PDA

View Full Version : "219 GIs Wounded In Past Week"


the Talking Can
09-15-2004, 05:56 PM
.................. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/iraq/main643404.shtml)


219 GIs Wounded In Past Week

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2004


(CBS/AP) More than 200 U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq in the past week, the Pentagon said Tuesday, and the total since the invasion was launched in March 2003 is now 7,245.

Of the 219 wounded in the past week, 81 were returned to duty; the 138 others were not.

The Pentagon generally reports its wounded totals each week. Fatality totals are updated daily.

The number of Americans killed and wounded has grown rapidly amid an intensifying and increasingly effective insurgency. There were more wounded over the past five months — about 4,000 — than in the first 13 months of the war, when there were about 3,300, according to Pentagon reports.

The number of Americans killed as of Tuesday was 1,018, by the Pentagon's count. That includes three civilian employees of the Department of Defense. It does not include Army Spc. Keith M. Maupin, 20, of Batavia, Ohio, who was captured April 9. His fate has not been officially resolved.

©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Loki
09-15-2004, 07:28 PM
respect and love to them and their families.

sua sponte.

trndobrd
09-15-2004, 07:36 PM
lovely news, thanks.

RINGLEADER
09-15-2004, 07:39 PM
How many bad guys were wounded? How many were killed?

War is hell. Even the war on terror.

jettio
09-15-2004, 08:00 PM
Major Combat Operations are Over.

Mission Accomplished.

Donger
09-15-2004, 08:06 PM
Major Combat Operations are Over.

They are.

Mission Accomplished.

Considering the USS Abraham Lincoln requested the banner that said that in recognition of her completion of her mission, yes, it was mission accomplished.

You twits need some new material.

Loki
09-15-2004, 08:13 PM
They are.



Considering the USS Abraham Lincoln requested the banner that said that in recognition of her completion of her mission, yes, it was mission accomplished.

You twits need some new material.

ROFL

good one donger.

jettio
09-15-2004, 08:19 PM
They are.



[B]Considering the USS Abraham Lincoln requested the banner that said that in recognition of her completion of her mission, yes, it was mission accomplished.[B]

You twits need some new material.

Would you like more Kool-Aid. :BLVD:

That speech was broadcast live on national TV. Have another dose. :BLVD:

Today's flavor is gullible grape. Enjoy. TinkyWinky

Donger
09-15-2004, 08:23 PM
Would you like more Kool-Aid. :BLVD:

That speech was broadcast live on national TV. Have another dose. :BLVD:

Today's flavor is gullible grape. Enjoy. TinkyWinky

No thanks. I prefer my kool-aid "fact flavor." Apparently, you prefer your's "uninformed flavor."

Loki
09-15-2004, 08:24 PM
Would you like more Kool-Aid. :BLVD:

That speech was broadcast live on national TV. Have another dose. :BLVD:

Today's flavor is gullible grape. Enjoy. TinkyWinky

i actually laughed at that...
tinky winky was a really nice touch.

Duck Dog
09-15-2004, 08:50 PM
And God bless them all.

jettio
09-15-2004, 09:07 PM
i actually laughed at that...
tinky winky was a really nice touch.

Thanks. :)

However, expressing admiration for tinky winky is risky in a peacetime "don't ask, don't tell" military, you're good to go for now in wartime, but be careful.

Duck Dog
09-15-2004, 09:13 PM
Major Combat Operations are Over.

Mission Accomplished.

How nice of you to show concern for them.

jettio
09-15-2004, 09:14 PM
No thanks. I prefer my kool-aid "fact flavor." Apparently, you prefer your's "uninformed flavor."

Truth Serum?

That is pretty embarrassing, you could do well to visit the Hall of Fame and find some examples of quality smack.

Duck Dog
09-15-2004, 09:20 PM
Truth Serum?

That is pretty embarrassing, you could do well to visit the Hall of Fame and find some examples of quality smack.

Say's the guy who use's emoticons between each sentence.

Donger
09-15-2004, 09:21 PM
Truth Serum?

That is pretty embarrassing, you could do well to visit the Hall of Fame and find some examples of quality smack.

No offense, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to differentiate between the truth and the hackneyed DNC talking points.

But please, do continue. It's moderately amusing, albeit somewhat sad. Kind of like watching a three-legged dog try to keep up with a greyhound.

Loki
09-15-2004, 09:26 PM
Thanks. :)

However, expressing admiration for tinky winky is risky in a peacetime "don't ask, don't tell" military, you're good to go for now in wartime, but be careful.

ummmm... no.

"admiration" is far too strong a word.
i was more on about the color association. gullible grape, purple creature.

nevermind.

jettio
09-15-2004, 09:43 PM
No offense, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to differentiate between the truth and the hackneyed DNC talking points.

But please, do continue. It's moderately amusing, albeit somewhat sad. Kind of like watching a three-legged dog try to keep up with a greyhound.

I do take offense at people that make false accusations.

I write my own posts and rely on my own thoughts, and cite anything that is sourced.

Are you the greyhound?

And don't be sad for me, be sad for the troops that get killed or maimed because of our President's duplicity and incompetence.

Why don't you join the military, greyhound? I am sure that they could use someone as superior as you.

jettio
09-15-2004, 09:47 PM
No thanks. I prefer my kool-aid "fact flavor." Apparently, you prefer your's "uninformed flavor."

:clap: ROFL :clap:

Go Greyhound Go.


That had to be one of the funniest posts ever.

Good thing we have the Greyhound. :thumb:

The Pedestrian
09-15-2004, 10:25 PM
Wait a minute...you're saying that people get wounded in war?! :eek: I thought it was supposed to be a prance through the flowery fields towards a magic castle where everyone sits down and "talks it over" over a cup of tea! I would've never allowed this if I knew people got injured!


Seriously, though, my condolences go out to the soldiers and their families. I hope those who were not fatally wounded have full recoveries and have many more years ahead, and I hope that those who died from their wounds rest peacefully while their families carry on their legacy.


FWIW, the major missions may be accomplished and over, but there are still loose ends. Just because the major missions are over doesn't mean the war is.

Donger
09-15-2004, 10:29 PM
I do take offense at people that make false accusations.

I write my own posts and rely on my own thoughts, and cite anything that is sourced.

Are you the greyhound?

And don't be sad for me, be sad for the troops that get killed or maimed because of our President's duplicity and incompetence.

Why don't you join the military, greyhound? I am sure that they could use someone as superior as you.

The greyhound is the truth.

I'll let you figure out who's the three-legged dog.

I don't blame you for being ignorant of it, but I do blame you for being unwilling or incapable of learning/accepting it.

beavis
09-15-2004, 10:35 PM
The greyhound is the truth.

I'll let you figure out who's the three-legged dog.

I don't blame you for being ignorant of it, but I do blame you for being unwilling or incapable of learning/accepting it.
I think you're forgetting they can't grasp any concept based in reality. I've seen a three legged dog before.

I think you would have been better off going with a winged pegasus angle there.

SBK
09-16-2004, 12:51 AM
Will these wounded soldiers all get purple hearts even though they didn't throw a grenade into a rice patty?

Pants
09-16-2004, 01:00 AM
How many bad guys were wounded? How many were killed?

