Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote:
(snip) No "WMDs", eh? So, little Cliffie, if you had a wife and you came home and caught her in bed with two men, could she try that lie with you? "Well, gee, Cliffie, it was only 2 men. It's practically the same thing as NO men, isn't it?" Your denial is amusing. Yours isn't. |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote:
(snip) Your denial is amusing. BTW, I see you're still hiding from the FACT that you've changed your lie in this thread. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:58:38 GMT, Gunner
wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: handlers in the DNC The quotes you have are people talking about what they knew, or thought they knew, but which lacked the certainty necessary for going to war. It was enough for international politics, for sabre-rattling and posturing, but not enough to send troops to their deaths. Not true. The Left, so profoundly represented in those quotes, was occupied with other matters. But they did have time for Monica Missiles. Here's poor gummer with his endless Monica envy again .... perhaps if he had a bath and got cleaned up a bit & watched his own mouth .... Nah ..... -- Cliff |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:58:38 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Then of course, there was Somalia, Gunner's against that & the UN but for WMD lies. Haiti, "Operation Enduring Sweatshop" "Another Bush Brings Hell to Haiti " http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd03102004.html Bosnia etc etc etc..... Gunner's against that & the UN but for WMD lies. Still an apologist for the Left I see..... And poor little gummer thinks that Herr shrubbie is a democrat it looks like ..... instead of a lying winger fundie loon. -- Cliff |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:28:36 -0700, Abrasha
wrote: Gunner wrote: Seems like a lot to me. But then..I never spent time under a bridge groked out of my skull on pot and playing at being a hippie.. I was too busy shedding my blood for my country. Odd how that tends to put a different outlook on life. No? Gunner Your sob story is touching. Pathetic, but touching nevertheless. Clearly he's a very slow learner. -- Cliff |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Huntress wrote:
OK, then, Willcox, tell us what most people in the US and around the world have been waiting to hear: What is it that you know about how Iraq constituted an immediate threat to the US, one that was substantial enough to go to war, and that no one else seems to know? We're all ears. Watch the videos of these guys telling you what a threat Saddam was: http://www.kerryoniraq.com http://www.republicanfilms.com |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:57 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote: (snip) Your denial is amusing. BTW, I see you're still hiding from the FACT that you've changed your lie in this thread. You are the one that keeps claiming that you know all about those "WMDs", right? And that the wingers don't live for lies? Or do they? -- Cliff |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:56 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote: (snip) No "WMDs", eh? So, little Cliffie, if you had a wife and you came home and caught her in bed with two men, could she try that lie with you? "Well, gee, Cliffie, it was only 2 men. It's practically the same thing as NO men, isn't it?" Your denial is amusing. Yours isn't. No "WMDs", eh? But you had problems with your "wife", did you? Was it an issue of your sanity? -- Cliff |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:00:04 -0400, "Proto" wrote: Gunner wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:56 -0400, "Proto" wrote: Grady wrote: I think it would best serve your argument of "mass murder" if you could post some support factual truth. This does not mean some drivel from some left wing web site either. I will be the first to admit that the mistakes of a few have caused some shame for the US, but I don't see anything that remotely resembles "mass murder". It is actually very simple. For a nation of the size of the US to consider bombing a country with over 50% children and to continue an admitted mistake merely because of the rational that it somehow would be a mistake to back down now proves it is murder. This is an issue or morality. A war waged and continued under admitted falsities is a crime. Plain and simple. The very best that can be said is that in spite of all the mistakes that were made is that we must continue? Sure sounds like an Adolph moment to me. Proto Are you claiming that the military targets such as command and control head quarters, ammo dumps, Republican Guard barracks and so forth, were filled with 50% children? Doesnt speak well for Saddam does it? I consider things like the cluster bombs the US uses along with land mines in general which in this high tech age are considered by many to be wrong. And many, myself included think when properly applied, are right. Anti personal mines in city combat was never in any book these present day military leaders ever read. You are not much of a student of history, are you? Do you actually