I believe that Peter Arenett is also on this medication.

OMG Scott. You are just way too funny. I am having a flashback.

Funny satire editorial from Michael Ackley. He tells it like it is.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31907

(Blatant plug) Have you heard his claims about booby-trapped pencils? It's mentioned on LGF (/Blatant plug)

Ah....this explains everything. Too funny.

They have obviously been dispersing these chemicals among the US population. Victim of this Weapon of Mass Distraction are known as anti-protesters. If they only knew that they themselves have already been victims of Saddam's WMD. They should go to the UN and get a resolution... er, the UN has already been infected...

Click on my name to go to a great ANTI peacenik site.

and Chemical Ali is gone too...the news story sounded like the Munchkins giving the coroner's report in the Wizard of Oz.

ROFLMAO!
Thanks, AHA, for the site; I've been looking for this; didn't try Google!

Hades-----'Chemical Ali' was welcomed to Hell today by Satan himself. Satan, (who rarely makes statements), stated, "I'm going to try him out in my new chemical testing room, this way I can let him try his own chemical weapons, over and over again. It's only fitting, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Sorry, ------Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!"

In other news, soon to be new resident of Hell, Iraqi Information Minister was quoted as saying, "No, -----I haven't, 'seen', your lean pockets, anywhere!"

Great story Scott! If the pictures we've seen of Saddam, and his cabinet are recent, they must be using laughing gas too.

Click on my name to go to grassfire.net! Let's show those sissy, punk, slimy maggot, anti- American, protesting wierdos, that we are tired of standing around, and not voicing OUR opinions! I'd like to have them for 8 weeks in MY bootcamp, they would be crying for Mommy! Little pukes!

Tune in, turn on, blow up.

Frenchfry, where you at boy? You got guard duty tonight, better rest up.

Ah, so the Sean Penn plan worked perfectly. See Don, I told you it would. Next we'll arm Billy Baldwin with some Psilocybe mushrooms and ship him over to Kim Jong Il.

It is only a matter of time before a "socially-conscious" musicians composed of high school dropouts adopts the name "Chemical Ali" for their garage band. You heard it here first!

I think Bambi(the man) and Frenchman must be sending their posts from the Bagdad minitry of Information...

AHA-
Fantastic video! You have some brave friends to go amongst the psychos like that. Kudos!

Bambi- Where are you?

I think Al-Sahef might actually be Scott. His statements can only make sense if they are satirical jabs at Saddam Hussein hiding in a bunker somewhere.

I understand that today, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf gave his latest news conference on top of a building after being chased out of his office. While the sounds of artillery could be heard in the background, he stated that there were no Americans in Baghdad. Apparently the only two people in the world that believed the statement were Congressman Jim McDermott and former Congressman David Bonior. They repeated their Sept. 29th statement from ABC This Week saying that we have to take Saddam Hussein's government on its word. The French government did not take a position on the existence of American tanks, but said that if only inspectors could be returned to Iraq this issue could be settled in a matter of months.

I predict that after the war is over we will discover a gigantic cache of LSD in containers marked "Made in France". M'seur Chiraq was obviously tripping when he (appearing much like the famed bobble-head doll that is given out with orders of 5 or more bottles of French wine) and threatened the USA with his veto. Jaques is only a microdot away from total insanity.

(AP) Belfast, N. Ireland. At a summit warmup pub lunch on the Falls Road, the key coalition leaders met to assess Operation IRAQI FREEDOM's progress so far. After a few pints, toasted cheese and onion sandwiches, and a few rousing games of strip darts, Messrs Blair, Bush and Howard unanimously agreed to forego the rest of the summit and released the following communique:

"Beings how we're the only three countries on Earth any of the 3 of us can trust anymore, and given that the whole concept of being "nice" doesn't exactly work out well in real life with anybody over the age of five, let alone nations of kajillions, we hereby declare ourselves: the Axis of the Worst People to Piss Off, Especially When We've Had A Few, And What The Hell Are You Looking At, And How'd You Like Us To Kick Your Arse, Ya B_ _ _ _ _d?

The Trio followed this up with a fit of giggling, sang a few choruses of "You'll Never Walk Alone", and proceeded to find another pub.

Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, who sort of think they're men, immediately released statements, though no one seemed interested enough to write down what they said.

I believe I saw Ooglay shot today with rubber bullets in San Francisco while passing out LSD to the anti-America, anti-Bush protesters. Bambi may well have been there, but I don't believe that frenchie was there. So much freedom would have boggled his poor little mind.
Guess they should have used michael moore as a human shield.

Hey, SgtElevenBravo, and all you anti-pacifist people, I have a quote from the Nuremburg trials that should interest you:
"Of course the people don't want war... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denouce the pacifists for lack of patriotism... it works the same in any country"
Hermann Goerin, second-in-command of Adolf Hitler.

This is EXACTLY what is happening in America today. You all are doing the bidding jingoism and warmongering everywhere. If being patriotic means fogetting to think, I refuse. If being patriotic means standing behind a president so that I cannot see nameless atrocities, I refuse. If being patriotic means that I must cut my morals to fit today's fashions, I refuse. This is why I am ashamed to be an American; You are why I am ashamed to be from the land where people are free from thinking.

The president is just a civil servant. Accordingly, we should support him when he is in the right, and oppose him when he is not. Just because he is the president and this is wartime does NOT mean that we MUST support him lest we lose our patriotic correctness. There are two universal ways to measure an actions morality: Do you want others to do it to you, and do you want everyone to do it in the same circumstances. Unconditionally supporting the president during the time of war is not moral; it fails the second test, for almost no sane person would want citizens of WWII Geramany to support their democratically elected president, Adolf Hitler. This position is inherently amoral, and is one I refuse to take as well as one I hope that others do not.

If you all haven't already gone into a frothing rage, you will either be able to appreciate this joke or go into one by it:
Whats the difference between George Bush and Adolf Hitler?
Adolf Hitler got a majority of his people's votes.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Anry Liberal has spoken!
Always interesting to see a Nazi expert come on ScrappleFace and compare Bush to their leader Adolph. Did you learn about your heroes in a special camp or at your mother's knee?
And please review (while simultaneously thinking) your attempted joke. I'll explain in detail later if you still don't get it.
You've articulated your wilingness to serve Hitler over George Bush rather well. The closest you can come in todays world is Iraq or North Korea. Either would love someone of your caliber. You'll need to hurry on Iraq though.
But welcome back, angry. I've got a special tribute to you on my home page. From one of the earlier times you posted that line above. It's linked to my name. The headline is "A thorough waste of my time and yours" - Enjoy!!

Angry_Liberal,
Would you have volentered to go to Iraq and take the place of any child that was due to be tortured? Neither would I, but would gladly put a bullet in saddams murderous head. What rock were you under when clinton sent our troups into Kosovo? Go back to your rock.
Why is it that the only 4 or 5 nations that are against the war are all hard core socialist?

Desperate for News !

I and I think many others now are desperate for news regarding the whereabouts and safety of Ooglay Hussein. For the sake of Allah, Ooglay give us the latest, we haven't found you at any of the palaces as yet and we're worried sick ! We heard Qusay took over and know that can't be good for you.

Angry Lib_eral,

Go pedal your Snake Oil somewhere else.

Angry Liberal:

1. No, Hitler didn't, so the joke falls flat.

2. Goering didn't say it at the Nuremberg trials.

3. As Eugene Volokh pointed out, Goering is trying to excuse Germany's crimes with this quote. He was trying to pretend that what the Nazis did in terms of waging war was no different than what Churchill or FDR did. Do you believe that? Do you believe that a democracy going to war is equivalent to a totalitarian regime going to war? Do you believe that Churchill and FDR simply manipulated their respective publics into going to war, unjustly, as Hitler did? If not, why are you endorsing the quote?

Hades----Early today, 'Chemical Ali', welcomed his cousins, Saddam, Uday, and Quesy Hussein to Hell. Ali was quoted as saying, "I think you will like it here, once you get past the 'irony' thing! Satan is a lot like you Saddam, only not quite so evil."

P.S. Please don't be so hard on angry_liberal. You would be angry too if, your mother was Dolly Parton, but when you were born, she hired Helen Thomas as your wet-nurse!

To Angry Liberal: If you want me to be a sackless, left-wing vomit spewing sheep..........

I REFUSE

angry_libBOY, Your rantings prove, beyond a doubt, that the United States should re-instate the draft. Apparently you've never been out from under Momma's wing, have ya boy? Sure, you'll cry your eyes out for the first few weeks of BCT, but when I spend a few extra hours, each day, on that scrauny little body of yours, with some good old PT, you'll be lickin' my boots, for turning you into a man! Now tell the truth boy, your Daddy was one of those, 'Girly men', we have heard about wasn't he? Now, there, there, boy, when you get home from AIT, you'll be able to teach him a thing or too! Last thing lib, I WON'T ask, and I WON'T tell, thanks to your cowardly buddy Clinton, I CAN'T!