War is hell. Even the war on terror.

Hahahahahaha, oh wait you are not kidding.

"Ah didn know dem dam a-rab terrists wure hidin dere in dat I-rack"

Reality check, brother, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Defeating terrorism is not the cause our boys are dying for.

SBK
09-16-2004, 01:08 AM
Hahahahahaha, oh wait you are not kidding.

"Ah didn know dem dam a-rab terrists wure hidin dere in dat I-rack"

Reality check, brother, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Defeating terrorism is not the cause our boys are dying for.

So I am to believe that Al Queda is everywhere BUT Iraq, and second, we aren't fighting the Iraqi army anymore are we? Who are we fighting? I believe they are called terrorists-----numnuts:banghead:

DenverChief
09-16-2004, 01:17 AM
So I am to believe that Al Queda is everywhere BUT Iraq, and second, we aren't fighting the Iraqi army anymore are we? Who are we fighting? I believe they are called terrorists-----numnuts:banghead:

uh maybe they are Republican Guard gone underground? that would make the Iraq military no? Were the Vichy French terrorists or military insurgents?:hmmm:

Pants
09-16-2004, 01:24 AM
So I am to believe that Al Queda is everywhere BUT Iraq, and second, we aren't fighting the Iraqi army anymore are we? Who are we fighting? I believe they are called terrorists-----numnuts:banghead:

Are you retarded or just pretending? These "terrorists" are a DIRECT cause of US invading Iraq... As in, they wouldn't be there to begin with had we not invaded.

And no, Iraq was not directly involved with Al Queda, Saudi Arabia however was and and still is.

I can't believe you are eating up all that bullshit thrown at you by Bush administration. The fact they FAILED to protect us from 9/11 after ignoring all the facts and warnings and then LYING to us about WMD's somehow doesn't find it's way to your gullible ass.

SBK
09-16-2004, 01:39 AM
I guess since we invaded Manhattan the terrorists decided to go there too didn't they?

Pants
09-16-2004, 01:44 AM
Wow, that was the weakest possible argument. Why can't you accpet the facts about Bush's administration I just listed? Why can't find an argument against them?

Like I said in my previous post, the terrorist who "invaded" Manattan had NOTHING to do with why we invaded Iraq.

Are you saying there was an uprising in Iraq before the US invaded?

No, people were living their lives. Under a crazed maniac dictator and his crazy maniac sons, but they were living normal lives (to a degree).

OldTownChief
09-16-2004, 02:15 AM
.................. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/iraq/main643404.shtml)


219 GIs Wounded In Past Week

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2004


(CBS/AP) More than 200 U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq in the past week, the Pentagon said Tuesday, and the total since the invasion was launched in March 2003 is now 7,245.

Of the 219 wounded in the past week, 81 were returned to duty; the 138 others were not.

The Pentagon generally reports its wounded totals each week. Fatality totals are updated daily.

The number of Americans killed and wounded has grown rapidly amid an intensifying and increasingly effective insurgency. There were more wounded over the past five months — about 4,000 — than in the first 13 months of the war, when there were about 3,300, according to Pentagon reports.

The number of Americans killed as of Tuesday was 1,018, by the Pentagon's count. That includes three civilian employees of the Department of Defense. It does not include Army Spc. Keith M. Maupin, 20, of Batavia, Ohio, who was captured April 9. His fate has not been officially resolved.

©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


A moment of silence for my Dad (the biggest Chief fan that ever lived) and all the American Soldiers that have died in the line of duty protecting total fu*kwads like the talking shit can, that never learned the meaning of the word Honor. This ones for you Dad.


http://home.earthlink.net/~eglweb/cpstuff/DadsWWIIMemorialpic.jpg

Pants
09-16-2004, 02:17 AM
I hope you are not talking about me when you say "shit can"

OldTownChief
09-16-2004, 02:26 AM
Hey jettio...........
You can use a thread started by shithead about the loss of life as a tool to talk "smack"? You sick ****. How much I would love to meet you face to face one day. Your stupid looking sig pic would look like one of my daughters tea parties.

OldTownChief
09-16-2004, 02:28 AM
I hope you are not talking about me when you say "shit can"

I was talking about the the thread starter that LOVES to report every American death.

Pants
09-16-2004, 02:34 AM
Old Chief, you must understand, I'm sure he feels sorry for every lost American soldier. I think he's just trying to prove a point.

But here's what I feel.

I have the deepest respect towards the serving men and women. But I think way too many have died in Iraq from our president's misleadings and that is what me angry. I don't understand why you are angry at him for simply posting the articles. If I were you, I'd be angry at the president for sending them there while lying to our faces.

OldTownChief
09-16-2004, 03:04 AM
Old Chief, you must understand, I'm sure he feels sorry for every lost American soldier. I think he's just trying to prove a point.

But here's what I feel.

I have the deepest respect towards the serving men and women. But I think way too many have died in Iraq from our president's misleadings and that is what me angry. I don't understand why you are angry at him for simply posting the articles. If I were you, I'd be angry at the president for sending them there while lying to our faces.


I don't understand how you feel. Maybe you should post more threads about death.

That's all you lefties can use in a time of war, you live your life in fear that someday you may have to fight for freedom, so if you trash the elected American President and blame him enough to gather support so as to buy you enough time to run and hide behind your mommy's apron until it all goes away. You had eight years to get us to this point in time, now go back to the porta-potty and we'll make things safe for you to come back out and play.....run along

the Talking Can
09-16-2004, 06:17 AM
A moment of silence for my Dad (the biggest Chief fan that ever lived) and all the American Soldiers that have died in the line of duty protecting total fu*kwads like the talking shit can, that never learned the meaning of the word Honor. This ones for you Dad.


sorry, I forgot only republicans are American.....excuse me while I go dance for joy at the thought of Americans dying...for dinner, I'm going to eat some children while finger painting a portrait of Stalin, my one true love..."Workers of the world, UNITE!"

this forum devolves by the ****ing minute....not even a minimal decency exists here anymore....I doubt American Soldiers died so that you could run around yelling and cursing at people and telling them to shut up....a bizarre notion of democracy and sacrifice, for sure....

Duck Dog
09-16-2004, 07:59 AM
sorry, I forgot only republicans are American.....excuse me while I go dance for joy at the thought of Americans dying...for dinner, I'm going to eat some children while finger painting a portrait of Stalin, my one true love..."Workers of the world, UNITE!"

this forum devolves by the ****ing minute....not even a minimal decency exists here anymore....I doubt American Soldiers died so that you could run around yelling and cursing at people and telling them to shut up....a bizarre notion of democracy and sacrifice, for sure....


No body is dancing for joy about it. But how about just one liberal or one democrat on here saying something like;

"Bless these brave servicemen and women. Bless their families and god speed them home."

You can't do it. And none of you have. You just use their sacrifice to justify your hatred of Bush. And for that, shame on you.

Cochise
09-16-2004, 08:12 AM
I like how libs whine about how Saudi Arabia is supposedly consorting with terrorists. Well, so is Iran. How about we invade both places? What would the libs say then?

ChiTown
09-16-2004, 08:14 AM
No body is dancing for joy about it. But how about just one liberal or one democrat on here saying something like;

"Bless these brave servicemen and women. Bless their families and god speed them home."