believe only military targets were destroyed and what ever happened along the way is of no consequence? Of course not. It sucks to be a civie during a war. You Really need to do your homework on military history and civilian casualties. How bout googling "Dresden", then follow up with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Add Nanking to your reading list. The families of the 100,000+ dead civilians should be thanking the US for liberating their country and getting rid of that evil dictator Sadam instead of wanting an harm to come to their liberators. Which 100,000 dead civilians might that be? Ok...Ill play. Cites? No leftwing blogs are allowed btw. Let's see that might be a million if you include relatives. But wait. George said the Iraqis love us and just have not yet had the chance to throw those flowers yet. No..wait ...that million was the number of children starved by the Embargo. At least, thats what you who live and breath by soundbites said. You really dont know much about this or any other war do you? Only what your absorb from the Leftwing Fringe Kooks. Might want to work on that issue a bit. It makes you look mighty foolish. I say we should have stayed home and fixed this county and let those foreigners fix their own broken government. What the hell is wrong with that? Because its far better to fight them on their territory now, then wait around and have them try to kill you on your territory. Perhaps you should take some remedial courses in military history, geopolitics and concentrate on the History Channel before showing your ass here. Maybe while you are calling me stupid YOU could cite some examples of how I am so wrong instead of just saying I don't know history. I am generalizing when I mention what had been seen as a disadvantage of our troops not having that type of training and planning. No one ever thought this would be the result of the Rumsfeld Cake Walk. All the military big brains that sleep with all those history you mention sure aren't doing to well are they? I would not care to design the future according to what history tells us of the past. I would also not look to the past to justify the mistakes or the present. It is clear that the winners of the wars get to write the history books. Proto Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:15:53 GMT, Gunner
wrote: This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors Not too sharp is our boy gummer ..... http://media95.fastclick.net/w/safep...36&nfcp=1&fp=2 [ However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." ] -- Cliff |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:20:24 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm? This brings images to mind of daddy Bush sitting on AF-1 with his son and Clinton on the way to the Pope's funeral discussing politics. The million dollar question is, "Will gummer ever figure out that both political parties are bought out by big business?" It makes no difference which party is in control, the corporate interests will be served. And gummer & the wingers will praise the lies ..... -- Cliff |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
"Gunner" wrote in message
... My pride? I find it interesting you snipped so much of the post. Let me correct that for you..... I snipped your post because you snipped the part about the tens of thousands of people, including over 1,000 Americans, we sent to their deaths so that Iraqis would have a choice of voting for Shiite Islamists or Sunni Islamists. You seem to have lost sight of the question and you need to re-focus. Actually Ed..you snipped the post, as you often do, to try to weasel word your followup to suit your side of the argument. Baloney. I asked you a question, you changed the subject. And you still haven't answered it. Nor, probably, will you. Because it's a question that's too hard for you to face. As I told Proto..you might want to check out the history of warfare, and you can stick to the 20th century if you wish. I'm not asking about the history of warfare. I'm asking you about THIS war, the one in which we allegedly were protecting ourselves from an immanent threat of destruction by means of WMDs, and then, after killing tens of thousands of people over them, we found that they weren't there. What do you think? Was it worth it? Are you still proud? -- Ed Huntress |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com... Ed Huntress wrote: OK, then, Willcox, tell us what most people in the US and around the world have been waiting to hear: What is it that you know about how Iraq constituted an immediate threat to the US, one that was substantial enough to go to war, and that no one else seems to know? We're all ears. Watch the videos of these guys telling you what a threat Saddam was: But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it. I don't know if you've been here, but Gunner and others have argued about this at least 100 times. I haven't commented much about it but this is the point: They were wrong, they were posturing and sabre-rattling, they had flimsy evidence and, based on the 9-11 Commission Report, many people in government had a suspicion that was the case. But the neocons WERE fanatical enough to actually charge in with little evidence, killing tens of thousands of innocent people, as well as more than 1,000 American troops. They were itching for it. What I want to know from you armchair generals is why you won't now admit it was all a mistake. Or, if you think it was not a mistake, what your current justification is for it. Gunner says it's his pride. How about you? -- Ed Huntress |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Huntress wrote:
Gunner says it's his pride. How about you? Well there is something there. I recall back in 1982 when the evil Thatcher had her war with Argentina over some sheep farm. They had news footage of Harrier jets taking off from carriers and such, and for a moment there you got into it all "Go, GO, GO". Then you sort of shook yourself and said "Whoa! What the ****! How have I got sucked into that ****." |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:52:08 -0400, "Proto" wrote:
Perhaps you should take some remedial courses in military history, geopolitics and concentrate on the History Channel before showing your ass here. Maybe while you are calling me stupid YOU could cite some examples of how I am so wrong instead of just saying I don't know history. I am generalizing Generalizing? No ****. A similar type of generalization you promoted... "The Earth is green" Sure is..except for the ****ing deserts and the 75% of the planet that is water. I didn't call you stupid. I called you ignorant and uneducated. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:28:36 -0700, Abrasha
wrote: Gunner wrote: Seems like a lot to me. But then..I never spent time under a bridge groked out of my skull on pot and playing at being a hippie.. I was too busy shedding my blood for my country. Odd how that tends to put a different outlook on life. No? Gunner Your sob story is touching. Pathetic, but touching nevertheless. So Comrade, every get over the fact that the USSR imploded and your handlers in Directorate IV no longer send you checks? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:39:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Willcox" wrote in message ress.com... Ed Huntress wrote: OK, then, Willcox, tell us what most people in the US and around the world have been waiting to hear: What is it that you know about how Iraq constituted an immediate threat to the US, one that was substantial enough to go to war, and that no one else seems to know? We're all ears. Watch the videos of these guys telling you what a threat Saddam was: But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it. They were occupied with Clintons Impeachment and damage control I don't know if you've been here, but Gunner and others have argued about this at least 100 times. I haven't commented much about it but this is the point: They were wrong, they were posturing and sabre-rattling, they had flimsy evidence and, based on the 9-11 Commission Report, many people in government had a suspicion that was the case. But the neocons WERE fanatical enough to actually charge in with little evidence, killing tens of thousands of innocent people, as well as more than 1,000 American troops. They were itching for it. What I want to know from you armchair generals is why you won't now admit it was all a mistake. Or, if you think it was not a mistake, what your current justification is for it. Gunner says it's his pride. How about you? I said what? Asshole..is that the way you write for the big drug companies too? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:27:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: As I told Proto..you might want to check out the history of warfare, and you can stick to the 20th century if you wish. I'm not asking about the history of warfare. I'm asking you about THIS war, the one in which we allegedly were protecting ourselves from an immanent threat of destruction by means of WMDs, and then, after killing tens of thousands of people over them, we found that they weren't there. What do you think? Was it worth it? Are you still proud? -- Ed Huntress Yes Eddy..it was worth it, and yes, Im still proud. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
"Guido" wrote in message
... Ed Huntress wrote: Gunner says it's his pride. How about you? Well there is something there. I recall back in 1982 when the evil Thatcher had her war with Argentina over some sheep farm. They had news footage of Harrier jets taking off from carriers and such, and for a moment there you got into it all "Go, GO, GO". Then you sort of shook yourself and said "Whoa! What the ****! How have I got sucked into that ****." Hey, I wonder if you heard that the Falkland War is what put CNN on the map? Their coverage was terrific. People here were glued to it, as if it was the Superbowl. I was working at home at the time and I couldn't tear myself away from it. It had everything, even the US quietly supplying British ships while pretending to be neutral, a lot like the beginning of WWII. Anyway, I'd sit there and watch for footage of the Harriers. I love those things. It was fantastic. And we hardly saw anyone getting killed! We knew that the British frigate or whatever it was, the one that was hit by an Exocet and burned, carried men