TO:
Angry_Liberal

I have a quote for you
Some people stand a fight rather than turn away when they see injustice..unlike you we stand up to evil ..
you so call yourself a "pacifist" is a cover for self serving self centered political party hate

To: angry liberal

My dear, please show proof you railed and marched against Clinton for attacking the Balkans (without UN auth). Otherwise, your statments are worthy only of dismissal.

Isn't it ironic that the people who believe it's okay for a woman to abort a defenseless fetus do not believe it's okay to kill a genocidal madman?

Could someone please explain that to me?

Dave, It is very bizarre and I do not believe anyone can explain it (well, maybe Bambi can).

Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter."

Oh yeah, and only liberals refer to an unborn baby as a "fetus"

Here's a funny:

My sister (a LIBERAL!) thought she saw something on TV about an NPR reporter having something to do with finding missles or something.... I said (sarcastically), "really? If he really did find WMD or banned weapons, that'll thrill NPR since they're really LEFTIST..." She said (irritated), "Oh STOP with the left/right stuff... you're too critical... it's not as bad as you think..." So I said, "okay, whatever..."

Then I went and watched O'Reilly and LO & BEHOLD !!! he was interviewing an NPR reporter who had just been fired for stating his support for the war on the air (unlike another colleague who even CRIED on the air over her protest of the war).

So I came back and said, "you know your good and great NPR? They just fired one of their program hosts because he stated his support of the war on the air. What do you say now?" She replied, "well, he's a reporter - facts only. No opinions!"

I explained his was a SHOW and that an anti-war colleague on the same station had not been fired for HER views that were voiced on the air.

She had to admit then that this was, apparently, an agregious example of liberal media bias and the host should sue.

One small blow against mindless liberalism!! It's not hard when the lefties shoot themselves in the foot so publicly, so often.... examples abound...

SGT ElevenBravo,
The draft wouldn't work today. Have you seen the wash-out rate in the Marines alone? It would go to 80%. It would be a revolving door at training bases. The military needs young men, and women with brains, not the mindless, brain washed, un-trainable idiots that our public schools are cranking out.

Angry Liberal- If the US is such a bad place and you are ashamed to be an American, then here is a suggestion. LEAVE. Get out. Move to another country and stay there. If you are short on cash, e-mail me. I'll help pay for the ticket.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked
and denouce the pacifists for lack of patriotism.
It works the same in any country"

AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH

Angry Liberal:

Here I am suggesting something unpleasant again.

Its not enough that "they" got the war "they" craved, "they" insist that EVERYONE like it too! ("They" being the extreme-right "they", not unlike the extreme-left "they" I keep reading about here. After all, there are only the two types of people in this nation.) Since we're winning, it must have been the right thing to do. Remember, might always makes right. WHOOP A**! YEE-HAH! (BTW, I'm glad we're winning. Just because I dissent doesn't make me a traitor, despite what some would like to believe.)

So, now that things are looking good, and its presumably safe to ask, I'd like to know. Did we ever settle on an "official" reason for waging this war? Or is it just a case of, once the shooting has started, one doesn't need a reason? And finally, now that the ball is rolling, one wonders how "they" can justify not continuing on to attack Syria and Iran? The Philippines, Pakistan and Chechnya are also breeding grounds for Islamic extremists. And how could I forget Indonesia and Malaysia? I mean, can we really be safe until the last Muslim has been "crusaded" off the face of the Earth?

One wonders.

yaksun

Frenchie,
If it laughter you're trying for, it is spelled "HA."

Leading people is easy if you are taking them in a direction they want to go.

We toast Saddam, then take a hard left into Syria. Lebanon goes next, and then Saudi Arabia (much easier to prove the al Quaeda connection). The we jump to North Korea.
After squashing all of these, every other penny-ante 3rd world s**t-hole country will be falling all over themselves to make us happy.
What Europe, China, etc.?
They'll pitch and moan, but they won't take any action. They rely on American trade waaaaayy too much to do anything.

Today the Middle East, tomorrow the World!
Let's hear it for the United States of Earth! Or maybe we could just change the name of the planet to America.

LordRobert, thats OK if you don't want to change your views...
My main point is that supporting the president regardless of the circumstances is inherintly amoral...
And AHA, I was 11 when Clinton declared war on Kosovo, so it doesn't count =^).
Yaksun, I'm glad were winning too. God bless that Iraqi lawyer who gave info for the US to rescue Jessica Lynch.

David, thanks for the info on the background to the quote: I couldn't find it. I thought it was at the Nuremburgh trials, but i could be wrong =^).

Greyhawk, I am not a nazi. I think that the Nazis were the worst thing ever to be made on this earth. However, one can learn lessons from everything. From the Nazis, one can learn how to avoid your country to become like Nazi Germany; you can learn how to avoid fascism and remember how to think.

I am not a Pacifist. I am just more angry than usual at those who would bash pacifists for political or economic gain from the war. I am against Orwellian labeling of people who see all war as evil and against the interests of ALL people.

The draft is unconstitutional. Period. Two reasons: the cruel and unusual punishment / excessive fines for not registering, and it only requires men to register, so that part is illegal. Plus, I can write pretty well, so I will get out either on collage student or conscientous objector =^).

Criag, I can't leave. I am stuck here for three more years until I turn 18... Thats a nice gesture, but I'd need a ride too, then I'd call it a kidnapping and you wouldn't want that, would you?

Angry Liberal:

You are right. That Iraqi is a hero along with his wife. God bless them, Pvt. Lynch and the warriors who rescued them.

Actually, for unrivaled evil against everyone, I'd have to pick the little cockroaches who comprised Unit 731 in the Japanese Army in the late 30's and early 40's. What nation do you think these terrorist states look to for inspiration when breeding vile germs and mixing chemical weapons? There are still mini-plague outbreaks in part of China thanks to Japanese ingenuity in breeding fleas and spreading illness in the water and via balloon bombs. And the vivsections... Oh what fun! But they don't get the publicity the Nazis do thanks in large part to one Douglas MacArtur, SCAAP.

Some Random Guy: Yes, absolutely, add Egypt and Saudi Arabia to that list. In fact, and this should be very popular, there are a ton of Muslims living in France, Canada, and... the US. Lets kill them too. If we do them all, we're bound to get the ones who actually planned 9/11. And when they're gone, there's still a gaggle of non-Christians out there to pick a fight with.

Subversively yours,

yaksun

Did I mention that one Douglas MacArthur, SCAAP, worked for the US? Sorry for the omission. You should check out this story sometime.

yaksun

Whoops! Forgot to add the maniacal laughter to the earlier post.

(Ahem) Bwaaaaaaaa-Ha-Ha-ha-ha!

To: Angry Liberal, Yaksun,

"And when they're gone, there's still a gaggle of non-Christians out there to pick a fight with." - Yaksun

Reality check - Radical Muslims the world over are killing (and OH NO, at war) with non-Muslims. Radical Muslims attacked America several times, up to and including 9/11. So we DEFEND OURSELVES by hunting down and killing terrorists and those that support terrorists. Thank God whatever twisted your logic beyond recognition escapes me.

"Plus, I can write pretty well, so I will get out either on collage student or conscientous objector =^)." - Angry liberal

First of all, that would be one ugly collage I'm sure. Secondly, contentious maybe. Tell us again how well you write (but not spell??) I would guess that you attend public schools in California where only extreme liberal views are tolerated and encouraged. And you accuse others of "fogetting to think", you are at the top of your game at only 15 years old, either a hypocrite or very sarcastic.

I agree with Greyhawk, you are a "A thorough waste of my time and yours"

And in closing I would implore you to find another site to spew your illogic. Not because your post sent me into a ìfrothing rage,î but for the same reason I donít argue world politics with my nine-year old, he has nothing relevant to add.

srg:

Excellent use of the words "Bwaaaaaaaa-Ha-Ha-ha-ha!" Yaksun.

"The most maniacal laugh ever typed!" Entertainment Weekly.

"Ten thumbs up!!" Gene Siskel.

"Makes me glad I'm not Muslim!" Indian President Vajpayee.

yaksun

"Radical Muslims the world over are killing (and OH NO, at war) with non-Muslims. Radical Muslims attacked America several times, up to and including 9/11."

