[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Another Ippon. Sloth claims this is a good post when thunderbolt claims there was a consensus on Iraq having wmd. There was none. Remember Blickx?[/quote]
It’s Blix, not Blickx. Blickx sounds like a good name for a checkoslovakian hockeyplayer.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
…or when you’re obviously a stupid fuck, you’re out of the discussion.
Then why haven’t you stopped typing?
[/quote]
Sorry T, you’re out of the discussion.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Produce one quote from any poster saying American lives are more valuable that Iraqi civilians and I’ll buy you a new bicycle.
Jesus! You really haven’t been paying attention the last few year.
What message do you think not keeping a body count of Iraqi casualties sends?
And HH said MANY times that carpet bombing had to be done, then blames the “liberals” for not letting Bush do it. I’d fetch the quotes for you, but I feel you won’t hold you bicycle end of the deal. So, look it up.
I will save everyone the trouble: War is WAR! It doesn’t mean you slap a mugger’s face — it’ll only piss him off. You rip out his throat or his eyes.
The problems we’re having in Iraq is because WE ARE TOO DAMN NICE! You CAN’T WIN if you are ‘nice’. Therefore, if we go to war, we should carpet bomb the whole damn place. Think Dresden = Baghdad = Tehran.
Because we did not obliterate these hellholes, we now have IEDs, RPGs, and our wonderful young guys are DYING!!
“Only fight if you know you’re going to win.”
— The Art of War
Oh, and I think one young Marine or Soldier is worth more than ALL the people in the Middle East.
The Closed-Minded Hack
[/quote]
Hey hey, what happened to the “cake walk” and the “slamn dunk” and the “we’ll be greated as liberaters” and “showered with flowers” and all the other crap and lies that were used to sell this war to the people of the US?
Why didn’t you tell them before that war was a dirty business?
NOW you say we have to kill all the Iraqi to save them ? ? ?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Sorry T, you’re out of the discussion.[/quote]
Sorry W, one troll’s attempt to define the discussion (badly) is meaningless.
I’ll give Lixy one thing, though - he is smarter than you. But then, that isn’t much of a compliment.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Sloth wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
It’s pointless.
Lixy goes round after round with people who shred his arguments, offering questions that he never answers - but then, after a while has passed, he makes statements (since refuted) in conclusory fashion, all with the amnesia of having his ideas taken apart.
For example:
…
It has become a tragic joke.
Damn good post.
Another Ippon. Sloth claims this is a good post when thunderbolt claims there was a consensus on Iraq having wmd. There was none. Remember Blickx?
Remember how the UN had to bullied into accepting some resolutions. Remember how Kofi Annan said that the invasion was illegal?
Sloth is out of the discussion.
Sorry folks, this is how it goes.
When you tell blatant lies, when you encourage others to tell blatent lies, or when you’re obviously a stupid fuck, you’re out of the discussion.
So, since you are obviously a stupid fuck, you’re out of the discussion.
Btw, you should try to read the relevant resolutions once, combine that with a international law course… and THEN try to interpret the resolutions in light of your new knowledge… 
Kofi Annan is in no way anything but a pawn in the UN game, UN’s general assembly is nothing, but a joke.
[/quote]
You can’t cherry pick the UN resolutions, then dismiss Kofi Annan and the general assembly.
Decide.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Listen you Moron, We do not blow are asses up to get them, These guys are killing there own country men. IS THAT TO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERANCE? IF WE WHERE BLOWING THE SHIT OUT OF ARE OWN SOLDIERS ON A DAILY BASIS(OH AND DON’T USE THE FEW FRIENDLY FIRE THESE ARE RARE AND DON’T HAPPEN ON A DAILY BASIS).
you sir need to learn when to shut the fuck up.[/quote]
You don’t realize these people do not have the same view of nationality as Americans do. They do not consider themselves Iraqis the way we consider ourselves Americans. The concept of borders and nations in that region is nonexistent to many of them.
Iraq is a made up country. It only came into being after WWI when it was colonized and carved up by the French and British. In many ways this is the same problem facing many African nations. We can draw whatever line we like in the sand it doesn’t mean they are going to be respected.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
John S. wrote:
Lixy how many Americans do you see strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up little kids and elderly? not a lot right? now lets take a look at your friends in Iraq. A lot of retards willing to blow themselves up.
You’re quite right.
We see Americans flying F-16’s, Apache attack helicopters, tanks and humvees, blowing up women, little kids and elderly.