to their deaths. But the cameras never got close enough for us to see it. It was all G-rated, and a good time was had by all. In its own small way, it may be one of the sickest things was ever done on TV, and that's saying something. With no blood or carnage it was so easy to get sucked into the "movie." I think a lot of people watched the first Gulf War and had the same reaction. The recent one was a little different, but we've become used to more brutal movies in the meantime, as well. -- Ed Huntress |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:39:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Willcox" wrote in message ress.com... Ed Huntress wrote: OK, then, Willcox, tell us what most people in the US and around the world have been waiting to hear: What is it that you know about how Iraq constituted an immediate threat to the US, one that was substantial enough to go to war, and that no one else seems to know? We're all ears. Watch the videos of these guys telling you what a threat Saddam was: But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it. They were occupied with Clintons Impeachment and damage control Oh, Gunner, you have no idea what they were thinking. A war would have been just the thing to distract attention, for chrissake. You're so deep into full-time bull**** and your *own* damage control that you don't even know what you're saying anymore. Why don't you just get some sleep and give it a rest? You're trying to hold up about ten threads at once and the smoke is blowing out of every orifice in your body. Gunner says it's his pride. How about you? I said what? Asshole..is that the way you write for the big drug companies too? You just gave us a great big list of the things you're "proud of" about our war in Iraq...asshole. Twice, as a matter of fact. You're so screwed up that you don't even remember what you're typing anymore. -- Ed Huntress |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
"Gunner" wrote in message
news Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm? Sloppy effort at deflection, Gunner. You can do better. I don't care if it was a Democrat or Republican, the Tonkin Gulf "incident" was a cooked-up affair, a lot like Iraq's "WMDs." Pure vaporware. Somehow it all just disappeared...gosh, I wonder where all those North Vietnamese submarines got to... Probably to the same place all the Republicans who want to starve your children, poison your air and water and toss Granny out into the snow, went to. Are termites getting into your head or something? I don't care which party it is. I didn't say anything about Republicans. I'M a Republican. You're a split-personality "Republitarian," remember? A Republican on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or something like that. Neocons are the people who want to convert the world into something like Texas. Most Republicans aren't neocons. -- Ed Huntress |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
"Gunner" wrote in message
news On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:27:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: As I told Proto..you might want to check out the history of warfare, and you can stick to the 20th century if you wish. I'm not asking about the history of warfare. I'm asking you about THIS war, the one in which we allegedly were protecting ourselves from an immanent threat of destruction by means of WMDs, and then, after killing tens of thousands of people over them, we found that they weren't there. What do you think? Was it worth it? Are you still proud? -- Ed Huntress Yes Eddy..it was worth it, and yes, Im still proud. Then, in your own way, you're part of the problem, Gunner. -- Ed Huntress |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Huntress wrote:
Thanks for snipping the links http://www.kerryoniraq.com http://www.republicanfilms.com But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it. Yes they did. Clinton's presidential address ordering attacks on Iraq's WMD: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ton_12-16.html And Kerry voted for the 2nd Gulf War, so blame him too. |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Huntress wrote: I think a lot of people watched the first Gulf War and had the same reaction. The recent one was a little different, but we've become used to more brutal movies in the meantime, as well. -- Ed Huntress I see now! His highness, Ed thinks there were two separate wars, rather than a continuation of the same one. What a jerk! George Willer |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
"Willcox" wrote in message