"The world over." So what? Who cares? If the Muslims in Chechnya kill every freaking Russian they can find, that's fine by this Cold Warrior. BTW, who do you think we bankrolled to fight Russia for US in Afghanistan in the 70s/80s? If the Muslims in Palestine kill every Israeli, or they both kill each other all off, who cares? Its not our fight. Israel is a strong nation. It can take care of itself. Of course, they could try making peace, but then what would keep Sharon in power?

So I must ask you, Ynot, WHICH radical Muslims attacked US??? Geeez, its sooooo hard to tell when they all look alike (i.e., not like US). Easier to just wade in and start shooting, eh? Let God (Thank Her very much) sort 'em out. KICK A**! YEE HAH!! We're the United F###### States, remember!!!!!!

"Several times." As of 9/11/01, I count twice (the other being the World Trade Center). Also by my count, that's only one more time than America was attacked (recently) by white-bread Americans.(Remember OKC?) Maybe we should start executing Whitey, too (see below).

"DEFEND OURSELVES"? Oh, you mean "pre-emptive self defense!!!" Using your own "twisted" logic, one might argue that we could just as well use statistical and actuarial data to pick out likely criminals (e.g., "African Americans" like me ;-)) or, if you prefer real criminals, and arrest them BEFORE they commit worse crimes. Screw the trial, just do as we did in Iraq and proceed straight to the execution.

Mind you, these are simply arguments one could make.

You know I found that, even at age nine, my kids were surprisingly current in world affairs.

Allah Akhbar,

yaksun

Dang, I keep thinking of stuff to say.

Ynot, what was the common thread among all those plane-jackers besides that they were Radical Muslims? C'mon, they were all Saudi Arabians!!!!!! Using your "logic", aren't we fighting our war in the wrong country? Okay, they were all MEN too, but lets don't go there just yet. ;-)

Shalom,

yakkie

Yaksun
Relax.
And come on, if your trying to provoke discussion, that's fine. But there's only one side waging religious war here, and it's not the USA. I think you'll find less (not more) threat to America now then there was two years ago. I grant that we're talking about something that can't be quantified -"terror risk" is not a vector. Still, major state sponsors of terror are falling. Will we still be vulnerable to terrorist attacks? Yep. Anyone with an agenda can take a crack.

Rogue states, however, will think twice about it. These were people who thought we would not fight because of our actions in Beruit and Mogadishu. They misunderstood why we turned tail in those cases.

And apparently you didn't know about Lockerbie, the Cole, the African Embassies, Somalia...

Sadly, everywhere the Muslim religion meets another belief system the result is terror and war. 99% of the wars going on in the world today.
Chechnya: Muslim vs atheist/Christian; Bosnia/Kosovo: Muslim vs atheist/Christian; Kashmir: Muslim vs Hindu; Phillipines: Muslim vs Pac Islands/Christians; Israel: Muslim vs Jew;
Africa: Muslim vs Animists/Christians/Everyone else, the most unbelievable acts of Genocide of this century so far! --- are you seeing any pattern yet?

Where do the Jews battle the Buddhists? Where do the Hindus fight Christians?

Don't make pathetic atempts to portray the President as a crusader waging Holy War. It does not stand up to truth. War was declared on us long before we ever reciprocated.

I know you're a good guy, Yaksun. I think you have accessed bad information.

God bless Texas.;)

Peace through strength.

It's becoming pretty obvious that he's been sharing his acid with his french buddies.

I think they dosed the german dudes too.

Strawberry Fields forever guys.

We'll take care of the real world for ya.

Remember to Boycott france and germany!

Don't enable the drug dealers!

TO:
Angry_Liberal YOU POSTED
The draft is unconstitutional. Period. Two reasons: the cruel and unusual punishment / excessive fines for not registering,

********************************
YOU ASSERT THE 8th amendment as a cuase of action for relief from the draft, your case would be dismissed without a hearing

1.punishment is for a crime, you fail to show an act punishable

2.were there is (NO) finding of a judicial process,you can not assert cruel and unusual punishment

Angry Liberal
You are too young to be angry or liberal. But I think I was an angry liberal at your age too. I would urge you to abandon your anger first, but you may have to abandon liberal thought to do so. Most liberal ideas were outdated 20 years ago, and conservatives are now the true progressives.

Anyhow, Greyhawk cares about the future generations! Therefore I spend some time for you now. First here's some food for thought: Saddam Hussein got 100% of the vote.Factor that in to your joke above and it stops being funny at all. George Bush won the House and Senate in 2002. Don't be confused about this, it was a mandate for W, and the Democrat failure can not be explained away by "we didn't get the message out". America got the message loud and clear.

I accept that you are not a Nazi. Be careful quoting them. Lots of people have said great things who aren't Nazi's. Here's one I've got on my web page (cick my name):

"Today's Western society has revealed the inequality between the freedom for good deeds and the freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; thousands of hasty (and irresponsible) critics cling to him at all times; he is constantly rebuffed by parliament and the press. He has to prove his every step is well founded and absolutely flawless. Indeed, an outstanding, truly great person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind does not get any chance to assert himself; dozens of traps will be set for him from the beginning. Thus mediocrity triumphs under the guise of democratic restraints."
---Solzhenitsyn

Think about it. And if you like a good radical political role model research Solzhenitsyn.

You could be Angry yaksun you know? Please calm down. My point was that if you want to talk crusades, the radical Muslims are much closer than any other group on the planet right now. If you still want all Russians dead, thatís your own grudge.

ìWhich Muslims attacked us?î The radical Muslims that were trained in Afghanistan (born wherever) and thatís why we attacked. As for Iraq, I know the Saddam regime has supported and funded terrorists, as well as committed terrorist acts against its own people.

ìSeveral times,î I was being polite. The Iran hostage crisis, two American embassies in Africa, the navy ship near Yemen, the world trade center bombing (the first one), and finally 9/11.

The rest of your dialog digresses into assumptions that would be tough to prove, unless you are trying to prove them to Frenchfry.

I understand that you might keep thinking of stuff to say, but is it going to make sense?

Some freelance reporters are now complaining that when our troops fired into the hotel we weren't following the Genevea Convention.
Even though the hotel was full of Iraqi soldiers shooting upon coailition troops,our guys weren't intentionally aiming for reporters.

I knew this liberal bent was coming sooner or later. Another example of liberal reporters spewing their agenda. Of course,they find nothing wrong with the Iraqis firing on the embedded reporters that are traveling with the coalition troops. Just throw out the Geneva convention when it isn't convienent to their own "Agenda". All this while they sleep on comfortable beds at the Palestine hotel.

These freelance guys are apparently walking around in their dark hotel rooms too much. War is dangerous - especially if you are a freelance reporter.

Perhaps these idiots would be more comfortable at the French owned chain "Motel 6"? That way you could just let us turn the lights on for, ya morons.

Whoa.

I was mainly kinda bored this pm and wanted to provoke a discussion. You know how it is, Grey:-)

I am absolutely not angry. Thanks to these drugs, I'm happy all the time!!!! ;-)

Actually, one of my points (besides the one on my head), is that war supporters (notice I do not say "war-mongers") do not get exclusive access to the First Amendment - even during a war. That's why I felt that Craig's post that Angry Liberal should leave the country for daring to disagree required a reply. And "(bleep) you, Craig," is so unimaginative.

I don't like anyone who attacks our country. And to be quite honest, I've begun to wonder if the phrase "Radical Muslim" isn't a redundancy. So, if you'll check my posts, I don't recall saying that, in my personal opinion, it would be WRONG to invade Syria and Iran. I simply said that "they" (those who support this war whole-heartedly) would be ill-pressed to justify invading Iraq (terrorist state) and not also Syria/Iran, and you WOULD have to include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in that group as well.

BTW, how did it feel to be called "they"? The same as it does to be called a sackless, vomit-spewing, queer, drug-taking Snake-Oil pusher who should leave one's own country??? Notice I did not call anyone a Neo-Fascist, war-mongering, rights trampling, testosterone-boosted, redneck honky who is insecure of his own masculinity, just because they disagree with me - unlike several of our posters. Very disappointing.

The claims that this is a war on Islam fall on deaf ears in this household. Its like (we) African Americans crying that the criminal justice system discriminates against blacks. Hey, more blacks are in jail than whites because more blacks commit crimes per capita. Likewise, if you want to find (and snuff) Radical Muslim terrorists, you pretty much have to root them out in the snake-pits where they hide: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. Of course, all this begs the question regarding why these terrorists want to come here and kill to begin with.

I was mainly teasing, Ynot. And I am quite relaxed, thanks. But I think, if one steps back from the whole thing a little, there is room for a viewpoint that, just because Mr. A sucker-punched us (US) in the nose, why are we taking a swing at Mr. B? It may displease some to hear it, but its the truth.

