RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events "It's not about oil or Iraq..."

I discussed this already.

As for the rest, Rex summed it up nicely, thank you very much.

blah blah bla blacks bla bla bla jews bla bla...

The U.S. military prosecuting Iraq war atrocities, the Congress investigating atrocities. Even the Administration condemning atrocities means nothing to you from the sound of it.

Rather I think you believe that America can do what it wants and not have to answer to anyone.

It's a waste of time talking to you since you refuse to critically examine anything. Rather you like to wave flags and lob accusations at anyone who doesn't nod approvingly of this debacle whenever anyone says "progess is being made' and "we're winning hearts and minds". A few more slogans and a few more critics silenced and and we'll be in candy and flowers land lickety split!

Ray, i bet you'd look good in a burka.

i dunoo... I watch a lot of cable news and whenever i hear right wing pundits talk, it's all nothing but comments like these that are supposed to silence and stun people somehow. Like that retarded women in the last clip I posted a page ago where she tells a critic that she'd look good in a burka. Ok. so what? Is that supposed to pass as intelligent dialogue and discussion? Or is that just a few loaded words and names strung together designed to somehow lamely paint anyone who discusses this war as agents or stooges of Bin laden.

Like all advertising and slogans, they do have an expiration date. The GOP and their cheerleaders are still unaware of this apparently or they're just in denial about their effectiveness..

String Iraq, 9/11, and/or Osama together a few more times and people might again believe.

Again: 7 of the top 10 donors to the DNC are also among the top 10 donors to the GOP. So whether it's Hillary Clinton or Rudy Guiliani, the same anti-American globalist interests will continue to control both parties.

So spare me your nyah-nyah-nyah gloating about every minor Republican scandal and conspiracy theory, when the Democrats are just as complicit in these events, whether it's offshoring jobs or voting to invade Iraq.

It's not even about "ideology" I wouldn't know WTF "liberal" ideology is. I usually just go with what my instincts tell me is right and wrong.

Taking credit for troop reductions that were already going to take place regardless is not only dishonest, it's immoral. Claiming more troops "might' come home when his own biography has him plotting to continue the war and hand it off to his successor no matter what, is wrong.

It's not even about Republican or democrat with me anymore. The Dems have shown their own ineptitude, capitulation, and cowardice throughout this entire debacle. And the body count rises.

You're certifiably crazy.

You say the most inane shit I swear to God.

1) I was endorsing the bla bla bla part of Rex's post. But go ahead and post your tolerant credentials. BTW, I'm also pro Israel so there.

2) WTF???!! So now besides teaching Islam, i allege that EVERY SINGLE U.S. soldier commits atrocities??!! Like I say... you're batshit crazy!

3) Does it really matter what Cheney pulls out of his hat in justification? the only relevant point is that his recent assessments turned out to be flat wrong. going into Iraq created more destabilization, created MORE terrorism than if they had NOT invaded. You don't have to believe me since just about every report coming out of Iraq says as much.

The only problem with that statement is that the abuse was well known a long time ago but Rumsfeld is only now being so forthcoming thanks to that CBS 60 Minutes II broadcast which blew this story open. If not for that peice, I doubt we'd be here discussing this or Rumsfeld would be disclosing anything to the public and/or Congress.

The Red Cross disclosed that it had been warning American officials of WIDES[P]READ (not isolated incidents) of prisoner abuse for much of 2003 to no avail. Where was Rumsfeld then?

So because I disapproved of Abu Ghraib, I therefore accused every single American soldier of atrocities? Help me out with your bizarre reasoning, please.

Wearn't those soldiers prosecuted BTW? So are you saying that the U.S. military also thinks every single soldier is committing atrocities?

Or you're just an idiot who goes all knee-jerk defensive if any criticism is voiced even when warranted. Especially when warranted.

and "widespread" doesn't mean "every-single soldier". I don't know why you think so.. well.. I do actually. Because you want to paint the evil liberals as being anti-troops of course. It fits your narrative as always.

Wow. What faith you have in our soldiers, and in our military leadership to investigate and remove criminals within its ranks.

And did I ever say they wearn't guilty of lies and misdeeds themselves? Stop trying to pull controversy out of your ass.

I'm crazy...

Pundits are like lawyers. They'll argue a point, no matter how disproven just to be the voice of the opposition (or to defend failed policy because it's their sides policy). If you have facts and truth on your side, then I think, You don't have to resort to personal attacks, diversions and flat out falsehoods like saying Al Queda is the #1 enemy in Iraq or linking 9/11 and Iraq or Osama Bin Laden etc.

Yes, that goes for both the right and left. With Iraq though, the right has a pretty shoddy track record in the truth department so they're not exactly coming at people willing to give them a wide latitude for trust anymore.

As for "hiding behind" Rex. I think I've made similar postings in regards to Wonder Boy in the past. That Rex beat me to it either shows he's a plagiarist, like minded, or he just knows who he's ridiculing. I choose the latter.

Now why would YOU phrase it like that though? Who's hiding? Why would I hide? Everything here seems like a bulb goes off in ones head that says, Wonder Boy is on MY SIDE therefore I have to run in and defend him and mock the one 'attacking' him. At least it SEEMS that way to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

[quote=whomod]

What part of that didn't YOU understand? You seem to like misrepresenting things. The Red Cross report for your information was ABOUT detainees in particular and specifically ABOUT Abu Ghraib not about the U.S. forces in general as YOU are implying. No one ever said that, numbnuts. You are implying it to suit your own agenda.

And the entire point of even discussing that was in the fact that, despite the Red Cross report nothing was ever done about it until those infamous pictures were leaked to the media.

