What Senator John Glenn Said

[DOMS]

Translation of previous post: I'm a liberal who won't accept anything outside of my warped world-view. The only good thing is this world is the Liberal!

Nananananana!

 

[Decker]

I had no idea that saying something along the lines of "we have no opinion" is actually giving permission.

Also, wikipedia is not a valid source for heavily debated issues (not this quote is real) but it's a user modified site.

You're right, it isn't the best source but yesterday my internet access was to be 'fixed' about 10:30 am and I didn't have time to plow through State Department records and Iraqi Gov. records.

 

[Decker]

This doesn't hold water. By U.N. mandate he was SUPPOSED to destroy his weapons. Yet, instead of destroying them, he spent years and millions of dollars hiding them from the inspectors. If he were going to destroy them he would have just done so in full view of the U.N. inspectors and gotten them off his back. Dismantled, repackaged and hidden away? Maybe. But, destroyed? I don't think so.

Now, onto the term "illegal" that keeps getting thrown around in reference to the war. In order for something to be illegal, it has to have broken a law. What exact law did we break in ousting Saddam? The U.N.? No, we actually followed the U.N. resolutions that stated Saddam would be removed if he didn't comply with the U.N. weapons inspector's orders. He didn't, we booted him. So, what's illegal?

It does hold water. Hussein was put into the precarious situation of disarming his country in front of his mortal enemies, especially Iran. In other words, a published disarming would invite Iran to take notice.

The invasion is illegal. http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=53043&highlight=iraq+invasion+illegal

 

[kbm8795]

Translation of previous post: I'm a liberal who won't accept anything outside of my warped world-view. The only good thing is this world is the Liberal!

Nananananana!

Nothin' like an irresponsible citizen.

 

[DOMS]

Nothin' like an irresponsible citizen.

Better than a liberal who lives in her own little reality than the real world.

 

[DOMS]

You're right, it isn't the best source but yesterday my internet access was to be 'fixed' about 10:30 am and I didn't have time to plow through State Department records and Iraqi Gov. records.

Not exactly the quality of your usual posts.

 

[GFR]

Better than a liberal who lives in her own little reality than the real world.

I like my fake world thank you very much

 

[Rich46yo]

It does hold water. Hussein was put into the precarious situation of disarming his country in front of his mortal enemies, especially Iran. In other words, a published disarming would invite Iran to take notice.

The invasion is illegal. http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=53043&highlight=iraq+invasion+illegal

Now were supposed to commiserate with Saddam over being forced to destroy his WMDs after the Gulf War? Thats all the cease fire agreement, which the Iraqis signed, demanded. There was no demand he unilaterally disarm his armed forces. Even the no fly zone came later in an attempt to stop his brutal genocide against the Shiites and Kurds.

In 1992 Iran didn't have any WMDs other then a small chem capability. Their military forces were a shambles and still hadn't recovered from Iraq's attack against them. They had no capability to sustain an invasion against Iraq.

Thats what the cease fire called for, the destruction of his WMD programs. If he had a problem with it then fuck him! and fuck them! They shouldn't have invaded Kuwait and they sure as hell shouldn't have lost.

""Puhlease, a member of Saddam's most elite unit makes a cherry squishee for me every day and wears a smock.""

More words of wisdom from another great/experienced military man.. ....................Uncle Rich............

 

[kbm8795]

Better than a liberal who lives in her own little reality than the real world.

Ahh...I consider being called a 'liberal" by a wingnut a high compliment. Thanks. But I'm not a "her". . . . . .but such is the wingnut reality.

 

[DOMS]

Ahh...I consider being called a 'liberal" by a wingnut a high compliment. Thanks. But I'm not a "her". . . . . .but such is the wingnut reality.

So you didn't post crap such as:

"of course, the religious Right would be furious if they discovered how many are hanging out in executive positions with the RNC...we call them 'brownshirts'"

You're also a rabid left-leaning poster on democraticunderground.com, the largest home of the liberal crackpots online.

Plus, you post on gaystlouis.com. Statistically speaking, gays are more likely to be Liberal than Conservative.

You sure sound like a liberal.

It's interesting that Conservatives have no problems stating that they're Conservatives, but Liberals like to pretend their something else (perhaps they're a little embarrassed?).