I am put off by some posters who seem to revel in the application of our firepower. YEEHAH. I mean really. This isn't China or Russia we're beating up on here. Whup A##. Yes, we're the big dog. That's great for US. It pleases me no end. The idea that some people regard this as some kind of sporting event or video game repulses me however. Its quite childish. And talk about a reality check: We still have to work and trade with the rest of the world from time to time. It seems to me a little humility is in order. Feel free to disagree. I won't insist you move out.

yaksun

Quotes by yaksun:

"Several times." As of 9/11/01, I count twice (the other being the World Trade Center). Also by my count, that's only one more time than America was attacked (recently) by white-bread Americans.(Remember OKC?) Maybe we should start executing Whitey, too (see below).

"DEFEND OURSELVES"? Oh, you mean "pre-emptive self defense!!!" Using your own "twisted" logic, one might argue that we could just as well use statistical and actuarial data to pick out likely criminals (e.g., "African Americans" like me ;-)) or, if you prefer real criminals, and arrest them BEFORE they commit worse crimes. Screw the trial, just do as we did in Iraq and proceed straight to the execution.

You know I found that, even at age nine, my kids were surprisingly current in world affairs.

My answer:

In the first paragraph, yaksun proves he/she a racist bigot, by not only resorting to racial name-calling once, but twice, (white-bread), (executing whitey).

Second paragraph, A-typical, reverse discrimination, by painting all whites with the same brush, ("--pick out likely criminals, (african americans) and arrest them---"). This is the 'Jesse Jackson' syndrome, in that no matter what is done for people like yaksun, or Jackson, if they can only lay another guilt trip on the whites, maybe they can 'SCAM' some 'mo'! Notice, yaksun wants respect, (i.e. african-american, while NOT giving any, i.e. whitey, white-bread).

Third and last, he/she says, "---even at age nine, my kids were surprisingly current in world affairs."

Doesn't surprise me yak. With your limited mind, and views, I would bet your kids are MUCH more intelligent than you!

No yaksun, you are above name-calling, (redneck honkey),! Right, "buckwheat"!

Addenda:

Grey (and Ynot): The use of the term "crusade" was a reflection of terminology used by the President himself - as documented on the news. My point is that it is ill-received in the Muslim world in particular. Like them or not, there are a lot of them.

And as for my response to the phrase "several times", I was responding based on the assumption that Ynot was only referring to domestic attacks on US, not world-wide. Hence my reference to OKC. I am well aware of the attack on the USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the Pan Am cowardice over Lockerbee, Scotland, etc.

Hmmmm. YOUR ANALYSIS. Clearly you've got the ANAL part down pat. Here's a word for you to look up: "sarcasm".

Time to think of some more
(L)ogically (S)ubversive (D)ialog. ;-)

y

YA:

Did I say "African American"? My fault. Some poser, er poster, pegged me as that on another thread. I prefer to think of myself as just plain old American. Actually, my wife says a large percentage of me is Cherokee. ;-)

yaksun

ATTENTION ALL: After the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, which killed 6 and injured 1000 Americans, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. (Members of the "religion of peace")

After the 1995 truck bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 5 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
(Members of the "religion of peace")

After the 1996 bombing of the Kobar Towers at Dhahran Air Force Base in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and wounded over 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
(members of the "religion of peace")

After the 1998 bombings of the U. S. Embassies in Nairobi and in Dar es Salaam, which killed 224 and wounded 5000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
(members of the "religion of peace")

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and wounded 39 U.S. Sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
(members of the "religion of peace")

NOTE: The 1993 ambush of U.S. Forces serving with the U.N. in Somalia in 1993 was carried out by members of the "religion of peace." That led to the raid and subsequent ambush that gave us Black Hawk Down in Somalia. "Those responsible will be hunted down and punished...." We completely abandoned our mission days later.

Anybody see any patterns here?

Interesting how the Clinton Administration spent 10 times as much money chasing down Bill Gates in the 90's than they did chasing down Bin Laden or other members of the "religion of peace" who swear death to America?

Would this pattern in the 90's constitute appeasement? Uh, YES!! Is it a wonder that the French love Clinton so?

Al Qeda members interrogated by our military and intelligence have said that they were all extremely suprised that we came for them after the 9/11 attacks, they were convinced we wouldn't dare do anything about it save for kill a few camels somewhere with a few errant cruise missiles.....

Any other observations anyone??

Well, that is surprising, Ghost. Everybody knows God could kick Allah's a** any day of the week. And He's working for US again. HOO-YAR.

One wonders why they're so eager to kill Americans in the first place.

And what is this fetish with the French? I've said this a number of times now. If we had legitimate reasons for attacking Iraq (e.g., self-defense), who needs France or the Security Council? Certainly we don't militarily. Letting them come along simply means giving them a huge say in any reconstruction when the fighting is over. Excoriating them ad infinitum because they failed to meet our expectations is not realistic. Their monetary interests were tied to Saddam, as were Russia's. Add to that their unwillingness to risk Muslim backlash and their actions are perfectly understandable. Its just another case of wanting (and getting) your war, and expecting everyone to like it too.

Blah, blah, blah... France is evil. So is Germany, Russia, China, Mexico, Canada, Turkey, Belgium, etc. Throw in the Muslim terrorist havens and that's most of the Earth. Ah, but who needs any of them?

Another word to look up: xenophobic.

yaksun

Yeah dude, now ya know why we call him Chemical Ali. HAHAHAHAHa . yeah their droppin bombs and were droppin acid. have you seen the colors. FAR OUT.

Turn on, tune in and drop out.

Greyhawk, Yaksun, thanks for the comments. I was opposed to this war because of the congressional approval of the executive order, not a congressional declaration of war, but a presidential one.

While Clinton bombed Kosovo into the dark ages, and beyond, he did so without UN approval and I don't recall that the UN Security Council ever rapped his or Hillary's or Monika's knuckles for it either.

At least in doing this, Pres. Bush sought Congress, and bypassed the UN, which I hope he continues to do.

I read these posts to get reinforcement and entertainment and news. You are ALL wonderful.

And you have boosted my morale tremendously...

Cricket

Obviously we did not NEED the French or the security council but as in they are or were supposed to be our comrades.......it pisses ya off that they would be willing to be a turn coat for a euro or 2 after we pulled their ass outta the fire(at a huge cost of life & limb) back in WWII. Perhaps if we jus' didn't like Germanys war we should have let them do a hob nailed goose step on'm and wait around and see if they get around to US.
I believe this is a religious war, no matter how distastful that sounds, but when a religion preaches to exterminate infidel dogs=any other religeon you have a problem. Can you imagine the public out cry if the Pope made a statement such as all Muslims must be destroyed and God will reward you for it..........but it seems to me the Muslims have leaders preaching just that without so much as a murmur from their masses. Instead of the religion of peace.......sounds more like the religion of sheep, or is it they agree?

YAKSUN:

I looked up your name, the definition said: A pompous a$$, who 'THINKS', IT, (he/she) knows everything, and WE, know the rest. It also said, Changes race and nationality like a chamelion, but ALWAYS, finds a way to bring race/nationality into the fray, thereby enforcing the fact that IT, (he/she), is a racist/bigot. Lastly it said, Characterized by, long, boring, rhetoric, that in MOST cases, could be summed up in a sentence or two. See: Frenchman, some random guy, Iraqi Information Minister, Tom Daschle, Dominique de Villepin, Hillary Clinton, etc.

Hmmmmm yaksun. Clearly you've got the 'YAK' thing down pat! Here's a word for you to look up: "condense".

From Wall Street Journal:

"Sahaf is starting to remind us of the Flat Earth Society, the folks who think the moon landing was a Hollywood hoax. Or maybe Scrappleface.com has it right. It "reports" that coalition troops "have discovered a massive cache of the chemical agent lysergic acid diethylamide." It "quotes" Sahaf as saying that using the chemical, also known as LSD, "helps him to see Abrams tanks as gentle lavender camels and Bradley fighting vehicles as enormous pansies and petunias."

YourAnalysis:

How's this for brevity?

U.S. good.
Saddam bad.
Bite me.

Condensed enough for you?

Dear Yaksun,

Perhaps a first cousin (or second cousin) ?

Subversively

YOUR ANAL, SIS (and those like ewe):

I appreciate your comparison to Frenchman. I only wish I could converse as well as he in a hostile forum in a foreign language.

I am not Iraqi, so comparing me to the Sinister of Information is off-base. Also, unlike him, I want US to win and for Saddam to die.

I have no oil interest in Iraq (unlike France, Russia, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Halliburton, Boots & Coots, etc), and have never made a pretense of using diplomacy to obtain "permission" to achieve legitimate military goals, so your reference to De Villepin is off the wall.

