I have gas
Yup. Obtained in 1903 under the Cuban-American Treaty I believe. Then there's some conspiracy having to do with the Vienna Conventions and then the Platt Amendments. But I do digress; I did a report on the treatment of the prisoners at "Gitmo" and some of the techniques AUTHORIZED by the CIA and Dick Cheney himself are just ghastly to say the least.CameronPoe wrote:
Technically it's US soil until the lease runs out.yerded wrote:
Actaully, it's in Cuba.
Those mighty commies haven't managed to evict us yet.
Basically, lets just say that (in this particular circumstance) if you disagree with me in this thread, you are wrong. I don't necessarily recall whether or not your stance is pro-marines or neutral, and I don't care enough to reread it and check (if you feel the same apathy in regards to relocation and contextual examination, I'd like to let you know that the general tone is neutral). So if you want to check who's right, in this case, just find my posts and compare what you feel to what I've said. As a more specific citation though, I'd like to reference your complete inability to identify an understanding of a cease-fire situation. Whether or not you understand it, I could care less, but after disproving your pathetic analogy so thoroughly, you remained quite oblivious.lowing wrote:
And I can't say the samething about you huh??Xietsu wrote:
I don't really think that is the case, as it just appears to be some little nitpick of Bubbalo's. Regardless of your seeing him as being hypocritical, he actually argued against Kabbom and provided an explanation/analysis for/of his stance. The point is that such a happening is often without occurrence, when it comes to Lowing.remo wrote:
It was an example of him criticising one person's petty insult ... then turning around later and using a petty insult (sarcasm or not) while responding to another's tactful argument.Yeah, I don't know exactly what you two are arguing because this thread hasn't really had focus on a topic that requires much debate...but, from what I've seen, even if you were proven wrong, your bull-headed, blind, unfound partial bias often disables you from making such an admition.lowing wrote:
with regards to opinions, no one can tell anyone they are wrong. sorry buddy.
Anyway, not that I am going back to re-read all of your bullshit, but I don't remember a single post you made that had me sitting back going "holy shit, I better shut up cuz Bubbalo just proved me wrong!!!"
Other than you TELLING me I am wrong in my opinions what more do you have?? I am listening.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-12 17:35:02)
Ahhhhhhhhh. I see, I am wrong because you said so........Hmm now there is an interesting debate tactic.Xietsu wrote:
Basically, lets just say that (in this particular circumstance) if you disagree with me in this thread, you are wrong. I don't necessarily recall whether or not your stance is pro-marines or neutral, and I don't care enough to reread it and check (if you feel the same apathy in regards to relocation and contextual examination, I'd like to let you know that the general tone is neutral). So if you want to check who's right, in this case, just find my posts and compare what you feel to what I've said. As a more specific citation though, I'd like to reference your complete inability to identify an understanding of a cease-fire situation. Whether or not you understand it, I could care less, but after disproving your pathetic analogy so thoroughly, you remained quite oblivious.lowing wrote:
And I can't say the samething about you huh??Xietsu wrote:
I don't really think that is the case, as it just appears to be some little nitpick of Bubbalo's. Regardless of your seeing him as being hypocritical, he actually argued against Kabbom and provided an explanation/analysis for/of his stance. The point is that such a happening is often without occurrence, when it comes to Lowing.remo wrote:
It was an example of him criticising one person's petty insult ... then turning around later and using a petty insult (sarcasm or not) while responding to another's tactful argument.
Yeah, I don't know exactly what you two are arguing because this thread hasn't really had focus on a topic that requires much debate...but, from what I've seen, even if you were proven wrong, your bull-headed, blind, unfound partial bias often disables you from making such an admition.
Other than you TELLING me I am wrong in my opinions what more do you have?? I am listening.
Saying you disproved something doesn't make it so. You haven't disproved jack shit.
Your arrogance on the internet is quite amusing.