You can't do it. And none of you have. You just use their sacrifice to justify your hatred of Bush. And for that, shame on you.

:clap: That was an awesome reply.

Cochise
09-16-2004, 08:17 AM
No body is dancing for joy about it. But how about just one liberal or one democrat on here saying something like;

"Bless these brave servicemen and women. Bless their families and god speed them home."

You can't do it. And none of you have. You just use their sacrifice to justify your hatred of Bush. And for that, shame on you.

Damn right :clap:

Seems like most of them would rather give a "I wish I could get one of those blue-eyed motherf*cker's in these sights" than to utter some words of respect for their service and sacrifice.

memyselfI
09-16-2004, 08:25 AM
They are.



Considering the USS Abraham Lincoln requested the banner that said that in recognition of her completion of her mission, yes, it was mission accomplished.

You twits need some new material.

Proof please cuz I believe you need to recheck your history. The WH has admitted to the banner being theirs.

'For months, the Bush administration denied that it was responsible for the banner, blaming the aircraft carrier crew itself. Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea.


"We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/politics/main614998.shtml

I'll find more sources if you find the one quoted unbelievable.

Donger
09-16-2004, 08:29 AM
Proof please cuz I believe you need to recheck your history. The WH has admitted to the banner being theirs.

"We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/politics/main614998.shtml

I'll find more sources if you find the one quoted unbelievable.

The Navy requested it, and the WH arranged for it to be made and brought to the carrier. I hope you understand that it's rather hard for an aircraft carrier at sea to make such a banner...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

memyselfI
09-16-2004, 08:31 AM
The Navy requested it, and the WH arranged for it to be made and brought to the carrier. I hope you understand that it's rather hard for an aircraft carrier at sea to make such a banner...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

So you are saying your source, which is a year prior to Fleischer's admission, is more accurate? :hmmm:

jettio
09-16-2004, 08:31 AM
Hey jettio...........
You can use a thread started by shithead about the loss of life as a tool to talk "smack"? You sick ****. How much I would love to meet you face to face one day. Your stupid looking sig pic would look like one of my daughters tea parties.


The Bushianandos spend most of their time ignoring deaths and injuries from the Stooges folly in Iraq, how was I to know that this was the once a year solemnity thread?

As for being inappropriate dragging your dad's corpse into a discussion that already had the features that you are now complaining about was quite degrading and especially inappropriate. :thailor:

If your dad was a man of honor, he sure did not pass it on to you, he might be interested in learning how the National Intelligence Estimate and its evaluation of the prospects in Iraq are very much at variance with the Bush-Cheney campaign trail BS.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9674407.htm

No surprise there, Bush-Cheney are not noted for their honor, especially
when it comes to favorite topic to lie about, Iraq.


As to meeting you, no thanks. When your daughter is ready to have a real tea party, make the most of it, tiger. :hump:

Donger
09-16-2004, 08:32 AM
So you are saying your source which is a year prior to Fleischer's admission is more accurate? :hmmm:

They say the same thing. No one is denying that the WH produced the sign, at the Navy's request.

jettio
09-16-2004, 08:32 AM
U.S. report offers gloomy opinion of Iraq's future

Article's tone contrasts with Bush's view

By DOUGLAS JEHL The New York Times


WASHINGTON — A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said.

The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.

“There's a significant amount of pessimism,” said one government official who had read the document, which runs about 50 pages.

The officials declined to discuss the key judgments — concise, carefully written statements of intelligence analysts' conclusions — included in the document.

The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, acting director of central intelligence.

Such estimates can be requested by the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence council under George Tenet, who stepped down as director of central intelligence on July 9, the government officials said.

As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate stands in contrast to statements by Bush administration officials in recent days, including comments Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made in Iraq.

“You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can't be done,” McClellan said at a news briefing. “And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people have proven them wrong, because they are determined to have a free and peaceful future.”

President Bush, who was briefed on the new intelligence estimate, has not significantly changed the tenor of his public remarks on the war's course over the summer, consistently emphasizing progress while acknowledging that difficulties still lie ahead.

Bush's opponent, Sen. John Kerry, criticized the administration's optimistic public position on Iraq on Wednesday and questioned whether it would be possible to hold elections in January as planned.

“I think it is very difficult to see today how you're going to distribute ballots in places like Fallujah, and Ramadi, and Najaf and other parts of the country, without having established the security,” Kerry said in a call to radio talk-show host Don Imus.

“I know that the people who are supposed to run that election believe that they need a longer period of time and greater security before they can even begin to do it, and they just can't do it at this point in time. So I'm not sure the president is being honest with the American people about that situation either at this point.”

The situation in Iraq prompted harsh comments from Republicans as well as Democrats at a hearing into the shift of spending from reconstruction to security.

GOP Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called it “exasperating for anybody looking at this from any vantage point.” Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, said of the overall lack of spending: “It's beyond pitiful; it's beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous.”

A spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment on any new intelligence estimate on Iraq.

Each of the officials who described the assessment said they had read the document or had been briefed on its findings.

The officials included persons who have been critical and people who have been supportive of the administration's policies in Iraq.

The officials, however, insisted they not be identified by name, agency, or branch of government because the document remains highly classified.

The new estimate revisits issues raised by the intelligence council in less formal assessments in January 2003, the officials said. Those documents remain classified, but one warned that the building of democracy in Iraq would be a long, difficult and turbulent prospect that might include internal conflict, a government official said.

The new estimate by the National Intelligence Council was formally approved at a meeting in July by McLaughlin and the heads of the other intelligence agencies, the officials said.

Its pessimistic conclusions were reached even before the recent worsening of the security situation in Iraq, which has included a sharp increase in attacks on American troops and in deaths of Iraqi civilians as well as rebel fighters.

Last week, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that significant areas of Iraq remained effectively outside American control, and said it might be some time before Iraqi forces, with American support, could regain control.

Like the new National Intelligence Estimate, the assessments completed in January 2003 were prepared by the National Intelligence Council.

The council is charged with reflecting the consensus of the intelligence agencies. The January 2003 assessments were not National Intelligence Estimates, however, which means they were probably not approved by the intelligence chiefs.

The new National Intelligence Estimate is the first on Iraq since the one completed in October 2002 on Iraq's illicit weapons program.

The criticism over the document has left the CIA and other agencies wary of being wrong again in judgments about Iraq.

jettio
09-16-2004, 08:35 AM
I don't understand how you feel. Maybe you should post more threads about death.

That's all you lefties can use in a time of war, you live your life in fear that someday you may have to fight for freedom, so if you trash the elected American President and blame him enough to gather support so as to buy you enough time to run and hide behind your mommy's apron until it all goes away. You had eight years to get us to this point in time, now go back to the porta-potty and we'll make things safe for you to come back out and play.....run along

Oh so you don't intend to be solemn at all about deaths and casualites in Iraq, you would rather they not be discussed at all, just kept quiet.

Yet, you want to get holier-than thou and drag corpses into the discussion.

Explain.

memyselfI
09-16-2004, 08:36 AM
They say the same thing. No one is denying that the WH produced the sign, at the Navy's request.