I am not running for office or trying to make political capital out of the "war", so your comparison to Daschle (or Kerry, or Bush FTM) is immaterial.

I only wish I could write a maniacal laugh as well as SRG.

Now that you've got your early-morning hatefest out of your system, I'm still waiting for an answer to two questions:

1. What is the "official" reason for this "war"? And simply saying, "Uh, because we're there and shooting" doesn't count. C'mon, we're winning. You should be ecstatic at crushing a world-class power like Iraq. Share the love. Enlighten me.

2. (The number after 1, for you). The upsurge in Radical Muslims going out of their way to kill Americans (as opposed to holding them hostage) is actually a fairly recent phenomenon (since around 1980). Why do you suppose they have turned their hatred toward US? Any clues???? Probably not. After all, as Muslim infidels, they are more like cockroaches than humans - simply meriting extermination, right????? Only if they were human would their side of the debate be worthy of consideration. And hey, they all look alike (just like African Americans). Kill 'em all. Let Allah sort em out.

God Bless the US. Making the world safer for... Israel since 2003.

Shalom

yaksun

"Perhaps a first cousin (or second cousin) ?"

Frenchman, why don't you ask your Uncle Daddy?

yak-yak-yak, son of a yak: I think you and some random gay, are the same person. either that, or you two love each other. As much time as you both spend on your computers posting, I'll bet you both look like:
(a) Michael Moore, or

(b) (that's the letter AFTER a, yakkie) The Comic Book Guy, on The Simpsons.

Back to you, MOUTH.

Yak, you're boring. Get a new spiel. You already know the answers.

Did you say something, aha????

Boring? I am trying to perform a valuable service by giving some of you someone to argue with who isn't just some vacuous celebrity or someone you can easily pigeon-hole or discredit, despite your best efforts. Isn't that more entertaining and challenging than exchanging platitudes with the usual glad-handing, flag-waving, mutual admiration society? Anyway, you and yours don't own the First Amendment. If you don't like my "spiel", don't read it. Otherwise, at least answer my question about why the sudden surge to kill Americans - if you can. WARNING: You might have to think outside your box.

lord robert - I agree with you about France to some extent. When I was a kid, I taught my best friend how to play chess. He got so good, I could never beat him, which made me mad. Yet he was my best friend. I decided to keep the friend, with the understanding that we'd just never play chess again.

YA: That's it. Let it out. If it pleases you to think I'm gay, or reptilian, or a drug-stupored obese spouter of knee-jerk leftist jargon, that's fine by me. As long as you feel better about yourself. :-) (Perhaps you were expecting me to say, "Yo Mama"? Sorry to disappoint.) As for the Simpsons, I think the show really went downhill once Homer became the focal character, don't you? Remember when it was just a blurb on the Tracey Ullman Show?

love

yaksun

Y.A.
"Yer fat!"
"Yer gay!"

Can't you come up with anything better than that?
Also, if you're so bloody literate, then why don't you look at some past posts done by myself and yakson. You would see that there are not to many points of agreement.

You remind me of MOAB: find somebody who's post you disagree with, and then start making insulting personal comments. It is both childish and inane. Are you going to start making up limericks now?

Yaksun,

What "sudden surge to kill Americans"?????

Daniel Pipes has an excellent article debunking the myth you are perpetuating.

see: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFullcid=1049775237466

I just thought of something that will refute all the people saying "If you are ashamed of being American, just leave"
Leaving a country doesn't change your citizenship; You are an American if you have US citizenship. Leaving a country doesn't change your country of birth; if you were born in the US, you are an American.
I love America. It is one of the best countries in the world and was ranked 6th best place to live behind some Scandinavian countries or something. It is a great place to live. What I am not proud of are people who carry the same categorical label of "American" that I have and then do _really_ stupid, ignorant, racist, fascist, or evil things.

Well spank my Tortoise and pull my Hare! Now I'm Aesop the Fabulist. To what myth do you refer, ams?

yak

I wonder how many of the anti-protesters carrying signs saying "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" rode to the demonstration site on a donkey?

Stating what should be obvious:

You don't have to profess or re-affirm your love for America in order to state a conflicting opinion, Angry Liberal. What a pity that you have been made to feel it necessary.

yaksun

Yaksun...

Why do they hate the US? Stupid question. We didn't exactly sit around and try to figure out why Hitler hated non-aryans and tried to wipe them out. We simply went out and eliminated the problem.

Why do they hate us? Not our problem. As they are watching their TV screens today, they better figure out a way to get over their hatred...or they could be next. This was probably the best armed of all the Arab nations, and it fell in three weeks. Even the French loasted longer before surrendering to the Germans. Let's go, US-hating Muslim nations...who wants to be next?

Hey listen folks,
This war is winding down fast and I need your help. Can you please tell as many of the rabid anti-American middle-easterners (or Americans) exactly where my M1A1 is? I won't have much longer with the current ROE.
Thanks
And PS if anyone has taken care of my accordian request earlier, thanks on that one too.

"Why do they hate us? Stupid question. We didn't exactly sit around and try to figure out why Hitler hated non-aryans and tried to wipe them out. We simply went out and eliminated the problem.

Why do they hate us? Not our problem. As they are watching their TV screens today, they better try to figure out a way to get over their hatred... or they could be next. This was probably the best armed of all Arab nations, and it fell in three weeks. Even the French lasted longer before surrendering to the Germans. Let's go, US-hating Muslim nations... who wants to be next? - Robert

Whether or not, "Why do they hate us" is stupid or not is not relevant, since its not the question I asked. I asked: "Why the sudden upsurge in Radical Muslims wanting to KILL Americans?" Hate one can live with. Killing one cannot.

Actually, and you can look it up, we (US) DID sit around while Hitler implemented his fiendish plans. WWII started on 9/1/39. We (US) didn't enter the war until 12/8/41 - after Pearl Harbor and Germany's dec. of war against US. Furthermore, it has been argued in more than one academic circle that US delayed invading Europe for 3 additional years in order to allow Nazi Germany to inflict maximum damage against non-aryan, Communist, Russia. Finally, on that point, it was the USSR and Great Britain who did most of the fighting in Europe between 1939 (GB) and USSR (1941), and 1944, when D-Day finally occurred. We (US) did not single-handedly eliminate anything. We contributed to an Allied force that sealed Germany's doom.

I appreciate your honesty, Robert. Even though you got the question wrong (hating being less offensive, not to mention painful, than killing), you still gave an answer. I tend to think that there are at least two ways to deal with Radical Islamists: Kill them all or try to co-exist. The latter method is soooo difficult, though. It means trying to understand their culture and ask tough questions about how any group of 1 billion people can be so mad at US nice Americans.

As I understand you, Arab nations are populated by Muslims who hate us, and thereby constitute a "problem" to be "eliminated": sort of a Final Solution to the "Islamic Problem".

Jeesh, at least Hitler and his troops had the decency to wear different colored unis, right? If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you elaborate regarding whether you intend to distinguish between Radical Muslims and other Muslims? Or do they all kinda have it coming to them? They're too sub-human to have reasons for wanting to kill US. Its just some primal, cyclical, hive-collective spasm that needs to be "ironed out".

Also, Robert, and just as important, where does it all end? If you "solve" the "problem" in Iraq, and Syria and Iran, what do you do about those other "problems" in Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, the Phillipines, Saudi Arabia and othe various African nations? And did I mention that there are a few in France, Canada and... oops, the US?

That's a lot of cure, Robert. Are you sure its not even worth checking into the price of prevention?

Yours in tolerance (or should I say intolerance?)

yaksun

Aha asks:

"I wonder how many of the anti-protestors carrying signs saying 'NO BLOOD FOR OIL' rode to the demonstration site on donkeys?"

Errr, ahem, uh... isn't that a little like asking whether the people sending our men and women off to be killed or taken prisoner and tortured in Iraq actually served in combat?

boring old me

yaksun

Inside sources report that Mr. Aziz is being recruited by The advertising department at Isuzu. "Iraq I going to need trucks to rebuild" quoted a headhunter for a large NYC ad agency and Mr. Aziz will put the perfect local face on an "Joe Isuzu" style ad campaign...

Yes. Boring old you.

Yaksun,

Ask John McCain.

It is a sad truth that the people who cause wars to start aren't the people who fight them, but, in many cases, they are the people who fought the last one.

One wishes they would remember the fear and pain a bit more clearly. In this case, however, the fellow who caused all this was never a soldier. He was a thug, a thief, a murderer, and a rapist. He condoned and even encouraged the death and degredation of the people he was supposed to be leading. He was not a statesman or even a politician, but the capo of particularly vicious and powerful crime family.