That came at the end of a long post in which I responded to the other persons' arguments. lowing seems to think he can skip that.remo wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
lowing: You ought be able to provide the basis for the formation of your opinions. Me and Xietsu have both provided reason and logic to support our case. You do not.
your actually making sense for a change Bubbalo
lol. He actually quoted a post of mine containing a conceptual analysis, and then commenced in calling it psycho. Repeated times, too--he wasn't joking. Damn logic...it's just so...abnormal!Bubbalo wrote:
That came at the end of a long post in which I responded to the other persons' arguments. lowing seems to think he can skip that.remo wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
lowing: You ought be able to provide the basis for the formation of your opinions. Me and Xietsu have both provided reason and logic to support our case. You do not.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-13 00:07:39)
fuck em... its us or them...
Love is the answer
Exactly. The conflict between the US and Muslim extremists doesn't come down to good and bad, or right and wrong. It comes down to our happiness vs their happiness.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
fuck em... its us or them...
Tell yourselves that all ya want, it simply isn't true. You have shown nothing except your ability to double talk and twist postings.Bubbalo wrote:
That came at the end of a long post in which I responded to the other persons' arguments. lowing seems to think he can skip that.remo wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
lowing: You ought be able to provide the basis for the formation of your opinions. Me and Xietsu have both provided reason and logic to support our case. You do not.
the reason I feel the way I do about the war on terror is because we were attacked, and had been getting attacked by Muslim terrorist for a decade. We now are doing something about it and we have not been attacked on our soil since.
I feel the way I do about Iraq, because Iraq was breaking the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the conflict in 1991. Iraq had 10 years of warnings to get back into compliance, they did not, so the cease fire ended.
these are all facts and the foundation for my opinions. I know I have said these facts numerous times. If you actually read my posts and tried to understand what I am trying to say, instead of try and dissect them looking for flaws and spelling errors, you would know this.
Your reasons for what you believe in are unambiguous and it is fair enough to hold those beliefs. I would however ask you whether you think that, having invaded Iraq, global terrorism has flourished or diminished. Also, touch wood an attack doesn't happen inside the US. There were nearly 10 years between the two world trade centre attackes - terrorists know how to bide their time and strike while the guard is down. The current 'lull' is not really a result of successful anti-terrorism action - it's not like the US were being attacked on even so much as an annual basis pre-'war on terror'.lowing wrote:
Tell yourselves that all ya want, it simply isn't true. You have shown nothing except your ability to double talk and twist postings.Bubbalo wrote:
That came at the end of a long post in which I responded to the other persons' arguments. lowing seems to think he can skip that.remo wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
lowing: You ought be able to provide the basis for the formation of your opinions. Me and Xietsu have both provided reason and logic to support our case. You do not.
the reason I feel the way I do about the war on terror is because we were attacked, and had been getting attacked by Muslim terrorist for a decade. We now are doing something about it and we have not been attacked on our soil since.
I feel the way I do about Iraq, because Iraq was breaking the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the conflict in 1991. Iraq had 10 years of warnings to get back into compliance, they did not, so the cease fire ended.
these are all facts and the foundation for my opinions. I know I have said these facts numerous times. If you actually read my posts and tried to understand what I am trying to say, instead of try and dissect them looking for flaws and spelling errors, you would know this.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-13 04:08:56)
As I recall, at the time when the US and UK invaded Iraq, the UN weapons inspectors were being given full unrestricted access to any buildings, including the presidential palaces, that they wanted. Hans Blix, the head of the inspection team, had requested that his team be given more time because Iraq was complying fully.lowing wrote:
I feel the way I do about Iraq, because Iraq was breaking the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the conflict in 1991. Iraq had 10 years of warnings to get back into compliance, they did not, so the cease fire ended.
The UN had requested a full dossier detailing Iraq's weapons programmes and stockpiles and this was delivered, on schedule, in a big media circus. Apparently, it basically said that Iraq had nothing and, of course, since the various intelligence agencies around the world "knew" that they had loads of chemical weapons that "could be deployed inside 45 minutes", this was dismissed. Pity it turned out to be true, eh?
IMO, Iraq was invaded because it made good political capital and took the media away from the fruitless search for Osama. Has he been found yet?
Emmm, this topic seams have regressed into the same debate on the war on Iraq which happens quite often on these forums, one subject is started and it slips into the same US Liberals & Europeans Vs US & British Conservatives.
I would be interested to know what you all think about these suicides.
Were they publicity stunt as claimed by the Right.
Or
Were these people drove to such disappear that they felt they had to take their own lives to ease the pain. By Left.
