had them 10 years ago doesn't count for this subject matter.
Originally posted by giant
So wolfowitz and chalabi didn't go to university of chicago, and CCHF has been weaponized? Dream on, dream on...
At least you are aware that you have decided to live in fantasy land.
I regret that there is no intellectually honest form of communication possible with giant.
I will demonstrate. A few posts back giant quoted this:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I think none of what giant says is correct.
I do not remember ever saying that. I even did a search of all my postings, in case I said it in anger. Nothing.
I will submit that this demonstrates exactly the dirty tactics used by giant and his special friends.
Originally posted by NaplesX
That may be so. I don't know.
"May be so?" How about you actually bother to look?
Iran-Contra was the neo-cons first big failure. Iraq was their second. It matters 100% when discussing american foriegn policy.
would put money on the fact that he didn't complain about the myriad of people in the Clinton admin that were crooked and had questionable ties and convictions.
And you would lose your money.
Bets like that are probably why you can't afford proper hosting (which, BTW, you still have a few days to sign up to get it for free for the next couple years
A lot of foreign leaders studied in the states. i am not sure if that means anything. So they both attended the same school, well that clinches it.
Maybe you should read up on it, then, since you don't know. It might help.
we found components used in WMD production, so it goes to reason he was pursuing WMD.", you say that that person is reaching.
You mean the same 'components' and error-filled diagrams that the head of the IAEA team pointed out would have been 'virtually impossible' for Iraq to revive a nuclear bomb program with?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Originally posted by NaplesX
I think none of what giant says is correct.
I do not remember ever saying that.
OK, I misinterpreted it.
Originally posted by giant
"May be so?" How about you actually bother to look?
Iran-Contra was the neo-cons first big failure. Iraq was their second. It matters 100% when discussing american foriegn policy.
And you would lose your money.
Bets like that are probably why you can't afford proper hosting (which, BTW, you still have a few days to sign up to get it for free for the next couple years
Maybe you should read up on it, then, since you don't know. It might help, ya?
You mean the same 'components' and error-filled diagrams that the head of the IAEA team pointed out would have been 'virtually impossible' for Iraq to revive a nuclear bomb program with?
I regret that there is no honest and intelligent form communication possible with giant.
Refer to my previous post.
Originally posted by giant
It's right there two or three posts up on this page.
You so silly.
I regret there is no intelligent form of communication possible with giant.
Refer to any thread that he has posted to.
It's not funny at all. I am not an happy to lock guy. But the political discussion on AO tend to become a total mess
Originally posted by giant
OK, I misinterpreted it.
You did not just misunderstand it, you also tried to lead everyone here to believe I actually typed that in by deliberately posting false information that I never typed. I searched all of my comments in AO. I haven't been around here that long so it was a quick search.
I will ask you sir to not comment on anything that I post. You are a dishonest person, and this does prove it. I will reply only with "Honest communication is not possible with giant.", if you choose to do so.
Good day sir. And good riddance.
Originally posted by NaplesX
by deliberately posting false information that I never typed.
No, you typed it. It's right there a couple posts up. I just read it too quickly, and corrected myself as soon as I noticed it. How is that dishonest?