 

[ALBOB]

It does hold water. Hussein was put into the precarious situation of disarming his country in front of his mortal enemies, especially Iran. In other words, a published disarming would invite Iran to take notice.

Nope, still doesn't hold water. Yes, he was in that precarious situation, but he put himself there. I don't care if the Devil himself was taking notice, it's what he was supposed to do.

The invasion is illegal. http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=53043&highlight=iraq+invasion+illegal

This doesn't work either. I can parade out just as many law professors that say it was NOT a pre-emptive war and therefore perfectly legal. Just as we're seeing in this thread, everybody has their own opinion. Ain't it grand?

 

[kbm8795]

So you didn't post crap such as:

"of course, the religious Right would be furious if they discovered how many are hanging out in executive positions with the RNC...we call them 'brownshirts'"

Look for the root references to the historical accounts of the First and Second Reichs.

You're also a rabid left-leaning poster on democraticunderground.com, the largest home of the liberal crackpots online.


Wow...."rabid"? Wonder where you picked up that term. . ? I've also written at American Daily, The Chicago Tribune, The Daily Herald, The Bloomington Pantagraph, The State. . .just to name a few publications. I was also once a Republican precinct committeeman before starting my career. As usual, your own dedication to vendetta prevents you from investigating any issue thoroughly enough to be responsible. And your manners are even more lacking.

Plus, you post on gaystlouis.com. Statistically speaking, gays are more likely to be Liberal than Conservative.

I'd love to see those statistics on a population which has never been counted. They apparently haven't interviewed high ranking officials in the Republican Party.

You sure sound like a liberal.

But everyone outside the Party is a "liberal". It's quite the compliment for any independent American thinker.

It's interesting that Conservatives have no problems stating that they're Conservatives, but Liberals like to pretend their something else (perhaps they're a little embarrassed?).

Well, since you know so little about the media, know even less about "liberals" except the use of the term as some imagined slur and have your butt so wound up that you can't type a simple post without attempting to reach at someone's throat (what part of "conservative" manners is that?), it's little wonder that anyone discusses their political beliefs with you.

Now what makes you think this bitchy nonsense is "conservative" thought?

The only one who should be embarassed at that post is yourself. . .but like admitting error, a wingnut has no moral or ethical foundation.

 

[DOMS]

It's absolute garbage like "They apparently haven't interviewed high ranking officials in the Republican Party." that shows how deeply you live in your fantasy world.

Oh, and good job on hiding your political and sexual leanings.

You really need to come out of you polictial and sexual closets and be proud of who you are!

 

[DOMS]

independent American thinker

Laughable. An independent thinker? From "Brown Shirts" to the desire to believe that top Republicans are closet homosexuals, you've done little other than repeat phrases I've heard so often from Democratic camp.

Tool.

 

[kbm8795]

It's absolute garbage like "They apparently haven't interviewed high ranking officials in the Republican Party." that shows how deeply you live in your fantasy world.

The only fantasy around here is your amazing ability to hide from anything that doesn't prop up your fragile house of cards. Talk to Sen. Rick Santorum's press secretary, send a nosy note to RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, make a phone call to Congressman David Dreier's office, strike up a conversation with Phyllis Schlafly's son (likewise the son of the LaHayes). . .,inquire about circumstances around the retirement of Republican Congressman Ed Schrock,and don't forget to drop by the embattled mayor of Spokane's office before you give Jeff Gannon a call for tips on how to get credentials into White House press conferences.

Oh, and good job on hiding your political and sexual leanings.

As much as wingnuts don't value anyone's privacy (except their own), you didn't score here either. Maybe if you spent less time trying to shill for the Party and more time trying to be a responsible American citizen, you might have something to offer beyond the basic fear-and-smear approach.
I've noticed that you haven't discussed your specific professional training in media analysis...but then that would have been keeping with the topic.Let's hope it doesn't line up with your obviously limited research skills.


You really need to come out of you polictial and sexual closets and be proud of who you are!

I appreciate the proposition - but my experience has been that most wingnuts are both politically and sexually insecure. You'll have to stay satisfied with the mirror in your own closet.