I would be interested to know what you all think about these suicides.
Were they publicity stunt as claimed by the Right.
Or
Were these people drove to such disappear that they felt they had to take their own lives to ease the pain. By Left.
Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. And they didn't need to draw attention. The majority of most countries are already against it. Not sure about the US, there are certainly some lawyers on the warpath though......JahManRed wrote:
Were they publicity stunt as claimed by the Right.
Or
Were these people drove to such disappear that they felt they had to take their own lives to ease the pain.
If you also recall, Iraq had a history of stall tactics. they would say, ok we are ready to comply then at the last minute refuse access. this went on for years.aardfrith wrote:
As I recall, at the time when the US and UK invaded Iraq, the UN weapons inspectors were being given full unrestricted access to any buildings, including the presidential palaces, that they wanted. Hans Blix, the head of the inspection team, had requested that his team be given more time because Iraq was complying fully.lowing wrote:
I feel the way I do about Iraq, because Iraq was breaking the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the conflict in 1991. Iraq had 10 years of warnings to get back into compliance, they did not, so the cease fire ended.
The UN had requested a full dossier detailing Iraq's weapons programmes and stockpiles and this was delivered, on schedule, in a big media circus. Apparently, it basically said that Iraq had nothing and, of course, since the various intelligence agencies around the world "knew" that they had loads of chemical weapons that "could be deployed inside 45 minutes", this was dismissed. Pity it turned out to be true, eh?
IMO, Iraq was invaded because it made good political capital and took the media away from the fruitless search for Osama. Has he been found yet?
Once again my position is, we did not invade Iraq. Iraq's refusal to comply with the cease fire agreement is the reason the shooting started again. If there is antone to blame it is Iraq.CameronPoe wrote:
Your reasons for what you believe in are unambiguous and it is fair enough to hold those beliefs. I would however ask you whether you think that, having invaded Iraq, global terrorism has flourished or diminished. Also, touch wood an attack doesn't happen inside the US. There were nearly 10 years between the two world trade centre attackes - terrorists know how to bide their time and strike while the guard is down. The current 'lull' is not really a result of successful anti-terrorism action - it's not like the US were being attacked on even so much as an annual basis pre-'war on terror'.lowing wrote:
Tell yourselves that all ya want, it simply isn't true. You have shown nothing except your ability to double talk and twist postings.Bubbalo wrote:
That came at the end of a long post in which I responded to the other persons' arguments. lowing seems to think he can skip that.
lowing: You ought be able to provide the basis for the formation of your opinions. Me and Xietsu have both provided reason and logic to support our case. You do not.
the reason I feel the way I do about the war on terror is because we were attacked, and had been getting attacked by Muslim terrorist for a decade. We now are doing something about it and we have not been attacked on our soil since.
I feel the way I do about Iraq, because Iraq was breaking the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the conflict in 1991. Iraq had 10 years of warnings to get back into compliance, they did not, so the cease fire ended.
these are all facts and the foundation for my opinions. I know I have said these facts numerous times. If you actually read my posts and tried to understand what I am trying to say, instead of try and dissect them looking for flaws and spelling errors, you would know this.
OK I take your point of view on the 'not invading' bit - I assume you believe you were 'carrying out the provisions' of a UN regulation, which itself is open to debate given how the document can be interpreted in various ways. It's an 'agree to disagree' situation with the resolution because you either believe one interpretation of the resolution to be correct or the other.lowing wrote:
Once again my position is, we did not invade Iraq. Iraq's refusal to comply with the cease fire agreement is the reason the shooting started again. If there is antone to blame it is Iraq.CameronPoe wrote:
Your reasons for what you believe in are unambiguous and it is fair enough to hold those beliefs. I would however ask you whether you think that, having invaded Iraq, global terrorism has flourished or diminished. Also, touch wood an attack doesn't happen inside the US. There were nearly 10 years between the two world trade centre attackes - terrorists know how to bide their time and strike while the guard is down. The current 'lull' is not really a result of successful anti-terrorism action - it's not like the US were being attacked on even so much as an annual basis pre-'war on terror'.lowing wrote:
Tell yourselves that all ya want, it simply isn't true. You have shown nothing except your ability to double talk and twist postings.
the reason I feel the way I do about the war on terror is because we were attacked, and had been getting attacked by Muslim terrorist for a decade. We now are doing something about it and we have not been attacked on our soil since.