I just hope we get our people out and an Iraqi government in as quickly as possible. To paraphrase: a government of the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people, and for the Iraqi people.

Liberation, not occupation.

yak-yak-yak: You said in an earlier post, "When I was a kid----", I got a real chuckle out of that one, because once my nephew, (who was 6 at the time), said, "Remember when I was a kid?". The sad thing yakkie is, at 6, HE, made more sense than you! BTW, there was a reason God left the ears open, and gave the MOUTH, the ability to close occasionally! Please don't confuse intelligence with common sense.

some random guy: My apoligies, I spoke too soon, I can see NOW, you are definately not yak, forgive me.

I will admit that I waffle so much on some issues that I smell like maple syrup (Mmmmmm...waaaffles). I hope my comments did not cause offense, Y.A.

"Why do they hate/want to kill us?" I think it is an important question. My simplistic, knee-jerk answer is: culture-shock and envy.

The former Persian empire got jerked ahead about a century in just a matter of a few years when oil was found. The more technologically advanced Western culture got dumped into the region virtually overnight, and it seems there was difficulty with assimilating it. It was just way too different.
A lot of folks were also womdering where all the money went. We were shipping $$ by the supertanker, but Abdul on the street wasn't seeing any of it. Perhaps he saw us as uncaring because the prince, sheik, sultan, etc. was keeping all the money.
He saw Joe Sixpack on TV as much more wealthy than he, and much more at ease with the rapid pace of change that was occuring in the world.

Add in a religion that has conflicted violently with the predominant faith of that western culture, and it looks like a good recipe for hate.

"That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

As I said, it is probably much more complex than that. I didn't, for example, mention the whole Ireal mess. There's the whole "The war is a Zionist plot to detroy Islam!" crowd. And lots of others.

My qualifications to theorize on the Mid-East?
I watched "Lawrence of Arabia", "Sinbad", and "Aladin." Make sme just as much of an expert as any of the Hollywood crowd.

Excellent comeback, uhuh. You're a quick study.

Awwwwk: You're fat.
Awwwwk: You're a ni**er.
Awwwwk: You're gay.
Awwwwk: You're a traitor
Awwwwk: You're boring.

(Awwwwk: You're a hypocrite.)

Polly want an intellectual discussion?
Polly care to discuss issues?
Naw, Polly just wants a cracker (Saltine, Your Analysis, not Georgia).

"So far, at the end of the first half, the score is

God Squad - 10,000
Allah's Fellas - 3,050"

"God got behind early in this game, folks, and things weren't looking too good. But thanks to a (JDAM) burst, (S)he vaulted into a sizeable lead just before the half. So the big question is, will (S)he sit on this lead and grind it out, or will (S)he try to pile it on? What do you think, fans? Fans? Fans?"

"Everyone's dead, Donald. They were collaterally damaged. Its just US."

"No, wait, there's that Ali boy down there trying to wave his pom pons - ah, but he has no hands. Tough break for him, huh?"

"He has no complaint. He got into the game for free."

[Brought to you by the USA. Keeping Israel safe since 2003.]

Till next time,

your friend and fellow American,

yaksun

Shame on all of you!
You should not be arguing among yourselves when we are running out of time to stop the war. You should be in the streets! ANSWER has a big rally at Washington DC this weekend. Look at Answer.com or .org, whichever. We are going to ring the whitehouse and stop the war.
YAKSUN is right. This has always been a crusade against the Moslems. They are helpless in the face of our dominant god powered white army. We must save them before the Bushy takes away their oil like he did the mexicans in texas.
Bush makes victims of little Brown people everywhere. If we white people don't stand up to his racism they won't have a chance!

Bambi, thank you for mainly sticking to the topic. You have restored my faith a little bit.

I didn't say the war was for oil. I am 98% convinced the war is not about oil. However, I think a reasonable person would concede that, given the petroleum background of key players in the Admin., there is the appearance of conflict of interest (Just as with France and Russia). Also, one could argue that, with 100,000 US troops stationed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, one doesn't have to actually "take it" from them. I submit that the military presence is sufficient to keep them from saying "no".

The point of my "play by play" was to chide anyone (Robert) who thinks that the crazies who murder in the name of Allah represent all Muslims, and that therefore we should wage war on Islam indiscriminantly. You obviously do not feel that way. Surprise, I don't think the President feels that way either. He impresses me more and more as being a good man and President, even if I don't agree with him on all issues. Thus, I haven't referred to him as "Bushie" for awhile now. I think however he ought to be more careful about using the word "crusade" in describing our military actions in this region - strictly as a matter of public relations. Given the wrong perception, we could win the military battle and lose the larger war of public relations. Example: The UN fiasco.

Cricket: If you're still out there, it did not escape my attention that, as you said, there has been no congressional declaration of war since 9/11. Congress "courageously" passed a resolution giving the President latitude to conduct the war on terror. Didn't you think that was a really slick way of putting all the responsibility on him and not themselves (i.e., its your neck, Sucker)?

Ynot: If you are still there, I think I kind of agree with you. But, if both sides agree on the issue, it makes it harder to have a debate.

In fraternal good spirit,

yaksun

Yaksun,

You make no sense at all.
I now view you with less credibility than I view Frenchfry. Since that should technically be impossible, I'll assume that this is your goal.

So kudos Yaksun, keep up the insanity.

Yaksun,

I posted my response before your 2:54 post. I don't have any idea whose side you are on because it seems to me that you are constantly switching your argument. Often your posts don't make sense to me, maybe I'm the only one.

Yaksun,

Iíve figured you out, and youíve even admitted this to me in earlier posts.

Step 1: You type things that are offensive and illogical.
Step 2: We respond by presenting you with facts.
Step 3: You re-post a capitulation so we all ìfeel goodî about Yaksun.

You have drawn me into your trap for the last time.

Type an opinion and defend it, thatís what gains respect.

Ynot: Its quite simple. As I explained above to my friend Greyhawk, who knows me pretty well
[;-)], I was bored, so I thought I'd seek a debate. In a debate, two parties have to square off on opposite sides and argue a point - preferably convincingly. In order to do that, the particpant must "buy into" the side of the point (s) he is arguing. Hence on Scrappleface (great site), I usually present the side I'm arguing. Given my love for underdogs, that is usually the minority position. On this site, liberal, pacifist, Democrat, etc, is clearly the minority position. That side is different from my personal position - often way different. BTW, I can't bring myself to debate Greyhawk anymore. (S)he is too reasonable and too nice. Darn it.

As I tried to explain to aha, I do it because it is much more challenging than simply getting on-line with like-minded people every day and telling each other how right we all are. As proof, look at the diverse (and sometimes even reasonable) responses my posts engendered. Also, I claim to be an attorney. Arguing is what I do. Consider it practice.

Also, in this case, I have had numerous times myself to resist the temptation to want to lash out at all Muslims for the fault of a few. If I knew a moderate Muslim personally, it would help. However, I haven't yet had the pleasure. Consider it shaming myself into behaving tolerantly.

In any event, this session has been another interesting learning experience, thanks in part to you.

Kapisch?

;-)

yaksun

BTW, did you watch South Park last night? They summed up the whole pro/anti war thing in a very humorous fashion.

Ynot:

Okay. Here's an opinion all my own.

Strictly in the interest of advancing the war against terrorism, the Coalition should post enough troops to stabilize Iraq. When that is accomplished, and without UN approval, the Coalition should proceed into Syria and do the same damn thing it did in Iraq. If need be, follow this up with a trip into Lebanon. Unfortunately, in order to make this work, many troops will need to stay in the region for a long time. Justification: Self-defense of the US. Any benefit to the locals in terms of freedoms gained is gravy. IN THE MEANTIME, to show we are not just making war on Islam, publicly and forcefully pressure both sides Israel and "Palestine" to work toward creation of a Palestinian state. Even if not successful, it should be possible to present it in a light favorable to US. Also, fire Colin Powell as Secretary of State immediately. He is a warrior, not a mealy-mouthed diplomat. He expects people and nations to see reason and stand up for principle - alien concepts in the UN. Any SOS so out of touch with the realities of the UN that he couldn't predict that Fr. and Russia would vote against a second resolution shouldn't be retained.

Want another? The Cubs have the best pitching staff in the NL.

Chew on that.

Here's a third. I don't give a rat's arse what you or anyone else on this post thinks of me.

yaksun

I posted some thoughts here thinking that Yaksun loved me. I guess I was wrong.

Ynot:

You wanted an opinion, I gave you 3. Unlike many here, I would not have invaded Iraq to begin with, and have consistently stated the same in my posts. In fact, I would not have invaded Iraq at all given the facts known through the present. Saddam was a terrible tyrant, but I don't think that's a good enough reason for us to be there and I wouldn't have used it as an excuse. In terms of global security, the Coalition's rapid defeat of his army has proven just what a "threat" he really was to the US.