I think Fleischer indicated it was their idea. Whether he means the sign or the highly choreographed bogus hoopla surrounding the false sign is the question...:hmmm:

Chief Henry
09-16-2004, 08:38 AM
I think Fleischer indicated it was their idea. Whether he means the sign or the highly choreographed bogus hoopla surrounding the false sign is the question...:hmmm:


When did you start thinking? :hmmm:

Donger
09-16-2004, 08:38 AM
I think Fleischer indicated it was their idea. Whether he means the sign or the highly choreographed bogus hoopla surrounding the false sign is the question...:hmmm:

Well, you and CBS would be wrong.

Who woulda thunk that?

memyselfI
09-16-2004, 08:46 AM
Well, you and CBS would be wrong.

Who woulda thunk that?

Yeah, if they were the only ones who reported this...but they weren't. So try again. :p

Donger
09-16-2004, 08:47 AM
Yeah, if they were the only ones who reported this...but they weren't. So try again. :p

Prove me wrong. Find a source that says that the banner was the WH's idea.

memyselfI
09-16-2004, 08:52 AM
Prove me wrong. Find a source that says that the banner was the WH's idea.

I gave you Ari Fleischer. In the long run it doesn't matter whose 'idea' it was. I'm sure the Navy did not orchestrate the colors on the ship, the perfect lighting, the placement of the podium in relation to the banner...

DUHbya's 'advance team' DID. So while Cons would like to divert the attention regarding the banner to the Navy as being their idea that is hardly the point. The point was the banner was made by the WH and hung by the WH based on their choreography.

Just like Chalabi had an idea that SH had WMD and 'gave' it to the WH...but he is not responsible for what the WH did with that idea. :hmmm:

Cochise
09-16-2004, 08:56 AM
I gave you Ari Fleischer. In the long run it doesn't matter whose 'idea' it was.

:LOL:

Donger: Prove me wrong, give me a source

Meme: Well it doesn't matter who's idea it was

Chief Henry
09-16-2004, 08:57 AM
I gave you Ari Fleischer. In the long run it doesn't matter whose 'idea' it was. I'm sure the Navy did not orchestrate the colors on the ship, the perfect lighting, the placement of the podium in relation to the banner...

DUHbya's 'advance team' DID. So while Cons would like to divert the attention regarding the banner to the Navy as being their idea that is hardly the point. The point was the banner was made by the WH and hung by the WH based on their choreography.

Just like Chalabi had an idea that SH had WMD and 'gave' it to the WH...but he is not responsible for what the WH did with that idea. :hmmm:


Just another rant by a DD (Desperate Dem) only this DD can be
a Desperate DUHM.

Donger
09-16-2004, 08:58 AM
I gave you Ari Fleischer.

No, you gave me a CBS' take on it.

All Ari said was that "We put it up. We made the sign."

From that, CBS (and I guess you) make the leap to "Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea."

How they reached that conclusion from Ari's statement is beyond me.

jettio
09-16-2004, 09:10 AM
That speech was broadcast live on national TV.

It was an address to the entire world.

Bush is a retard and woe to the world if it wakes up November 3rd and realizes that the greatest country on the planet was not wise enough to replace an obviously incompetent and dishonest fool.

Donger
09-16-2004, 09:18 AM
That speech was broadcast live on national TV.

It was an address to the entire world.

Is anyone disputing that?

patteeu
09-16-2004, 09:34 AM
uh maybe they are Republican Guard gone underground? that would make the Iraq military no? Were the Vichy French terrorists or military insurgents?:hmmm:

Neither, they were collaborators.

memyselfI
09-16-2004, 09:40 AM
:LOL:

Donger: Prove me wrong, give me a source

Meme: Well it doesn't matter who's idea it was

Ah, but it was the WH who originally declaired 'who' thought of the idea 'did not matter' as they've been all over the place in describing, defending, and deceiving about "bannergate."

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/dickerson/article/0,9565,536170,00.html

Bush's 'Bannergate' Shuffle
The White House dance over that 'Mission Accomplished' banner may portend a broader credibility problem

Saturday, Nov. 01, 2003

When George Bush landed on the deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln last spring, Democrats fibrillated. They denounced the scenes of a triumphant Commander-in-Chief surrounded by cheering troops as crassly choreographed for 30-second campaign ads, and fumed that the whole stunt had been paid for by the taxpayers. Now,the same critics can't wait to cue the tape. As American casualties mount and bombs shake Baghdad, the image of Bush's flight suit strut under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" is so discordant, his opponents believe, it says more about the administration's arrogance and incompetence than any stump speech could. "Never has government money been spent so well," snickers one operative for a Democratic presidential candidate.

The perfect photo-op has flopped. Engineered by the most image-conscious White House in history, the carrier landing portrayed Bush as master and commander, an ideal bookend to his spontaneous performance with a bullhorn in the rubble of the World Trade Center after 9/11. Instead, the hothouse tableau already sharply at odds with the reality in Iraq did even more damage to White House credibility last week. Asked at a news conference whether the "Mission Accomplished" banner had been prematurely boastful, the president backed away from it, saying it had been put up by the sailors and airmen of the Lincoln to celebrate their homecoming after toppling Saddam's regime.

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech.

The administration's two-step was quickly dubbed "bannergate," winning a suffix that the partisan and the bored often use to puff up the puniest of non-scandals. But while the banner business means little by itself, the shifting and shading could become a symbol of Bush's suddenly growing credibility problem, coming as it does in the wake of the controversy over claims in the president's State of the Union address and other pre-war speeches about Iraq's yet-to-materialize weapons of mass destruction and leaks from White House officials about the identity of a CIA operative. Errant spin also undermines White House efforts to insist its account of post-war progress in Iraq is the most accurate one. "At a time when the economy is getting better and our policies are being vindicated," says a White House official, "this kind of stuff is killing us."

The president's opponents surely hope so. "He blamed the sailors for something that his advance team staged," said General Wes Clark. "I guess that next thing we are going to hear is that the sailors told him to wear the flight suit and prance around on the aircraft carrier. This is a president who does not want to take accountability." White House officials dismiss criticism from the president's opponents. "They have ten different positions on the war that they can't get straight," said a senior Bush aide. "I'm glad they can keep a single position on the banner." Communications Director Dan Bartlett, who approved the hanging of the controversial banner does not back away from it or the carrier celebration. "That was an important moment to mark in time," he says, noting the speed, bravery and success with which the soldiers and airmen prosecuted the war. "We're not going to take anything away from celebrating them. There are no regrets."

Some Bush allies are not so steadfast. As criticism of the president's visit to the Lincoln has grown, so too has the number of voices from the president's own camp who argue that, regardless of what message may have been sent to the troops, the White House sent an even bigger one of self-satisfaction and boastfulness to the rest of the world. The image-making may backfire for the White House because it broke one of its own cardinal rules. "When you're in the end zone act like you've been there," say senior officials of the confident repose they strike after any White House triumph. But after Saddam's statue fell, says one administration official picking up on the football analogy, the Bush team staged "an end zone dance. The problem is that they spiked the ball on the ten before they crossed the goal line." In the end, no matter how good the celebration may have looked, it could still be ruled a fumble.