ress.com... Ed Huntress wrote: Thanks for snipping the links http://www.kerryoniraq.com http://www.republicanfilms.com Next time you want something not snipped, tell us what not to snip, so that those of us who object to endless reiterations of previous exchanges don't clog up the joint. But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it. Yes they did. Clinton's presidential address ordering attacks on Iraq's WMD: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ton_12-16.html And how many American troops or Iraqi civilians were killed in that "war," Willcox? How small do these things have to be, and still convince you that they should be called "wars"? And Kerry voted for the 2nd Gulf War, so blame him too. No he didn't. Get your facts straight. He voted to give the President authority to do so. Many people who voted in favor expected Bush to have a little more discretion. Or maybe they really didn't, but knew they couldn't act fast enough if the situation demanded it. Only, the situation never demanded it. . . -- Ed Huntress |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:07:22 GMT, "David R. Birch" wrote: The U.S. is a party to various treaties which clearly prohibit aggressive war, treaties like the UN Charter. Which is why there was a combined effort to throw Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. After this, there was a ceasefire, with conditions imposed on Iraq. Hint: ceasefire means a state of war still existed in 2003, and exists now. How are the clues coming along? Got all I need, I might even spare a few for you, since you keep demonstrating how much you are in need of them! Obviously time for you to upgrade to Cliff 2.0, since Cliff 1.0 can be easily identified as Artificial Unintelligence. I guess I incorrectly assumed that this was common knowledge. Our government run schools have apparently seen to it that most Americans are utterly clueless in such matters. No, most of us are well aware of this, and most of us recognize that Iraq was not complying with the post Desert Storm conditions. Per the UN? They were probably too busy buying illicit Iraq oil to notice! Put simply, aggressive war is immoral, defensive war is not. In the case of Bush's present war against Iraq, it's plain to see that it's immoral...it takes no sophisticated moral reasoning, IMO. You think we should not have thrown Iraq out of Kuwait? This is one war, not two. Bush & Cheney & Rumsfled should not have approved the invasion in the first place then. You mean the return? Obviously, that would depend very much on the circumstances, no? It may ultimately boil down to what's in the heart of the person who does the killing, i.e., it may not be possible for an observer to always determine whether a certain action taken by a certain person was morally proper on not. This is in part why, in my view, the most important qualification of a politician or statesmen is his moral competency; his experience in matters of state, is secondary, at best. Unfortunately, our political system has demonstrated an inability to select moral, competent leaders. Since Truman, anyway. So don't be praising any wingers .... Does your knee hurt when it jerks that hard? Funny how Cliff and jerk go so well together. But here I am, replying to a buggy piece of software. David |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Brock wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message ... Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm? This brings images to mind of daddy Bush sitting on AF-1 with his son and Clinton on the way to the Pope's funeral discussing politics. The million dollar question is, "Will gummer ever figure out that both political parties are bought out by big business?" It makes no difference which party is in control, the corporate interests will be served. SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! David |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
"George Willer" wrote in message
... Ed Huntress wrote: I think a lot of people watched the first Gulf War and had the same reaction. The recent one was a little different, but we've become used to more brutal movies in the meantime, as well. -- Ed Huntress I see now! His highness, Ed thinks there were two separate wars, rather than a continuation of the same one. What a jerk! So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time show? Unless I'm mistaken, the first war was about making Iraq pull back from their attempted conquest of Kuwait. The second one allegedly was about taking out supposed chemical, biological, and soon-to-be nuclear weapons that, somehow, were a direct threat to us. Do I have that right? Or was there some underlying theme going on that connected the two -- like, maybe, that the Bushes and Saddam just don't get along? -- Ed Huntress |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
"jeff" wrote in message news:hv99e.36247$qO6.1397@trnddc05... Bob Brock wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message ... Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm? This brings images to mind of daddy Bush sitting on AF-1 with his son and Clinton on the way to the Pope's funeral discussing politics. The million dollar question is, "Will gummer ever figure out that both political parties are bought out by big business?" It makes no difference which party is in control, the corporate interests will be served. Yea, but as long as the pot is stirred with a good us vs them battle neither side will notice. Those of us who are on neither side notice it all the time though. Watching the antics of the apologists is fun to watch. They only convince each other so no harm is done. |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
