strike on iraq

[canyonman00]

Originally posted by vvv
ps, try keeping on topic, and stop evading the salient question here, what's it to be for you: couch potato or tour of duty?

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts

Ok to get back on subject, the Congress has started working on their language and they are agreeing that military force IS an option. McCain, Lieberman, Powell, they are all linking up - unified if you will. And Brent S. is at home (out-of-the-loop, not on TV) probably pissed that he, and his associates who negotiated a world coalition, was not consulted.

Russia is starting to change its posture too. In spite of the fact they they have worked out agreements (with Sadam supposedly at the benefit of the country) to develop some of the Iraqi oil reserves, they are starting to realize that this needs to be brought into compliance completely.

France is doing a sidestep also. They too have worked out agreements (with Sadam supposedly at the benefit of the country) to develop and repair some of the capacity there too.

All the possible new replacements are said to be ready to review (and probably rewrite) all the agreements made with Sadam. What do you bet he was dipping into the kitty of country revenues?

Yet any possible fighting could still be avoided. Too bad you would not understand that the true answer of Sadam and his regime stepping down and moving on CAN happen. He really does not need to go to war. And HE doesn't have to.

 

[vvv]

Originally posted by max401


So your premise seems to be and please correct me if this is wrong, if a person lies about his military service, that has no effect on that persons credibility because, in your view, whether he was in the military or not is immaterial to a particular discussion. Is this your statement?

lol, go and find some kindergarten that will have you. unfortunately mcarthy isn't an option any longer.

 

[max401]

Originally posted by vvv


lol, go and find some kindergarten that will have you. unfortunately mcarthy isn't an option any longer.

This is what I get out of your many similar posts and I believe the record shows you have stated it several times:

If a person lies about his military service, that has no effect on that persons credibility because whether he was in the military or not is immaterial to a particular discussion.

And this is your answer:

"lol, go and find some kindergarten that will have you. unfortunately mcarthy isn't an option any longer."

Is there some purpose to to your being evasive?

 

[vvv]

max, there you keep on playing your evil minded games...

let's have a little less of your rather pathetic fact twisting and dissembling, if not to call it outright lying, as indeed rs7 has divulged way more of himself and his private history than could ever have been warranted by the rude and instrumentalized charges you have been directing at him with incredible pertinacity, of course, that didn't satisfy you, as you were never after the answers, your agenda was attacking his credibility through your little games and rhetorical questions...

and, the point is, as you very well know but are disingenuously ignoring for your little character slandering ploy:

having been, or not having been, in combat, cannot be proven or disproved on a board, but it is also thoroughly immaterial to the discussion at hand, because, genius, you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare to be able to imagine death or mutilation on the one hand, or come to an educated assessment of strategic diplomatic, geopolitical and economic consequences of war on the other.

so, for a change, let's get some facts from you for a change:

i do wonder, though, what with max's insistence on delving into others private backgrounds just to shed some doubt on the material content of their messages, if the dear boy, now that we have verified his gender, is actually planning on applying for a tour of duty himself?

or if he would prefer to be a couch potato warrior, getting his thrills from watching manipulated tv coverage of the war that makes it magically appear surgically precise and clean, with a remote control as his only weapon and a beer or two his only consolation for an opportunity missed on purpose to hmm, go kick some ass.

but, then again, how could he prove his reply to us?

oh dear.

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts

 

[vvv]

Originally posted by canyonman00

Yet any possible fighting could still be avoided. Too bad you would not understand that the true answer of Sadam and his regime stepping down and moving on CAN happen. He really does not need to go to war. And HE doesn't have to.

let's certainly hope that fighting can be avoided.

as for any intl coalition, i'm afraid i don't see that at all, apart from some corrupt oil sheiks who can only hold onto power through the us basically guaranteeing their regimes, and, maybe, say, romania, bulgaria, the likes, and, obviously, hmm, the uk.

right now, it still doesn't look like W will get his resolution through the security council, despite all the shuttle diplomacy we've engaged in, it just doesn't make sufficient sense for others to go along with our position.

as far as russia is concerned, we mustn't forget that a us war would be very welcome for them as that would mean basically zero intl focus on their own little dirty war in chechnya.

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts

 

[max401]

Originally posted by vvv
your agenda was attacking his credibility through your little games and rhetorical questions...

Since you in particular never answer any questions but would prefer to dance around with your bizarre postulations, rhetorical is the result, not the intent.

 

[vvv]

Originally posted by max401


Since you in particular never answer any questions but would prefer to dance around with your bizarre postulations, rhetorical is the result, not the intent.

you really are the born liar, dear boy, aren't you:

i wrote:

and, the point is, as you very well know but are disingenuously ignoring for your little character slandering ploy:

having been, or not having been, in combat, cannot be proven or disproved on a board, but it is also thoroughly immaterial to the discussion at hand, because, genius, you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare to be able to imagine death or mutilation on the one hand, or come to an educated assessment of strategic diplomatic, geopolitical and economic consequences of war on the other.

what cannot be proven or disproved, is fully irrelevant in the context of this particular discussion, you're the only evil minded spin doctor insisting on badgering rs7 about his past, and again, no one in their right mind would ever contemplate that he would have lied just to make a point, particularly when the points he is making are strong enough to stand on their own.

all you want to do is undermine his credibility with your cheap tricks, that is all you are about. oh, and worshipping the ground W walks on.

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts

 

[ElCubano]

As I have said numerous times, Maxie-pad is the "QUEEN OF SPIN"......He will spin you silly and then bombard you with nonsense....He has no spine and is a very weak individual...He obviously argues for the sake of arguing;;; Maybe his Mother didnt love him as a child.....who knows...but definitely not someone to waste your time on.....


just mi 2 pennies

 

[aphexcoil]

Max and his "ostentatious verbosity" have me cracking up every time I read a new post. You'd make a great english teacher -- at least we'd all get a good nap in your class.

lol

 

[vvv]

Originally posted by ElCubano
As I have said numerous times, Maxie-pad is the "QUEEN OF SPIN"......He will spin you silly and then bombard you with nonsense

true true, it's probably the weekend thing, you know, where you feel that you might as well go and really waste some time on nonsense.

although, the sad thing is, the underlying issue of war, and life, death and mutilation, is much too serious to be dealt lightly with or, where like madison very rightly said earlier on this thread,

quote: It's a shame this thread has degenerated into personal attacks and "neocon vs. liberal" foolishness.

If you give it some thought you might realize that while those in power have us calling each other names and arguing over labels, they're in the back room counting your money, smoking cigars and laughing at the suckers that work until June each year to fund their cocktail receptions, porkbarrel projects, and entitlement schemes, pay for their bodyguards and interns, and send them on "sightseeing tours" in private jets.

THEY, collectively, are responsible for policies that have made international targets out of their citizens. They have antagonized people all over the globe, from Ecuador to Vietnam. They have amassed a tremendous national debt to be delivered to your grandchildren. And now another war and $200 Billion more debt are needed for their latest adventure, and presumably to provide an excuse for the next tax increase.

Point: ALL politicians lie -- this should have nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative" - we are talking about war: preserving our future, killing people, destroying lives, and thinking a little bit deeper than 10 sec. soundbytes from criminals like Daschle and Armey...unquote