 

[kbm8795]

Laughable. An independent thinker?

From "Brown Shirts" to the desire to believe that top Republicans are closet homosexuals, you've done little other than repeat phrases I've heard so often from Democratic camp.

They aren't too much in the closet now, are they?

Tool.

Aww...you have the nicest way of complimenting people. . .I'll bet you got those manners from your mama.

Ya know, what is most laughable is reading these continuing musings after you so recently typed:

"You're not worth talking to."

 

[DOMS]

I've quit trying to debate with you, you're incapable of debating, only regurgitating.

Now, you're just amusement. It's fun trying to watch you run your liberal mental circles. Something akin to hamster in its wheel.

Spin liberal, spin...

 

[kbm8795]

I've quit trying to debate with you, you're incapable of debating, only regurgitating.

Now, you're just amusement. It's fun trying to watch you run your liberal mental circles. Something akin to hamster in its wheel.

Spin liberal, spin...

You've had no basis to engage in a debate, so rather than admit that you have no knowledge of the industry beyond tabloid nonsense by ideological lightweights, you resort to petty baiting and whiny middle-school rhetoric.

This nation is free because people make sacrifices. Part of those sacrifices include being a responsible adult citizen capable of examining issues in varied approaches with a goal toward finding workable solutions. I can understand why the prospect seems daunting to your insecurities.

At least the hamster-to-its-wheel comparison manages to accurately reflect references you can comprehend without feeling threatened. . .somewhere back in the grade school.

 

[DOMS]

You've had no basis to engage in a debate, so rather than admit that you have no knowledge of the industry beyond tabloid nonsense by ideological lightweights, you resort to petty baiting and whiny middle-school rhetoric.

I have no "basis to engage in a debate", hmmmm. That's funny, you're the one who won't debate. You only try to redefine words in the dictionary and blame everything on one political group. Sadly, you're the one who lacks not just the content to debate, but the actual ability to debate.

This nation is free because people make sacrifices. Part of those sacrifices include being a responsible adult citizen

So you see being a responsible citizen as a sacrifice? Every liberal is a martyr.

At least the hamster-to-its-wheel comparison manages to accurately reflect references you can comprehend without feeling threatened. . .somewhere back in the grade school.

This is petty baiting. A lackluster whine from a mental automaton. I, however, use quality barbs. Maybe if you, as a "non-liberal", root around over at democraticunderground you could cut and paste one from someone who actually knows how.

Which reminds me, are you comfortable being a gay democrat yet? Once you accept who you are, you'll find that you can enjoy life so much more!

 

[kbm8795]

I have no "basis to engage in a debate", hmmmm. That's funny, you're the one who won't debate. You only try to redefine words in the dictionary and blame everything on one political group. Sadly, you're the one who lacks not just the content to debate, but the actual ability to debate.

You brought nothing to the table except one blind statement. Did I miss the post where you explained the basis for your enlightened "opinion"?

So you see being a responsible citizen as a sacrifice? Every liberal is a martyr.

And every wingnut is lazy.


This is petty baiting. A lackluster whine from a mental automaton. I, however, use quality barbs. Maybe if you, as a "non-liberal", root around over at democraticunderground you could cut and paste one from someone who actually knows how.

Again you have nothing to bring to a discussion but your self-described use of "quality barbs." I'm so impressed that, rather than seek out any information about the topic at hand, you spent so much time looking for someone's posts at only two other locations that didn't relate to the topic. Obviously your idea of quality is as responsible as your idea of forming an opinion of your own.

Which reminds me, are you comfortable being a gay democrat yet? Once you accept who you are, you'll find that you can enjoy life so much more!

Don't you mean. . . ."are you comfortable with me defining you as a gay democrat yet?" Accuracy isn't exactly a strong point for a wingnut.

 

[Decker]

Nope, still doesn't hold water. Yes, he was in that precarious situation, but he put himself there. I don't care if the Devil himself was taking notice, it's what he was supposed to do.