Do you think the victims care much about the difference?[/quote]
What kind of fairy land does your ass live in. Its war, will Civilians die yes, but where not blowing the shit out of are own guys, theres a big difference. Or are you too that stupid to see it?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
[i]"A dossier released by Iraq Body Count, a project of the UK non-governmental organization Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the…
That’s it? All the military power that the US could bring to bear, and the number is that low? Wow. Sorry, but I’m having a hell of a hard time seeing this as anything but restraint.
They went for shock and awa, but all you can see is restraint? Are you fucking blind?
You should be in a straight jacket. That would show restraint.[/i][/quote]
Shock and Awe was intended to intimidate, not as wholesale slaughter.
It was a demonstration of power and the potential to kill. It is certainly restraint of the highest order in a time of war.
It was essentially a warning shot.
Even the name itself indicates they were trying to intimidate, not kill.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
…
No it didn’t. After the war experts evaluated the conduct of the war and concluded that the bombing campaigns on Nazi Germany were very ineffective and didn’t contribute much to the victory.[/quote]
And other experts claimed it was key to victory.
These military experts are often no more than pimps for their services. The Army general claims air power is ineffective. The Air Force general claims air power is the key to victory.
I am not talking to you directly because you are another closed minded troll but I do enjoy refuting your points for others that may be following the thread.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why are you telling me what a bunch of dead politicians did back in their day to “prove” the current deceit of the Iraq war? [/quote]
No. It provides context to the way politicians justify their wars.
Remember the “baby incubator hoax” from GW1.
[i]"A key event in generating momentum for the first U.S. War on Iraq, “Operation Desert Storm” was a fraudulent report of the murder of Kuwaiti babies by Iraqi soldiers. On October 10, 1990, the U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a hearing on the subject of Iraqi human rights violations. The centerpiece of the event was the emotional testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name, Nayirah. Her full name was supposedly being kept secrect to protect her from Iraqi reprisals. The girl relayed a shocking story while sobbing.
I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital. While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.
The massacre never occurred. The girl was actually the daughter of a Kuwaiti emir, and had been coached by the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton to give persuasive false testimony.
Three months passed between Nayirah’s testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. “Of all the accusations made against the dictator,” MacArthur observed, “none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City.” "[/i]
http://www.911review.com/precedent/decade/incubators.html
Yes. They stoop THAT low, just to get idiots like yourself to sign them blank checks.
It doesn’t matter if he found WMDs or not. You fat slobs have the attention span of squirrels. The damage was already done and he conveniently created the “pretext” for staying there by turning Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorist. And he would also throw bonuses like “bringing democracy” to the poor Iraqis.
The last thing a country presents broken by two devastating wars and more than a decade of sanctions needs is threat to the world’s sole superpower. When that superpower happens to be half a world away and speaks the loudest about the dangers and threats presented by Saddam, it’s very hard to assume good faith.
Think about it. The US (and its servile poodle) was always the one bringing the “threat” aspect to the table.
Imagine for a second that you chose the civilized way to deal with Saddam instead of running head first into an armed conflict. How the world would have probably not known 7/7 and 5/16. How Iraqis wouldn’t be blown up every day of the week. How your soldiers wouldn’t be dying.
Don’t give me your BS. There WAS an alternative and you know it.
Reading that was like stepping into bizarro world.
Seriously, how can they be disagreement over what to do about the threat if there is indeed consensus about the existence of a threat?
But when the giant machine is called Israel you, of course, don’t see a problem with it?
That ridiculous statement right there, just proved you don’t have a clue about the whole issue.
Interesting to see you try to rationilize the double standards of your foreign policy.
It has nothing to do with it. If they didn’t have you unconditionally supporting them and arming them to the teeth, things would be very different.
Learn a bit more about how 21st century values are treated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6607199.stm
Yeah, like you didn’t try to assasinate them…
Anyway, fighting Al-Qaeda is a question of survival for secular regimes like that of Saddam or Assad. Iranians are Shi’ites, which makes them heretics in the eyes of Ben-Laden.
Depends which bad guys we’re talking about. If it’s the REAL threat unleashed by Ben-Laden, then definitely! They would have fought them with all their force.
No, idiot. It was to show that you NEVER shy away from such allying yourselves with oppressive regimes when your interests are at stake. And in the case of Al-Qaeda, I’ll say lives are on the line.
[quote]When would you listen to Baker and Hamilton on anything?
Baker is one of the old realists who liked to work with bad guys to help promote stability. Like him now? [/quote]
Real funny twist.