"Cliff" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:20:24 -0400, "Bob Brock" wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message . .. Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm? This brings images to mind of daddy Bush sitting on AF-1 with his son and Clinton on the way to the Pope's funeral discussing politics. The million dollar question is, "Will gummer ever figure out that both political parties are bought out by big business?" It makes no difference which party is in control, the corporate interests will be served. And gummer & the wingers will praise the lies ..... More interesting is the denial that they will exhibit to belive the lies. |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "George Willer" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: I think a lot of people watched the first Gulf War and had the same reaction. The recent one was a little different, but we've become used to more brutal movies in the meantime, as well. -- Ed Huntress I see now! His highness, Ed thinks there were two separate wars, rather than a continuation of the same one. What a jerk! So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time show? Unless I'm mistaken, the first war was about making Iraq pull back from their attempted conquest of Kuwait. The second one allegedly was about taking out supposed chemical, biological, and soon-to-be nuclear weapons that, somehow, were a direct threat to us. Do I have that right? Or was there some underlying theme going on that connected the two -- like, maybe, that the Bushes and Saddam just don't get along? Oh, they did get along quite well at one time. I think it is more hurt feelings over rejection. Hell hath no fury like a Bush scorned. -- Ed Huntress |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:16 -0400, Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:56 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote: (snip) No "WMDs", eh? So, little Cliffie, if you had a wife and you came home and caught her in bed with two men, could she try that lie with you? "Well, gee, Cliffie, it was only 2 men. It's practically the same thing as NO men, isn't it?" Your denial is amusing. Yours isn't. No "WMDs", eh? Depends on how you define "NO", eh, Cliffie? Does "NO = 0 in your book or does NO = 2? Since 2 were found in Iraq it must equal 2. Hey, that matches the number of versions of the lie you told in this thread too, doesn't it? Isn't that neat. But you had problems with your "wife", did you? Nope. Was it an issue of your sanity? Nah, it was an issue of your running from questions you couldn't handle. |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:15 -0400, Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:57 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote: (snip) Your denial is amusing. BTW, I see you're still hiding from the FACT that you've changed your lie in this thread. You are the one that keeps claiming that you know all about those "WMDs", right? And that the wingers don't live for lies? Or do they? Is that squirming getting uncomfortable, Cliffie? You can't seem to hold still long enough to answer that question. What's wrong, little Cliffie? Cat got your tongue? |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:15 -0400, Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:57 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote: (snip) Your denial is amusing. BTW, I see you're still hiding from the FACT that you've changed your lie in this thread. You are the one that keeps claiming that you know all about those "WMDs", right? And that the wingers don't live for lies? Or do they? I notice even your buddy Dan seems to have deserted you now that he's seen your lies are so transparent. :/ Poor little Cliffie. Nobody here to watch your back for you. |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:58:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Willcox" wrote in message dress.com... Ed Huntress wrote: Thanks for snipping the links http://www.kerryoniraq.com http://www.republicanfilms.com Next time you want something not snipped, tell us what not to snip, so that those of us who object to endless reiterations of previous exchanges don't clog up the joint. But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it. Yes they did. Clinton's presidential address ordering attacks on Iraq's WMD: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ton_12-16.html And how many American troops or Iraqi civilians were killed in that "war," Willcox? How small do these things have to be, and still convince you that they should be called "wars"? And Kerry voted for the 2nd Gulf War, so blame him too. No he didn't. Ooh, now that's some good politicking. Give him credit and help him dodge the blame at the same time. Get your facts straight. He voted to give the President authority to do so. Plausible deniability, eh? NO bucks stop there, eh? Teflon John Kerry. Nothin' sticks to him. Many people who voted in favor Hmmm, maybe you should reword that, and waffle a bit. Surely there are some weasel words you could come up with that could obscure it a bit more so that it would look like they didn't REALLY vote "in favor" of anything. Maybe they only thought they were thinking of voting in favor of something. Yeah, that could be it. They were mislead by