Cochise
09-16-2004, 09:50 AM
Ah, but it was the WH who originally declaired 'who' thought of the idea 'did not matter' as they've been all over the place in describing, defending, and deceiving about "bannergate."


So you agree with the white house line, that who thought of the idea does not matter. Glad I was able to help you clear this up.






:spock:

memyselfI
09-16-2004, 10:02 AM
So you agree with the white house line, that who thought of the idea does not matter. Glad I was able to help you clear this up.






:spock:

Oh, I'm quite certain there is no way in hell the Navy would have the audacity to suggest the entire show as choreographed. Perhaps they mentioned they would like a tasteful banner similiar to the ones that DUHbya has at his events...

it was the WHITE HOUSE who then turned it into a circus. ROFL

Regardless, if it was the Navy and the WH agreed knowing that the Mission in Iraq had not been accomplished then they were complicit in a deception...

gee, I'm sure that was by accident. ROFL

Donger
09-16-2004, 10:10 AM
Regardless, if it was the Navy and the WH agreed knowing that the Mission in Iraq had not been accomplished then they were complicit in a deception...

What makes you think that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was in reference to the "Mission in Iraq?"

HC_Chief
09-16-2004, 10:16 AM
What makes you think that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was in reference to the "Mission in Iraq?"

Any excuse to bitch and moan.

OldTownChief
09-16-2004, 12:19 PM
Oh so you don't intend to be solemn at all about deaths and casualites in Iraq, you would rather they not be discussed at all, just kept quiet.

Yet, you want to get holier-than thou and drag corpses into the discussion.

Explain.


Have you or the can reported some of the good things happening in Iraq.

Explain

Pants
09-16-2004, 12:32 PM
"God bless the troops in Iraq and their families and godspeed to them."

Why do you guys think that if we don't support Bush we don't support the troops? Why do you think the deaths of all those soldiers in Iraq are making it safer for us, when in reality it's a perfect recruitment propaganda for Al Queda?

Why do you bother arguing about some stupid banner (it doesn't matter who it was made/ordered by, it was used as propaganda by the pres.)?

How about all you conservatives answer these?

Why do you support a president who LIED to your faces?
Why do you support a president whos lies led to DEATHS of 100's of soldiers causing grief to 100's of families?
Why do you support a president who FAILED to protect our country DESPITE all the clear warnings (hope you saw and read the 9/11 Commission report)?
Why do you think he will be able to protect us better than Kerry? His record SHOWS he can't protect us for SHIT. Do you like him becuase he invaded Iraq (which had nothing to do with the terrs.) and empowered Al Queda with powerful propaganda material to recruit more insane people?

How come when Clinton lied about something as miniscule as getting a BJ, he was being IMPEACHED, but when Bush lied to the whole country affecting the lives of 1000's of people, people called him a hero?

Oh and of course libirals wouldn't like US invading Iran or Saudi Arabia, that is not how you eradicate terrorism, that is how you give it more strength. When will you stop being so blind and gullible and see that for yourself. Your arguments are rediculous, all you can do is say how heroic our troops are, well no shit they are, but they are dying for an unknown cause.

Baby Lee
09-16-2004, 12:36 PM
And no, Iraq was not directly involved with Al Queda, Saudi Arabia however was and and still is.
WTF do you mean when you say 'Saudi Arabia?' Methinks it's nothing more than, 'something Bush didn't do.'

Pants
09-16-2004, 12:41 PM
WTF do you mean when you say 'Saudi Arabia?' Methinks it's nothing more than, 'something Bush didn't do.'

I was saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Brock
09-16-2004, 12:42 PM
Oh and of course libirals wouldn't like US invading Iran or Saudi Arabia, that is not how you eradicate terrorism, that is how you give it more strength.

Okay, so how DO you eradicate terrorism?

Pants
09-16-2004, 12:44 PM
Okay, so how DO you eradicate terrorism?

Answer MY questions first. And I'll answer mine.

Donger
09-16-2004, 12:45 PM
His record SHOWS he can't protect us for SHIT.

Really? How many terrorist attacks have there been in the US since 9/11?

Kraut
09-16-2004, 12:48 PM
His record SHOWS he can't protect us for SHIT.
Ok. When was the last time since 9/11 that we have had an attack. I feel pretty safe. Show me an example where you are less safe now then you were then.

Pants
09-16-2004, 12:48 PM
Really? How many terrorist attacks have there been in the US since 9/11?

I thought 9/11 was enough. I guess it's not...

Kraut
09-16-2004, 12:49 PM
I thought 9/11 was enough. I guess it's not...
Why cant you answer the question?

Kraut
09-16-2004, 12:50 PM
I should have known he wouldn't answer it.

HC_Chief
09-16-2004, 12:51 PM
ROFL - you just put yourself in the "oh, you're one of <i>those</i> people" (smile politely and walk away) category, Metrolike.


Bush, after 8 months in office, shoulders complete blame for decades of failing policy in regards to AQ? hahaha

Donger
09-16-2004, 12:51 PM
How about all you conservatives answer these?

Why do you support a president who LIED to your faces?

What makes you think he lied?

Why do you support a president whos lies led to DEATHS of 100's of soldiers causing grief to 100's of families?

See above.

Why do you support a president who FAILED to protect our country DESPITE all the clear warnings (hope you saw and read the 9/11 Commission report)?

I blame neither President Bush nor President Clinton for 9/11. I blame the terrorists.

Why do you think he will be able to protect us better than Kerry? His record SHOWS he can't protect us for SHIT. Do you like him becuase he invaded Iraq (which had nothing to do with the terrs.) and empowered Al Queda with powerful propaganda material to recruit more insane people?

As I said before, Bush has done a good job of protecting us from terrorism. Proof? No terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. I think that Bush will continue to do a better job than Kerry would, considering that Kerry proposes fighting a more "sensitive" war on terror and returning to a Clintonesque style of looking at terrorism (i.e., a law enforcement issue with occasional military action).

Brock
09-16-2004, 12:55 PM
Answer MY questions first. And I'll answer mine.

Looks like your answer is "I don't know".

Pants
09-16-2004, 12:56 PM
I should have known he wouldn't answer it.

It's a loaded question, bud. There have been 0 attacks after 9/11. But you seem to shy away from the fact that Bush failed to protect us BEFORE 9/11. Why? Why do you think that if Kerry was in office we'd get more attacks. You are speculating, while I present you with a fact.

Clearly our intelligence services are doing a great job. But I guarantee you Bush made their job harder by invading Iraq.

Now answer my questions, Kraut. Oh wait you CAN"T your head is full of Bush administration's propaganda BS they feed to you so well.

How about you guys ANSWER my questions instead of avoiding them.

Pants
09-16-2004, 12:58 PM
Looks like your answer is "I don't know".

I do have an answer, you'll get when you answer my question. I'm tired of being the one who's always answering. Don't you think it's kind of unfair?

Brock
09-16-2004, 12:59 PM
I do have an answer, you'll get when you answer my question. I'm tired of being the one who's always answering. Don't you think it's kind of unfair?

I'd think if you had the master plan for eradicating terrorism, you'd be eager to share it, and stop the partisan sniping. But I guess that isn't the Kerry way.