I feel the way I do about Iraq, because Iraq was breaking the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the conflict in 1991. Iraq had 10 years of warnings to get back into compliance, they did not, so the cease fire ended.
these are all facts and the foundation for my opinions. I know I have said these facts numerous times. If you actually read my posts and tried to understand what I am trying to say, instead of try and dissect them looking for flaws and spelling errors, you would know this.
However I would ask - what 'cease fire agreement'? If there was a 'ceasefire agreement' then Iraq didn't violate it - they didn't fire the first bullet in the most recent conflict.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-13 16:14:18)
He was there and he was listening very closely for the sound of gunfire.
Yes they did, the agreement was we would suspend operations if they complied with certain terms. They did, we stopped.....they started to violate those terms we started again.CameronPoe wrote:
OK I take your point of view on the 'not invading' bit - I assume you believe you were 'carrying out the provisions' of a UN regulation, which itself is open to debate given how the document can be interpreted in various ways. It's an 'agree to disagree' situation with the resolution because you either believe one interpretation of the resolution to be correct or the other.lowing wrote:
Once again my position is, we did not invade Iraq. Iraq's refusal to comply with the cease fire agreement is the reason the shooting started again. If there is antone to blame it is Iraq.CameronPoe wrote:
Your reasons for what you believe in are unambiguous and it is fair enough to hold those beliefs. I would however ask you whether you think that, having invaded Iraq, global terrorism has flourished or diminished. Also, touch wood an attack doesn't happen inside the US. There were nearly 10 years between the two world trade centre attackes - terrorists know how to bide their time and strike while the guard is down. The current 'lull' is not really a result of successful anti-terrorism action - it's not like the US were being attacked on even so much as an annual basis pre-'war on terror'.
However I would ask - what 'cease fire agreement'? If there was a 'ceasefire agreement' then Iraq didn't violate it - they didn't fire the first bullet in the most recent conflict.
The resolutions isn't the bible........What interpretation are you suggesting is open for debate?
I heard the only reason they were recently able to OFF themselves is That The U.N. ( after an inspection )Made the Marines provide them with curtains so they could have total privacy. Anyone else hear this?
I just think the U.S. could do better. I honestly think it woould have been better for our image if they had just shot them. As it is, we are looking pretty harsh.lowing wrote:
holding POW's until the end of a war is nothing new.........what is the problem?yerded wrote:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200606 … LFO80.html
I say: charge them, hang them or free them. Mystery captivity is just wrong.
Until the discontented Muslims of the world form an actual MEC and fight we'll have to decide when its war or not.THA wrote:
and please dont call them pow's, its not a war. American government doesnt decide whats a war or not.
People can't commit acts of war and then hide behind civilians, and then get outraged by the civilian deaths.
I heard dat'lowing wrote:
I am not going to show concern over our enemies before concern for our troops.
You were only attacked on you soil once beforehand. The Iraq war hasn't significantly changed the number of deaths due to extremist muslims, it's just added on deaths due to non-extremist muslims and put them in a single country so that America can look like they're doing something.lowing wrote:
the reason I feel the way I do about the war on terror is because we were attacked, and had been getting attacked by Muslim terrorist for a decade. We now are doing something about it and we have not been attacked on our soil since.
To my knowledge, the only people who claimed to believe Iraq had WMDs were America, Britain and Australia, and recent evidence suggests (shows, IMHO) even they didn't think they did.lowing wrote:
I feel the way I do about Iraq, because Iraq was breaking the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the conflict in 1991. Iraq had 10 years of warnings to get back into compliance, they did not, so the cease fire ended.
Fair enough, when your troops have been held for four years under barely livable conditions and you have a choice between freeing them and freeing your enemies, you can go ahead and choose your troops. They aren't atm. Right now, the issue is the people you're holding WHO YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ARE ENEMIES!!!!lowing wrote:
I am not going to show concern over our enemies before concern for our troops.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-06-13 23:30:24)
Bubbalo, clearly you aren't striking enough indignance in the ignorant masses. You have some catching up to do. lmao.