George Bush. Yeah, pass the buck. That'll work. Blame Bush. expected Bush to have a little more discretion. Or maybe they really didn't, but knew they couldn't act fast enough if the situation demanded it. Only, the situation never demanded it. . . Why do I picture Charles Durning singing that song "Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep" from the movie The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas now? :/ |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:04:29 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:39:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Willcox" wrote in message ress.com... Ed Huntress wrote: OK, then, Willcox, tell us what most people in the US and around the world have been waiting to hear: What is it that you know about how Iraq constituted an immediate threat to the US, one that was substantial enough to go to war, and that no one else seems to know? We're all ears. Watch the videos of these guys telling you what a threat Saddam was: But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it. They were occupied with Clintons Impeachment and damage control Oh, Gunner, you have no idea what they were thinking. A war would have been just the thing to distract attention, for chrissake. Ayup..only problem Ed..is that the Republicans controlled Congress. Though Clintion did use up a fair amount of Monica Missiles and US lives. Remember Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti etc etc? You're so deep into full-time bull**** and your *own* damage control that you don't even know what you're saying anymore. Why don't you just get some sleep and give it a rest? You're trying to hold up about ten threads at once and the smoke is blowing out of every orifice in your body. Gunner says it's his pride. How about you? I said what? Asshole..is that the way you write for the big drug companies too? You just gave us a great big list of the things you're "proud of" about our war in Iraq...asshole. Twice, as a matter of fact. Yes indeed. Actual documented accomplishments. And my pride wasnt one of them. That was one of the most transparent twists Ive ever seen you pull. You taking a page from the Noids playbook? Only he would be that stupid. Well....up to then anyways. You're so screwed up that you don't even remember what you're typing anymore. Chuckle..your denial is touching. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:09:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "George Willer" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: I think a lot of people watched the first Gulf War and had the same reaction. The recent one was a little different, but we've become used to more brutal movies in the meantime, as well. -- Ed Huntress I see now! His highness, Ed thinks there were two separate wars, rather than a continuation of the same one. What a jerk! So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time show? Unless I'm mistaken, the first war was about making Iraq pull back from their attempted conquest of Kuwait. The second one allegedly was about taking out supposed chemical, biological, and soon-to-be nuclear weapons that, somehow, were a direct threat to us. You seemed to have missed out on the 10 yrs of continual violations of the Cease Fire agreement. and UN 1441 among others. Do I have that right? Or was there some underlying theme going on that connected the two -- like, maybe, that the Bushes and Saddam just don't get along? Ayup..your maco is buggy. Please recompile. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:58:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: And Kerry voted for the 2nd Gulf War, so blame him too. No he didn't. Get your facts straight. He voted to give the President authority to do so. Many people who voted in favor expected Bush to have a little more discretion. Or maybe they really didn't, but knew they couldn't act fast enough if the situation demanded it. Only, the situation never demanded it. . . -- Ed Huntress Your opinion...as naive as it is, is noted. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:18:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message news On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:27:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: As I told Proto..you might want to check out the history of warfare, and you can stick to the 20th century if you wish. I'm not asking about the history of warfare. I'm asking you about THIS war, the one in which we allegedly were protecting ourselves from an immanent threat of destruction by means of WMDs, and then, after killing tens of thousands of people over them, we found that they weren't there. What do you think? Was it worth it? Are you still proud? -- Ed Huntress Yes Eddy..it was worth it, and yes, Im still proud. Then, in your own way, you're part of the problem, Gunner. Or, in your own way, you are part of the problem, Ed. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bizzarro Gunner - aka "Cliff" | Metalworking | |||
Welcome back Gunner | Metalworking | |||
Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner - A Song | Woodworking | |||
Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner | Woodworking |