Radar Chief
09-16-2004, 01:01 PM
It's a loaded question, bud. There have been 0 attacks after 9/11. But you seem to shy away from the fact that Bush failed to protect us BEFORE 9/11.

I believe what he did was simply continue security provisions put in place by Clinton. So are you saying Clinton did nothing to protect us?

Kraut
09-16-2004, 01:03 PM
It's a loaded question, bud. There have been 0 attacks after 9/11. But you seem to shy away from the fact that Bush failed to protect us BEFORE 9/11. Why? Why do you think that if Kerry was in office we'd get more attacks. You are speculating, while I present you with a fact.

Clearly our intelligence services are doing a great job. But I guarantee you Bush made their job harder by invading Iraq.

Now answer my questions, Kraut. Oh wait you CAN"T your head is full of Bush administration's propaganda BS they feed to you so well.

How about you guys ANSWER my questions instead of avoiding them.
So you feel that Bush alone was the sole reason we were attacked on 9/11? No other President down the line before him was at fault in their own way for not seeing the terrorist problem in the right light. Im not gonna sit here and say that Clinton was the reason that we were weaker and were attacked. If the 9/11 Panel proved anything it was that there was more then one reason for the lack of security before 9/11. If you want to blame somebody for 9/11 why don't you point the finger at OBL.

Radar Chief
09-16-2004, 01:06 PM
Clearly our intelligence services are doing a great job. But I guarantee you Bush made their job harder by invading Iraq.


Really? How can you “guarantee” that? Gotta link?

Baby Lee
09-16-2004, 01:06 PM
I was saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Got it. So "Saudi Arabia however was and and still is" was just nonsensical, post-point mumbling. That was my thought as well.

Kraut
09-16-2004, 01:07 PM
And by the way i am a conservative who has not been spoon fed by the Bush propaganda machine as you put it. I feel he has done a few things wrong and will name them if you want. I do not vote straight party lines and as a matter of fact 2000 was the first election that I actually voted for a Republican for President. Please in the future try not to insult me too much by making assumptions about somebody that you don't even know.

Pants
09-16-2004, 01:09 PM
I believe what he did was simply continue security provisions put in place by Clinton. So are you saying Clinton did nothing to protect us?

You can believe anything you want, Bush got a report saying we were going to be attacked. What did he do? Go read the commission report, please.

To satisfy you, Brock Landers:

To fight terrorsim:

Establish a international intelligence network with a common database for all intellegence services to use. For that you need allies (lost by Bush in his awesome "war on Iraq" move). Do not invade a whole country hoping it will stop the terrorsim. Terrorsim is a tactic carried out by cells, not by countries. Fight the cells using the intelligence services and special forces (i.e. SEALs, etc.) And fianlly do not ignore warnings of terrorists attacks.

Now, Donger what makes me thing Bush lied? The fact that his argument for going into Iraq was WMD's (none ever found) and now, since they didn't fight shit, it's to fight terrorism. That's a pretty big lie to get what you want, if you ask me.

Pants
09-16-2004, 01:11 PM
And by the way i am a conservative who has not been spoon fed by the Bush propaganda machine as you put it. I feel he has done a few things wrong and will name them if you want. I do not vote straight party lines and as a matter of fact 2000 was the first election that I actually voted for a Republican for President. Please in the future try not to insult me too much by making assumptions about somebody that you don't even know.

Good point, sorry Kraut. For now I have a class, gotta go. I'll argue with you guys on this later. Although, it's pointless as none of will convince anything to each other.

Kraut
09-16-2004, 01:11 PM
You can believe anything you want, Bush got a report saying we were going to be attacked. What did he do? Go read the commission report, please.

To satisfy you, Brock Landers:

To fight terrorsim:

Establish a international intelligence network with a common database for all intellegence services to use. For that you need allies (lost by Bush in his awesome "war on Iraq" move). Do not invade a whole country hoping it will stop the terrorsim. Terrorsim is a tactic carried out by cells, not by countries. Fight the cells using the intelligence services and special forces (i.e. SEALs, etc.) And fianlly do not ignore warnings of terrorists attacks.

Now, Donger what makes me thing Bush lied? The fact that his argument for going into Iraq was WMD's (none ever found) and now, since they didn't fight shit, it's to fight terrorism. That's a pretty big lie to get what you want, if you ask me.
So how would our spec ops men be able to fight the cells in say Syria or Iran? Should we be allies with them so we can go into their countries on a small scale and attack these cells.

Donger
09-16-2004, 01:11 PM
Now, Donger what makes me thing Bush lied? The fact that his argument for going into Iraq was WMD's (none ever found) and now, since they didn't fight shit, it's to fight terrorism. That's a pretty big lie to get what you want, if you ask me.

Interesting.

You are assuming that President Bush knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and intentionally lied about it?

If so, please provide some proof of that assertion.

Thanks.

Donger
09-16-2004, 01:12 PM
For now I have a class, gotta go.

There's a shocker...

Brock
09-16-2004, 01:13 PM
Establish a international intelligence network with a common database for all intellegence services to use. For that you need allies (lost by Bush in his awesome "war on Iraq" move). Do not invade a whole country hoping it will stop the terrorsim. Terrorsim is a tactic carried out by cells, not by countries. Fight the cells using the intelligence services and special forces (i.e. SEALs, etc.) And fianlly do not ignore warnings of terrorists attacks.

Nothing personal, but this sounds like something a 10th grader came up with.

Donger
09-16-2004, 01:18 PM
Establish a international intelligence network with a common database for all intellegence services to use.

I guess you are not familiar with INTERPOL, eh? And, BTW, our intelligence services are very active with other countries intel weenies, even France and Germany.

For that you need allies (lost by Bush in his awesome "war on Iraq" move).

Would you like a list of the countries that are assisting us in Iraq, Afghanistan and the overall WoT? I know that it's a big talking point of the left that we don't have any allies, but it's absolute bunk.

Fight the cells using the intelligence services and special forces (i.e. SEALs, etc.)

Ummm, that's what we ARE doing.

Donger
09-16-2004, 01:20 PM
Nothing personal, but this sounds like something a 10th grader came up with.

Nah. I'm guessing a sophomore at one of this great country's fine state universities. Maybe Johnson County Community College.

Calcountry
09-16-2004, 01:37 PM
.................. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/iraq/main643404.shtml)


219 GIs Wounded In Past Week

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2004


(CBS/AP) More than 200 U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq in the past week, the Pentagon said Tuesday, and the total since the invasion was launched in March 2003 is now 7,245.

Of the 219 wounded in the past week, 81 were returned to duty; the 138 others were not.

The Pentagon generally reports its wounded totals each week. Fatality totals are updated daily.

The number of Americans killed and wounded has grown rapidly amid an intensifying and increasingly effective insurgency. There were more wounded over the past five months — about 4,000 — than in the first 13 months of the war, when there were about 3,300, according to Pentagon reports.

The number of Americans killed as of Tuesday was 1,018, by the Pentagon's count. That includes three civilian employees of the Department of Defense. It does not include Army Spc. Keith M. Maupin, 20, of Batavia, Ohio, who was captured April 9. His fate has not been officially resolved.

©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The smart GI's will document their purple hearts, video tape themselves, and run for president some day.