The US and Britain should not have facilitated Iraq???s acquisition of WMDs back in the 1980s???Reagan/Bush. The US provided satellite information for targeting Iranian targets w/ chemical weapons (wmds) in Iraq???s war w/ Iran. The US continued to ship biological seed stock and other WMD materials to Iraq after it was well-known that Iraq had violated international law (international chemical weapons treaty) by using wmds.
After UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they had destroyed 90-95% of Iraq???s WMDs. Due to those inspections, the ephemeral nature of the WMDS involved and the extensive bombings of the first Gulf war, Iraq had no capacity to reconstitute its WMD program.

Like it or not, Hussein gave the UN weapons inspectors the access they asked for???.admittedly the permission was given grudgingly and he was a dick about it, but we knew the score.

This doesn't work either. I can parade out just as many law professors that say it was NOT a pre-emptive war and therefore perfectly legal. Just as we're seeing in this thread, everybody has their own opinion. Ain't it grand?

I would really like to see your list of law professors that defend the US invasion as a legal/constitutional exercise. The only credible law professor that has defended Bush's invasion gave a policy reason and not a legal reason.



Bush had no adequate justification pursuant to the grant of UN authority under res. 1441 to attack Iraq. He certainly had no self-defense justification. And as for justifiably defending another, well, that's about as credible as his WMD theory.

 

[Rich46yo]

Oh horseshit! We gave them satellite information but didnt know it was to be used for chemical attacks. In fact show me one shred of proof the images were even actually used for NBC targeting.

Other then that we sold Iraq some un-armed helicopters. Which of course Iraq later armed but who cares? As far as Im concerned I wish the Iranians and Iraqis were still killing each other. It was "win win" for America and the only reason we aided them in anyway whatsoever is because the Iranians looked like they might win and the oil rich gulf states, whose oil you used today, were scared shitless of the Iranians.

Most of the dual use technology used by the Iraqis in their CBW program was sold by western European firms. A few of them sold equipment that could only be used in a CBW program, and of course the Soviets and China openly sold him whatever he wanted. Its true some dual use equipment was sold to Iraq by America but how can you tell what machinery used to make vaccine, and pasteurize milk, is going to end up being used for?

BTW the Inspectors didn't "leave Iraq" per se. They weren't allowed by the Iraqis to leave the hotel and visit sights. In that case what was the point of staying? You need to read some history boy-o.........................Uncle Rich...................

The US and Britain should not have facilitated Iraq???s acquisition of WMDs back in the 1980s???Reagan/Bush. The US provided satellite information for targeting Iranian targets w/ chemical weapons (wmds) in Iraq???s war w/ Iran. The US continued to ship biological seed stock and other WMD materials to Iraq after it was well-known that Iraq had violated international law (international chemical weapons treaty) by using wmds.
After UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they had destroyed 90-95% of Iraq???s WMDs. Due to those inspections, the ephemeral nature of the WMDS involved and the extensive bombings of the first Gulf war, Iraq had no capacity to reconstitute its WMD program.

Like it or not, Hussein gave the UN weapons inspectors the access they asked for???.admittedly the permission was given grudgingly and he was a dick about it, but we knew the score.

I would really like to see your list of law professors that defend the US invasion as a legal/constitutional exercise. The only credible law professor that has defended Bush's invasion gave a policy reason and not a legal reason.



Bush had no adequate justification pursuant to the grant of UN authority under res. 1441 to attack Iraq. He certainly had no self-defense justification. And as for justifiably defending another, well, that's about as credible as his WMD theory.

 

[maniclion]

Boy keeping up with conformity must be a tough fight when you can't even take a break to look at what's really going down around you.

 

[maniclion]

Hegemony Now! Hegemony Now!

 

[Decker]

Oh horseshit! We gave them satellite information but didnt know it was to be used for chemical attacks. In fact show me one shred of proof the images were even actually used for NBC targeting.

Other then that we sold Iraq some un-armed helicopters. Which of course Iraq later armed but who cares? As far as Im concerned I wish the Iranians and Iraqis were still killing each other. It was "win win" for America and the only reason we aided them in anyway whatsoever is because the Iranians looked like they might win and the oil rich gulf states, whose oil you used today, were scared shitless of the Iranians.

Most of the dual use technology used by the Iraqis in their CBW program was sold by western European firms. A few of them sold equipment that could only be used in a CBW program, and of course the Soviets and China openly sold him whatever he wanted. Its true some dual use equipment was sold to Iraq by America but how can you tell what machinery used to make vaccine, and pasteurize milk, is going to end up being used for?