Furthermore, I don't think the euphoria of the moment is reason to believe the Iraqis want us to remain there. And yet, now we must in order to ensure the "reconstruction" of Iraq. Like it or not, we have all been presented with a war in the Middle East. I reluctantly support our efforts. As I said above, I don't see now how one can justify invading Iraq and not also pursue terrorists into the other countries where they dwell. Consider this. One of Bin Laden's main reasons for 9/11 was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. So fine. Why not first call his bluff and get those troops out of there. Oh wait, then there would be no guarantee of cheap oil, would there?

People like you got us into this fight. Why don't YOU tell us how we're going to get out of it. Where will it all end now? Yeah, we've got great weapons and brave troops. But they have a billion potential suicide bombers to stop. Maybe if we tried dealing with them as people, instead of as cockroaches (the Israeli method), this could have been avoided. If not, at least before fighting them, we would have the satisfaction of knowing we tried EVERYTHING necessary to avoid a fight. Simply going in because the weather was going to get hotter? So wait 6 months. Hidden WMDs? Well, if they were hidden underground, then he couldn't very well be using them, could he? In fact, he was quite contained in that regard. He gave money to terrorists? So do Americans who support the IRA. Shall we kill them too? After all, Great Britain is our most faithful ally.

Come on Ynot. What have you got?

love,

yaksun

Yaksun, I love you two; the one from step 1 and the one from step 3. (See above)

Your last post was the equivalent of Step 1. Now it's my turn to provide you with the facts. Then you come back and agree with me and we all feel good.

Your last post is riddled with holes, but either you're arguing with me for the sake of arguing (See Steps 1-3 above), to which I already stated I wouldnít play that game with you any more. Or you really believe that nonsense and whatever facts I present you with now will be summarily dismissed.

Nice try.

BTW Yaksun, I did laugh out loud when I got to end of your post - "Love,". Thanks for that laugh.

ynot:

You asked for an opinion. I've given you several. I asked you one question. Just one. You didn't answer. So instead here are four: When will we be done with this fight? How will we extricate ourselves from it if the terrorists aren't through with us? If Osama was responsible for 9/11, why attack Iraq? And finally, why the rush to invade Iraq?

Pick one. Any one will do.

"Full of holes"? Really? Do you deny Americans funnel money to the IRA? Do you deny Great Britain has been our most faithful ally, especially in this conflict? (This, BTW, despite Rumsfeld's trivialization of GB in saying we didn't need their help). Do you deny no WMDs have been found yet? Do you deny Saddam's Army has been driven to flight after just 3 weeks? Do you deny that while all those US troops were stationed on his borders and the eyes of the world were on him, that Saddam wasn't being squeaky clean? Do you deny that its hard to use a WMD over which you don't have possession or control?

No, the holes here are in the bodies of the dead and wounded, combatants or non, and in our relations with most of the nations in the world. I hope its been worth it.

I'll address you no more unless/until you utter something substantive but hey, its been tedious.

yaksun

You're wrong, I never asked for your opinion. If you answer my question first I will answer your questions to the best of my ability. Tell me that the above is what you believe and not just arguing because "I was bored, so I thought I'd seek a debate".

I have to go to my second job now where I cannot post. So you will not get an immediate response.

What the heck I'll give you a quick one. Youíre wrong to say that Saddam didn't pose much of a threat if we defeated his army in just three weeks. (Side note: you people are never satisfied, you are unhappy to go to war, then you are unhappy that it only took three weeks) Bush NEVER said that Iraqís' military posed a threat to us. He said that Saddam could hand over WMD to terrorists that could in turn harm the U.S. or our interests. Even you must admit that would be harder if Saddam is dead.

Angry_Liberal: Where did you adopt your liberal views. I don't suppose your mommy and daddy are also angry liberals? Wouldn't that be a coincidence.

Hey Barf, or Yak, whatever the [heck] your name is. You're a [frenchman]. Who cares what the rest of the world (meaning France and Germany)thinks. The Marines were standing in both of the Al Qaida camps a few days ago and we took several artillery pieces that had several hundred chemical munitions (shells) with them. They were never fired. It seems those troopers deeded our word. Just because your pals over in the media don't report it doesn't mean it isn't true. And this is the bottom line: America is now safer. Not safe, but safer. Saddam will never send a few young suicide bombers with chemical munitions over here. We may never find all of them as he has undoubtedly destroyed a good bit of them, already farmed them off, or had them hidden underground where they probably won't be found for decades. Or we may never find them. So what. He's had 'em. "it's all about oil" yak yak yak. This is so moronic it's beneath contempt and even 6 year-old intelligence. If it's only oil it would be cheaper to "colonize" Venezuela or the Dominican Republic or Cuba. Or ... you know it's too stupid to argue.

You and Frenchfry need to stop trying to dig up every little possible mistake we ever made as a country. We are the light of the world. We feed the world. We protect the world. The worst things we have ever done in times past don't come close to what happens around the world every day. I'll presume you've never been to Nicaragua, Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Nairobi, Nicaragua, Korea, Singapore, or the Phillipines. But I'll bet maybe you've visited France or Germany? Sitting around, eating crepes, talking about how "America is so over." Seems so many libs have. I'll go out on a limb and say you've never been to any of those places, and that you as much about what goes on in the world as the rest of the libs. And once again the left is on the wrong side of history. America isn't perfect,but we right our wrongs. We try to do the right thing. We provide food and hope to people all over the world. Quit living in the past. Look to the future. You are part of a great country. Quit being ashamed of it. Go and live a great life. I will be out there making sure you do.

Everyone go to capmag.com/article.asp?id=2631.

Dear ynot:

I myself personally believe that this "war" was unnecessary or, at best launched prematurely. I've said so many times. 9/11 was caused by Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, according to current PUBLICLY AVAILABLE info. No current proof links Saddam or Iraq to that incident, unless you are holding out on us. Therefore, if you are avenging 9/11, it would seem you got the wrong man. [We were hit in the nose by A. Therefore, lets lash out at B.] If you are trying to send a deterrent message to one group of terrorists by killing another, I think you are wasting your time, possibly violating international law (absent some link between the two groups), and probably creating more of the "problem" you were trying to eliminate.

IF your fishing expedition leads to the discovery of WMD, it would bolster your argument that Saddam MIGHT have transferred them to "terrorists". BTW, would that include the IRA, supported by many Americans, to use against Great Britain? Maybe more likely them than Bin laden, who has denounced Saddam publicly as a secular "infidel", according to current PUBLICLY AVAILABLE information. I dispute that an "argument" without proof is enough to justify your war.

Which all gets back to my original question: Since we're winning, and you should be in a god (oops) good mood, enlighten me and my people. What is/was our official reason for invading Iraq? I surmise from your response that it has to do mainly with WMD. In that case, I hope you find them. It would help your case, after the fact of course. I suspect you will, eventually. Perhaps this weekend in Tikrit.

And you're right, it will be harder for Saddam to use or sell them (if he has them) when he's dead. He's a bad man, no doubt. But was it proven that he did anything to justify our invading his country and killing innocent civilians (and losing good troops) in order to execute him? Not that I can see. Lets use history as a reference. Even in WWII, and as bad a man as Hitler was, we waited until after he had annexed Austria, most of Czechoslavakia, attacked Poland, conquered France, decimated Britain and massacred millions in the USSR AND declared war on us before going after him. Why? He had done nothing to US. But I have to concede, Saddam makes a convenient, popular (among your people) target. Which brings up an interesting (to me) corallary question. If you can justify waging "Preventative War" against Saddam for things he MIGHT have done, perhaps you can explain to me why we never attacked Stalin's Soviet Union. He murdered more of his own people than Hitler and Saddam put together, Furthermore, I have reason to believe that he funded rogue states (N. Vietnam, N. Korea) for the express purpose of killing Americans. The same could be asked of Mao's China. Or here's a contemporary example, how about North Korea? We know they're making bombs. We know that they want to kill Americans. We've caught them red-handed proliferating missiles to a volatile Mid Eastern nation (Yemen). We know they are building long-range missiles that can hit the US. So why are we not blasting the piss out of THEM right now? Are you blind to this threat but not to Iraq? (No known oil reserves there tho, huh?). Can you really justify in the name of the security of the US of A waiting until NoKor has had more time to build bombs and more time to build and test long-range missile and hide them?

Okay. Can't wait to hear back from you to explain the rush to take out global threat Iraq while Kim Il Sung lobs missiles at Japan, locks missiles on our spy planes, etc. Before you do though, why don't you take a quick trip to CNN.com and, under Search, type in "injured boy Ali".