Chief Henry
09-16-2004, 01:42 PM
The smart GI's will document their purple hearts, video tape themselves, and run for president some day.



:thumb: and a rep

patteeu
09-16-2004, 01:48 PM
One thing I'm pretty confident about. Saddam Hussein will never be in a position to work with terrorists against our interests. Bush has eliminated that possibility. There are other terrorism concerns that have yet to be addressed to be sure, but that one is forever solved. Thanks GWB.

Pants
09-16-2004, 03:37 PM
God, it felt good getting gang raped. Anyway, you guys have some good points. I still disagree that the war on Iraq was the right thing. And if you think that the 3rd world countries who want to kiss up to the U.S. are good allies, then yeah we got plenty of them. Anyway, it's been nice, sorry if I have offended anyone.

Hopefully Bush loses since my major is Environmental studies. :thumb:

Donger
09-16-2004, 03:50 PM
God, it felt good getting gang raped.

I thought we were quite gentle.

Anyway, you guys have some good points.

I'm always happy to provide free education. Ask anytime.

And if you think that the 3rd world countries who want to kiss up to the U.S. are good allies, then yeah we got plenty of them.

England, Australia, Poland et al are third-world countries? I trust you don't plan a future career as a diplomat.

Anyway, it's been nice, sorry if I have offended anyone.

I doubt that, but thanks anyway.

Duck Dog
09-16-2004, 04:09 PM
"God bless the troops in Iraq and their families and godspeed to them."

Why do you guys think that if we don't support Bush we don't support the troops?

Not one liberal or dem on this board has ever said that. Your's was as empty as sKerry's campaign headquarters.

It's very American to question authority. It's very un-American not to give the troops props when they deserve it. And gdamnit they deserve it. They don't deserve to be used by liberal's as talking points to a presidential campaign. Troops got spat on after VN, and that shit won't fly today.

Everyday in here it's "more troops die becuase Bush is a lying bastard."

Never has a lib or dem said; "more troops died today serving their country proudly. Bless them all."

That is why I have so much dis-like for liberals.

Duck Dog
09-16-2004, 04:12 PM
Nah. I'm guessing a sophomore at one of this great country's fine state universities. Maybe Johnson County Community College.


Hey now....I went there for about a year and half.....sometimes. :)

Pants
09-16-2004, 04:18 PM
I doubt that, but thanks anyway.

Why do you doubt that? Trust me, I didn't come here to offend anyone. Just wanted a little fiery argument that's all. So I do really feel sorry if I offended anyone.

And, I'd rather have Germany and Russia backing U.S. than Poland and Australia. Both countries are great but not exactly world powers.

Oh yeah, to the dude who tried (I guess) to offend me, I don't go to JCCC, I go to KU. Although I don't see what's so bad about going to JCCC. Good effort, though, good effort.

David.
09-16-2004, 04:18 PM
You'll learn to avoid this place Metro. Like the plague.

Donger
09-16-2004, 04:21 PM
Why do you doubt that? Trust me, I didn't come here to offend anyone. Just wanted a little fiery argument that's all. So I do really feel sorry if I offended anyone.

You misundertand. I meant that I doubt anyone was offended.

Oh yeah, to the dude who tried (I guess) to offend me, I don't go to JCCC, I go to KU. Although I don't see what's so bad about going to JCCC. Good effort, though, good effort.

It was me, and it was a joke. I went to JCCC for a semester, and KU for the rest. The things I'd do differently if I could replay high school...

6 Iron
09-16-2004, 04:27 PM
And, I'd rather have Germany and Russia backing U.S. than Poland and Australia. Both countries are great but not exactly world powers.

Why? Based on their record with regards to terrorism, human rights, or simply their population or GDP?

Duck Dog
09-16-2004, 04:49 PM
Why? Based on their record with regards to terrorism, human rights, or simply their population or GDP?


That's not even fair. ROFL

Pants
09-16-2004, 04:54 PM
Oh ok, 6 iron. What was I thinking, of course Poland and Australia are world powers. God I'm such an idiot. Use a little common sense.

And yeah, David, I learned my lesson. I won't be entering this place again, lol.

Donger
09-16-2004, 05:00 PM
You'll learn to avoid this place Metro. Like the plague.

Why?

Pants
09-16-2004, 05:03 PM
As nice as gang raping might be, too much of it can be bad, lol.

David.
09-16-2004, 05:19 PM
Why?

because it's filled with crazies. Basically. And what is more fruitless than arguing politics on the intraweb?

patteeu
09-16-2004, 07:01 PM
Why do you doubt that? Trust me, I didn't come here to offend anyone. Just wanted a little fiery argument that's all. So I do really feel sorry if I offended anyone.

And, I'd rather have Germany and Russia backing U.S. than Poland and Australia. Both countries are great but not exactly world powers.

Oh yeah, to the dude who tried (I guess) to offend me, I don't go to JCCC, I go to KU. Although I don't see what's so bad about going to JCCC. Good effort, though, good effort.

Of course you wouldn't. You just said you go to KU so your standards can't be very high.

patteeu
09-16-2004, 07:03 PM
...I went to ... KU for the rest....

You seem smarter than that. Did you read a lot outside of class or something? ;)

Donger
09-16-2004, 08:54 PM
You seem smarter than that. Did you read a lot outside of class or something? ;)

That's the punishment for being a psychopath in high school; self-relegation to academic mediocrity.

Got a 4.0 though, even though I did it semi-consciously. The scary thing is, I have no idea where I lived in Lawrence. I think it was around 9th and Michigan, but I'm not sure.

6 Iron
09-16-2004, 09:12 PM
Oh ok, 6 iron. What was I thinking, of course Poland and Australia are world powers. God I'm such an idiot. Use a little common sense.


My point was not that Poland was a rising juggernaut, soon to dominate the world, but why you would prefer the support of Germany and Russia. Still, I think a fair question. Thanks for the common sense tip. I will try.


Whenever I see your screen name, I think "muh- traw- luh-kee" :hmmm:

patteeu
09-16-2004, 09:20 PM
That's the punishment for being a psychopath in high school; self-relegation to academic mediocrity.

Got a 4.0 though, even though I did it semi-consciously. The scary thing is, I have no idea where I lived in Lawrence. I think it was around 9th and Michigan, but I'm not sure.

ROFL

Pants
09-16-2004, 09:22 PM
My point was not that Poland was a rising juggernaut, soon to dominate the world, but why you would prefer the support of Germany and Russia. Still, I think a fair question. Thanks for the common sense tip. I will try.


Whenever I see your screen name, I think "muh- traw- luh-kee" :hmmm:

I have no idea what you are implying... but it's me-tro-like.

6 Iron
09-16-2004, 09:31 PM
I have no idea what you are implying... but it's me-tro-like.

No implications, I just like the way I pronounce it mentally. Kind of whimsical.

David.
09-16-2004, 10:22 PM
No implications, I just like the way I pronounce it mentally. Kind of whimsical.

see what I mean by crazy?

Pants
09-16-2004, 11:42 PM
see what I mean by crazy?

Word.