The satellite info sharing program btn the US and Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war is well-established. http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=228&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported


The use of that info to deliver chemical warheads w/ precision was disclosed by current military officers from the Defense Intelligence Agency intimately close to the program???on a condition of anonymity. Like I said, it was known that Iraq was using WMDs. To think that Iraq would not use the technology provided by the US to effectuate its WMD attacks against Iran stretches credibility to ridiculous proportions. Do you honestly believe your government when it says, ???we had no idea they???d use that info for illegal/evil purposes.???


If you do, you certainly have more faith and trust in big government than I.



I agree w/ your assessment of why the US helped Iraq???Iran may have become too big a player in the oil game.

BTW the Inspectors didn't "leave Iraq" per se. They weren't allowed by the Iraqis to leave the hotel and visit sights. In that case what was the point of staying? You need to read some history boy-o.........................Uncle Rich...................

I could care less how the Iraq gov. restricted the free time of the UN weapons inspectors, but when it came down to inspections, the inspectors went where they pleased. Don???t think so? Then read their own report: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm



It???s a long read but you really need some information that doesn???t come from Fox or Free Republic b/c your understanding of events is embarrassingly off the mark.

 

[Rich46yo]

Yes, thats right! For the most part! Tho often it took bombs and missiles to get the Iraqis to quit fucking with them. In the final analysis however Saddam did not comply. Or did you think all those UN resolutions were because he was complying? Thats like saying getting 19 moving violations, starting at 50mph, and ending at 31mph "one mph above legal", means your complying with the law. Your either doing 30 mph or your not!

You must be a lawyer kid, which warns me to not get into to much of a legal argument with you. You shysters will go all day and night, believe me Ive seen it before.

For my own part, when it comes to dictators and tyrants, I don't give a fuck about the law. We should just kill them on sight! YaKnow Shakespeare had it right when it came to lawyers...............Uncle Rich...........

 

[Decker]

Yes, thats right! For the most part! Tho often it took bombs and missiles to get the Iraqis to quit fucking with them. In the final analysis however Saddam did not comply. Or did you think all those UN resolutions were because he was complying? Thats like saying getting 19 moving violations, starting at 50mph, and ending at 31mph "one mph above legal", means your complying with the law. Your either doing 30 mph or your not!

You must be a lawyer kid, which warns me to not get into to much of a legal argument with you. You shysters will go all day and night, believe me Ive seen it before.

For my own part, when it comes to dictators and tyrants, I don't give a fuck about the law. We should just kill them on sight! YaKnow Shakespeare had it right when it came to lawyers...............Uncle Rich...........

I know the passage you refer to, but here's a more erudite word:​

​

Even a cursory reading of the context in which the lawyer killing statement is made in King Henry VI, Part II, (Act IV), Scene 2, reveals that Shakespeare was paying great and deserved homage to our venerable profession as the front line defenders of democracy. Source: http://www.howardnations.com/Shakespeare.pdf​

​

So you got that wrong too.​

 

[maniclion]

For my own part, when it comes to dictators and tyrants, I don't give a fuck about the law. We should just kill them on sight! YaKnow Shakespeare had it right when it came to lawyers

How do you justify a pernicious attack on tyranny while at the same time scorning the defenders of democracy. Your'e just as tyrannical as those you despise, is it because you've seen yourself reflected in their eyes?

 

[BigDyl]

How do you justify a pernicious attack on tyranny while at the same time scorning the defenders of democracy. Your'e just as tyrannical as those you despise, is it because you've seen yourself reflected in their eyes?

your rhyming with out trying here...

"Your'e just as tyrannical as those you despise, is it because you've seen yourself reflected in their eyes?"

what a hypocracy, he's scorning defenders of democracy.... <-- my input

 

[Rich46yo]

How do you justify a pernicious attack on tyranny while at the same time scorning the defenders of democracy. Your'e just as tyrannical as those you despise, is it because you've seen yourself reflected in their eyes?

You think Lawyers are "defenders of Democracy"? Oh shit! You actually made me speechless..............Uncle Rich...........