I dunoo. what kind of hate filled lunatic are you anyways? How do you interpret being for the Geneva Conventions and against the kind of torture we saw in the photos as being against all the troops in Iraq? Must one approve of such acts to be "for the troops" in your book?

Jackass.

Sometimes I wish had enough meanness in me to give you a full taste of the mocking antagonism you live your miserable life to dish out every day. But I stood at the edge of the abyss, and I stepped back. Better to let you roast in your own bile, than to leap off there with you.

___________________________________________

Battle not with whomods, lest ye become a whomod.
And if you gaze into the whomod, the whomod gazes also into you.
--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzche (abridged)

.....Why did you even come back? It seems like all you're doing right now is copy/pasting articles, like before, and inviting arguments. But after Wonder Boy responds to you, you forfeit the discussion and just call him racist or insane. At least pre-exodus you actually had the impetus to respond fully to most of what people had to say.

I'm not so much trying to sponsor him as I am trying to criticize you. Rex's post was sweeping and inflammatory, but that's the nature of a troll after all. You, on the other hand, are trying to pass yourself off as a semblence of reason and intelligent debate, but you use Rex's post to try and sound witty. Bad form.

There's no misrepresentation on my part. You clearly imply that U.S. military abuses go far beyond 7 U.S. military guards at Abu Ghraib. You don't even say: There may possibly be some other possible abuses.
No.
You say "WIDESPREAD", indicating it is a problem throughout the U.S. forces in Iraq. You smear the entire military.
"WIDESPREAD."

Further, in other posts --not two years or more ago, but in the last few days-- you smear our military as alienating Iraqis with unprovoked violence, and now do the same toward the private security employed in Iraq.
But like I said, you report their security is suspended, but selectively don't mention that after a few days of negotiation they're back on duty in Iraq. And if the Iraqi government believed they were trigger-happy thugs, they wouldn't have reinstated them.

And even when the Iraq surge is now going well, you knee-jerk reflexively deny that.

You're like an enemy talking-points machine, that instantly spits out anti-American propaganda in response to whatever happens, whether things are going well or not.
Well, since January, the surge has been working. Visible progress is being made. But you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge anything that goes well under Bush.

I don't support Bush on a number of issues. But on the economy and on the tenacity to not cave under political pressure before the job is done in Iraq, I do. I supported firing Rumsfeld for a long time before he was relieved, to replace him with someone who restores bipartisan confidence. And when he was replaced, the change in Iraq was significant.



Originally Posted By: whomod

And the entire point of even discussing that was in the fact that, despite the Red Cross report nothing was ever done about it until those infamous pictures were leaked to the media.


The truth is, the U.S. military was investigating it before the story broke, and breaking the story just created a lot of anger and false allegations that just made it harder to see what the real facts were, with a lot of hostile Iraqis making false allegations after-the-fact, just to make the Americans look bad.



Originally Posted By: whomod

I dunoo. what kind of hate filled lunatic are you anyways? How do you interpret being for the Geneva Conventions and against the kind of torture we saw in the photos as being against all the troops in Iraq? Must one approve of such acts to be "for the troops" in your book?


I never said I supported Abu Graib torture. That's another of your deliberate misrepresentations of me.

I condemned the 7 guards and am glad them and their officers were removed. But I don't like the smear of your "WIDESPREAD" insinuations about the U.S. military. Alllegations are not facts.

That Hardball fellow is a fucking idiot and should not be in charge of a political debate program!

But what do I know? I am Whomond

The best part though is people kiss the militaries ass and then as soon as they come back to the U.S or get out of the service nobody gives fuck about them.

Assuming I agreed with you, you're not talking to pundits here.

As for "hiding behind" Rex. I think I've made similar postings in regards to Wonder Boy in the past. That Rex beat me to it either shows he's a plagiarist, like minded, or he just knows who he's ridiculing. I choose the latter.



[quote].....Why did you even come back? It seems like all you're doing right now is copy/pasting articles, like before, and inviting arguments. But after Wonder Boy responds to you, you forfeit the discussion and just call him racist or insane. At least pre-exodus you actually had the impetus to respond fully to most of what people had to say.

I'm not so much trying to sponsor him as I am trying to criticize you. Rex's post was sweeping and inflammatory, but that's the nature of a troll after all. You, on the other hand, are trying to pass yourself off as a semblence of reason and intelligent debate, but you use Rex's post to try and sound witty. Bad form.

See, I don't care enough about politics to get that up in arms about people's differing opinions. I'm more likely to be disappointed than hysterically enraged by the 'other side'.

But what do I know? I am Whomond

"whomond", Halo?

Well at least you didn't call me whormod.

People really need to wake the fuck up and stop with this incessant military brown nosing that skewers the facts. People act like it's hubris to say anything remotely negative about the military. The best part though is people kiss the militaries ass and then as soon as they come back to the U.S or get out of the service nobody gives fuck about them.

Polls have shown that the majority of troops on the ground in Iraq, and those who have returned, do not back the President's failed policy.

Does Rush believe, then, that the majority of the US Armed Forces are "phony?"

Major Generals John Batiste and Paul Eaton left the military and have spoken out against the Bush Administration's failed policies. These are former commanders in Iraq, and they have challenged the Administration for its stubborn refusal to listen to those commanders on the ground who have sent up warning after warning.

Does Rush believe that highly decorated Major Generals are "phony soldiers?"

Finally, recall the members of the 82nd Airborne in Iraq who wrote a New York Times op-ed, urging for a change in course in Iraq, and suggesting it was time to figure out the exit strategy. Two of them just died.

Does Rush believe these young troops are "phony soldiers?"

Bad form? By providing facts and videos that support his case? He's made plenty of argument on his own. Sounds to me like the typical conservative denial of anythng that isn't part of there dogman through character assassination.

But what do I know? I am Whomond