And, hey patteeu, you don't know me, and the reasons I went to KU... I could have gone to a much better school. Please leave your rediculous judgments to yourself. And be so kind as to tell us which school you attended.

patteeu
09-17-2004, 08:09 AM
Word.

And, hey patteeu, you don't know me, and the reasons I went to KU... I could have gone to a much better school. Please leave your rediculous judgments to yourself. And be so kind as to tell us which school you attended.

I learned everything I know here on ChiefsPlanet.

I know everything I need to know about you if you go to KU. That tells me that you like basketball, you don't understand football, and you like to have sex with small farm animals. What else is there to know?

And it doesn't do you a bit of good to proclaim your credentials (e.g. I could have gone to a much better school). You will be judged on the content of your posts, not on what you think of yourself.

BTW, I love how you confirm what most of us already knew. Namely that there are much better schools than KU. Coming from a KU student no less. That's priceless.

Seriously Metrolike, you need to learn to roll with the punchs around here. If someone flames you, you can either flame them back if you have tough enough skin to handle the flame war, or you can let it roll off your back and ignore it. I recommend that you not start a flame war if you are seriously outnumbered unless you have industrial strength thick skin because the mob feeds on itself and can work itself into quite a frenzy from time to time. This thread is tame by comparison. And by the same token, I'm sure that no one took any offense from your comments in this thread. My last bit of advice is that it's OK to laugh at Talking Can because he is funny (he's also a KU boy if IIRC, so he shares your love of animals), and it's OK to give kudos to NewChief and Amnorix because they are intelligent liberal posters, but don't model yourself after memyselfi or you will become a pariah.

P.S. I give you credit for spelling my name right. Most people around here have a hard time with it. Maybe you could have gone to a good school afterall.

Radar Chief
09-17-2004, 08:13 AM
You will be judged on the content of your posts, not on what you think of yourself.


Indeed, to bad more members don’t figure this out on their own. :thumb:

David.
09-17-2004, 11:29 PM
Indeed, to bad more members don’t figure this out on their own. :thumb:

ahaha, yeah right. This place is a friggin circle jerk.

OldTownChief
09-17-2004, 11:41 PM
ahaha, yeah right. This place is a friggin circle jerk.


Any thread the shit can starts in the DC forum is intended to start a circle jerk.

David.
09-18-2004, 12:06 AM
yeah, I'm totally basing my comments on nothing. I always forget we have this place.

Nothing to see here.

Pants
09-18-2004, 02:32 AM
I learned everything I know here on ChiefsPlanet.

I know everything I need to know about you if you go to KU. That tells me that you like basketball, you don't understand football, and you like to have sex with small farm animals. What else is there to know?

And it doesn't do you a bit of good to proclaim your credentials (e.g. I could have gone to a much better school). You will be judged on the content of your posts, not on what you think of yourself.

BTW, I love how you confirm what most of us already knew. Namely that there are much better schools than KU. Coming from a KU student no less. That's priceless.

Seriously Metrolike, you need to learn to roll with the punchs around here. If someone flames you, you can either flame them back if you have tough enough skin to handle the flame war, or you can let it roll off your back and ignore it. I recommend that you not start a flame war if you are seriously outnumbered unless you have industrial strength thick skin because the mob feeds on itself and can work itself into quite a frenzy from time to time. This thread is tame by comparison. And by the same token, I'm sure that no one took any offense from your comments in this thread. My last bit of advice is that it's OK to laugh at Talking Can because he is funny (he's also a KU boy if IIRC, so he shares your love of animals), and it's OK to give kudos to NewChief and Amnorix because they are intelligent liberal posters, but don't model yourself after memyselfi or you will become a pariah.

P.S. I give you credit for spelling my name right. Most people around here have a hard time with it. Maybe you could have gone to a good school afterall.

You crack me up. If you think that I take all these old hard core conservatives seriously, you must get off your prescriptions, now. You think my feelings are hurt from reading something like your post above? I don't give a shit about the flaming, I just like to argue a little that's all. I need an "industrial strength thick skin"? Hahaha, yeah you are right, this forum is very important for me in my life.

You know, you actually make me a little sad, since you prove to me that there are people who take internet forums this seriously. You also prove to me that you have ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of KU and the students who attend it. Another thing you prove to me is that you are the biggest ignorant asshole in this forum. And that, my friend, says a lot.

You try to make fun of the school I go to by bringing up my statement about it not being the best school out there. Well guess what? If I went to Duke or Cal Tech you could say the same thing. It also seems like you've never attended a college/university because you would know that it takes a lot of money to be a student in one. Thank God, I'm smart enough to get a free education in a school like KU (I do wish I worked harder in high school however). I do not have to prove to you that I could have gone to a better school since you are a NOBODY. In fact I don't have to prove anything to you at all, but I decided to write this post because I enjoy talking to people that are on the other end of the intelligence level.

Finally, the fact that you learned everything you know, here on CP proves to me that you are pathetic thus rendering your words of "wisdom" feeble and useless. Nice talking to you, nonetheless.

Duck Dog
09-18-2004, 12:34 PM
Hey Metro, don't sweat it, some of us 'old conservatives' are KU fans.

Hel'n
09-18-2004, 01:57 PM
Any thread the shit can starts in the DC forum is intended to start a circle jerk.

The entire DC forum is a circle jerk...

...and we all know it...

... politics makes strange bedfellows...

patteeu
09-18-2004, 04:09 PM
You crack me up. If you think that I take all these old hard core conservatives seriously, you must get off your prescriptions, now. You think my feelings are hurt from reading something like your post above? I don't give a shit about the flaming, I just like to argue a little that's all. I need an "industrial strength thick skin"? Hahaha, yeah you are right, this forum is very important for me in my life.

You know, you actually make me a little sad, since you prove to me that there are people who take internet forums this seriously. You also prove to me that you have ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of KU and the students who attend it. Another thing you prove to me is that you are the biggest ignorant asshole in this forum. And that, my friend, says a lot.

You try to make fun of the school I go to by bringing up my statement about it not being the best school out there. Well guess what? If I went to Duke or Cal Tech you could say the same thing. It also seems like you've never attended a college/university because you would know that it takes a lot of money to be a student in one. Thank God, I'm smart enough to get a free education in a school like KU (I do wish I worked harder in high school however). I do not have to prove to you that I could have gone to a better school since you are a NOBODY. In fact I don't have to prove anything to you at all, but I decided to write this post because I enjoy talking to people that are on the other end of the intelligence level.

Finally, the fact that you learned everything you know, here on CP proves to me that you are pathetic thus rendering your words of "wisdom" feeble and useless. Nice talking to you, nonetheless.

ROFL

Nice talking to you too.

God, it felt good getting gang raped.

Yep, you don't have a thin skin problem. ROFL

the Talking Can
09-18-2004, 04:22 PM
Any thread the shit can starts in the DC forum is intended to start a circle jerk.

I posted an article, sans commentary. You posted the requisite dumb response.

The circle is now complete.

Pants
09-18-2004, 07:22 PM
ROFL

Nice talking to you too.



Yep, you don't have a thin skin problem. ROFL

Like I suspected, you didn't understand the word I said, did you. Well to make it simpler for you, one of the points I made was that

One does not have to have a thick skin to argue on a BB. And if you think one does, go get a life.