I'm referring to the story of 12 year old Ali Abbas, the little boy who got both his arms blown off by a missile explosion in Baghdad, not Ali Jawarish, the 9 year old "cockroach" who was exterminated by an Israeli soldier. That's a good story too, though. The 9-year old's family donated his organs to other kids, but not before having to plead with Israeli soldiers to let them through a checkpoint to a hospital. Anyway, perhaps in your reply, you can tell me (and my people) how you are going to explain to little Abbas why he is so much better off for our being there - besides, perhaps, state of the art prosthetics. Explain why he couldn't have lept those arms for, say, 6 more months while the weather cooled and more inspectors went to Iraq. No doubt you'll avoid the question and say, "yes, but look at all the other grateful people we saved from Saddam's butchery". Well, lets check back in from time to time, while Ali tries to support himself, to see how grateful those new friends of ours remain. Already today there are reports that some of them massacred a returning-from-exile mullah in Nasraf, who was going to be a local leader in the "reconstruction" for "being an American stooge".

Splain it all to me, ynot. Splain when we can declare "Victory". Splain it to those two boys, too.

Nothin but love for you and your people.

yaksun

Ghost:

"Awwwwwk; You're a jackass."
"Awwwwwk: You're moronic."

I didn't say it was all about oil. Ever. If you're going to attack me, at least be accurate. To deny that oil is a factor is to ignore reality. Meanwhile, I'll hold my breath waiting for those new hydrogen-powered cars...

Yes, I'll concede. Iraq will never attack US again, or at least not for a while. Um, when was it that they attacked us the first time?

Who said I'm ashamed of my country? Not I. Let me say it for you slowly. One can disagree with what one's government is doing without being ashamed of the country it governs. (I'm a little worried about you though. Did you go and attack ANOTHER weak nation without any apparent reason? Did you insult and alienate ANOTHER ally? We're running out of them, you know.)

"Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?"

Ahem. No need to address that statement, I'll simply let it hang out there for all to marvel it. It speaks volumes about you.

nighty night.

Yaksun

Ghost: I'm sorry you got drawn into Yak's psuedo-intellectual rabble-rousing. His MO is to make outrageous statements, wait for your incensed reply, then flop slightly over and decry anyone's attack on his ambiguous stance. He's said everything from left to right and never landed anywhere. He's only entertaining himself watching others struggle to point him to true north while he twirls around pretending he can't see where you're pointing. Don't waste your fingertips.

I didn’t pick one I picked them all, even the ones that weren’t questions!

When will we be done with this fight? - When the Saddam regime is no longer in power.
How will we extricate ourselves from it if the terrorists aren't through with us? - We will remove ourselves from Iraq when the Saddam regime is no longer in power regardless of whether “the terrorists aren’t through with us” or not. In fact Osama’s group hasn’t attacked us once since 9/11, probably too busy running and hiding.
If Osama was responsible for 9/11, why attack Iraq? - I agree with GWB when he said that America was going to bring to justice terrorists and those who harbor them. We have captured terrorist camps and Osama’s followers within Iraq. Saddam financially supports terrorists and homicide bombers. We found a boeing 737 inside Iraq that was used to train terrorists to hijack airplanes. It is rumored to have been a training aid for 9/11.
And finally, why the rush to invade Iraq? - Personally I think 12 years of resolutions and 8 years of inspections is not a rush.
Do you deny Americans funnel money to the IRA? - I can neither confirm nor deny.
Do you deny Great Britain has been our most faithful ally, especially in this conflict? - I do not deny. Relevance?
(This, BTW, despite Rumsfeld's trivialization of GB in saying we didn't need their help). - Relevance?
Do you deny no WMDs have been found yet? - I do not deny that they haven’t been found yet. I think you are being awfully demanding of troops that you didn’t even want to send. Lets see, while you’re over there could you free a nation, fight an army, fight all kinds (and new kinds) of unconventional warfare, idle the looting, feed and water the people, help to form a new government from scratch, and hurry up with finding those WMDs because the war isn’t legitimate yet for Yaksun. NEWS FLASH: Saddam was smart enough to hide his weapons from the inspectors. This is just a guess, they are probably still hidden.
Do you deny Saddam's Army has been driven to flight after just 3 weeks? - Relevance? See above short post.
Do you deny that while all those US troops were stationed on his borders and the eyes of the world were on him, that Saddam wasn't being squeaky clean? - You couldn’t convince me that Saddam has had one “squeaky clean” day of his life. Save the possible exception of his childhood.
Do you deny that its hard to use a WMD over which you don't have possession or control? - No idiot would deny that sentence, so my answer is DUH. But you should know that Saddams regime gassed his own people to the tune of 100,000 innocent civilians. That’s WMD. His regime ADMITTED themselves that they possessed something like 5,000 tons of anthrax and some other quantity of nerve gas. If they admitted to that much, how much did they really have? To this day all of that WMD that they admitted having is still unaccounted for.
No, the holes here are in the bodies of the dead and wounded, combatants or non, and in our relations with most of the nations in the world. I hope its been worth it. - Nobody likes war but sometimes it’s necessary. If we can reduce the worldwide terrorist threat while freeing a very repressed and tortured people, I think it’s worth it. And thanks for mentioning the holes in our relations, I’ve been dying to get this off my chest. I have heard some people talk about Bush’s failed foreign relations. I disagree. I’m glad he has forced this issue with the world. Because we’re in a new world now Yaksun, a world where Radical Muslim people will come to our country to slit stewardesses throats and fly our planes into buildings. And in this world, I’d rather know who our true allies are than to struggle for something that’s time has not yet come, the UN.
I'll address you no more unless/until you utter something substantive but hey, its been tedious. - Substance is above and tedious to you too. (you’re it)

PS this is obviously a response to your earlier post, maybe I’ll blog you tomorrow.

The new Government of iraq has a lot of chemical and biological weapons. And also atomic weapons...

Oooh this is a wonderful day! Way up there^ Yaksun is the first person to ever agree with me here! Thank you Yaksun! We are kindred spirits with like minds! You too Jean Claude. I don't know who that new government is but if what you say is true we should protest them with sanctions!
Wonderful happy day!

Hey Yak, Germany and France aren't the whole world ya know. You're such a good liberal. Nice job taking that remark out of context. Nobody buys it. And we're running out of allies? France and Germany, WOW!! Russia and China never were. So what. Funny how all of the European countries who were under Soviet dictator-rule for 50 years ALL support us, huh? 20 of them took out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal for a week a few months back, pledging their support for us. And that is the official position of their govmts. The Czech govmt maintains that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intel officials, Marines were in the Al Qaida camps in Iraq, doesn't matter does it? Facts never do to the left. I'm intrigued on your knowledge and observations of the world though, so tell me again, how many of those countries have you been to? How many forward areas have you been to? Go feed the newly freed people in Iraq this crap and they'll beat you to death with a 2x4. Take your whining and go somewhere, I recommend the highly enlightened land of France.

Yaksun,

Quote: Leaving a country doesn't change your country of birth; if you were born in the US, you are an American.

Your wrong - being a military brat born in a military base, in a foreign country, makes you the citizen of the military base (occupying country)you were born to.If you don't agree I suggest you become better informed. That has been an international law for many years and applies to about every government, with the possible exception of France, but only because they have been occupied so many times by foreign armies that they don't know where their fathers might be from.

GHOST,

apparently France & Germany were NEVER our allies either.

ynot: Not bad. I'm still thinking over your comments. You neglected to even mention little Ali Abbas, however. Disappointing. I hoped you were going to tell me how he is better off for our having visited Iraq. I thought maybe we could send him a series of letters explaining American-style democracy. Perhaps we could start with the Bill of Rights and the right to keep and bear arms?? What do you think?

Harden Stuhl (love that name): I don't believe I ever made the remark you attempt to attribute to me. If you find where I did, please be a dear and be kind enough to point it out. Thanks loads. Get it? Loads.

AHA: Keep trying. Someday you'll say something meaningful, even by accident. The odds are in your favor.

Gotta go. The secret police are here to punish me for being "against US". I'll be in the same cell as France. Write me, okay?

Love,

yaksun

Ghost: "Go feed the newly freed people of Iraq..."

You hit the nail on the head, sister. You're so eager for this responsibility, I'll send you my share of the tax bill. Also, your new friends in Karbala, etc. are kinda scary. What does "No to Saddam. No to US. No to Israel." mean, exactly?

Actually, I consider myself moderate. You know, middle of the road. A liberal is a conservative who's just been arrested. "Vive le difference!"

yaksun