Let’s see. Between working with an oppressive regime to rid the world of the SERIOUS threat posed by Al-Qaeda or invade Iraq, kill thousands after thousands of people and end up with even more terrorists than you started with…I’ll take Baker’s approach any time.
[quote]Pathetic attempt to whine your way out of it. You know English just fine - hell, you used the word “lexicon” - on one hand, you say America voted for an idiot (and you knew what it meant) and then you said he was an evil genius.
The “me don’t talk English good” is nonsense - you got caught trying to be an irritant saying idiotic (and inconsistent) things.[/quote]
We clearly have different standards vis-a-vis excellence.
I have no evidence that he’s an elitist evil genius that plays a dumb guy just to get Americans to identify with him. Anyway, genuine or elaborate scheme, his idiocy is a trait of the guy’s character.
After endorsing HH’s pathetic personal attack, you’re now desperately trying to find a way to corner me. That ain’t gonna happen. At least, I firmly believe in what I’m saying. You, on the other hand, are just defending Bush and his cronies even if you have no trust in them whatsoever. Your ambivalence shows, and it’s really making you look bad because you’re literally condoning murder.
Happy 1st May, everyone!
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What Lixy and company fail to grasp is that the terrorists are using our own goodness, our own morality, as a weapon against us. If we were evil, as Lixy has said, we’d have not hesitated a minute to initiate reprisals. Hell, we even know that Iran is supplying bombs for the terrorists. If we’re evil, where’s the reprisals?
Since these reprisals do not happen, it therefore follows that Lixy’s position is logically incorrect.
What happened when the Czech’s killed Reinhard Heydrich? The Nazis killed off an entire village.
Your goodness, your morality? They must be really desperate then ! ! !
When did you ever show goodness or morality HH?[/quote]
The morality that drove the Germans out of Belgium (twice). The morality that had thousands of Americans trapped at Bastogne, while your people hid in their basements. The morality of men like my dad who travelled a hundred miles through the snow to relieve the 101st Airborns at Bastogne…
I’m an American and that’s my morality.
All so dipshits like you can tell us how rotten we are, trollboy…
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
hedo wrote:
Mr. Clean & Jerk wrote:
Lixy –
Last I checked, this was a weight-lifting site. You should check it out some time.
He’s not here for the training advice.
He didn’t start the thread either.[/quote]
He has about as much interest in training as you do…go have another eclair rotund one.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
How many schools and hospitals did you build in foreign oountries? Would that be more or less than you bombed?
Inbred.
[/quote]
Who rebuilt Belgium after your ancestors tipped their asses up to the Nazis?
Ever hear of the Marshall Plan?
Lebensborn troll boy.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
…or when you’re obviously a stupid fuck, you’re out of the discussion.
Then why haven’t you stopped typing?
Sorry T, you’re out of the discussion.[/quote]
You’re going to wind up having a discussion with yourself. I know you like that, because its the only way you ever win an argument.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lixy is a troll. [/quote]
Watch your mouth.
Let me get this straight. When you were bashing Islam and blaming ALL Muslims for every thing wrong in the world, the level of discussion was somehow higher? I challenged you with the theory that’s actually prevailing around the world, and which partly blames modern terrorism on state terrorism.
I know that you’d rather live in a bubble and see the world as black and white but, for heaven’s sake, people are dying in the process. Your laziness is therefore criminal.
[quote]They come here with bad faith and never engage in true discussion of issues.
Whether it is lixy with his relentless anti-American propaganda or 100meters/lumpy with his pro-Democrat anti-Republican agenda these guys will spin and lie and will not admit the truth if it is counter to their cause. [/quote]
Funny how you think of yourself as the “balanced one”, yet everyone who disagrees with you must be a liar in your eyes.
I see a LOT wrong with that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Lixy is a troll.
Watch your mouth.
He is not the only one here and these trolls bring down the level of discussion on this board.
Let me get this straight. When you were bashing Islam and blaming ALL Muslims for every thing wrong in the world, the level of discussion was somehow higher? I challenged you with the theory that’s actually prevailing around the world, and which partly blames modern terrorism on state terrorism.
I know that you’d rather live in a bubble and see the world as black and white but, for heaven’s sake, people are dying in the process. Your laziness is therefore criminal.
They come here with bad faith and never engage in true discussion of issues.
Whether it is lixy with his relentless anti-American propaganda or 100meters/lumpy with his pro-Democrat anti-Republican agenda these guys will spin and lie and will not admit the truth if it is counter to their cause.
Funny how you think of yourself as the “balanced one”, yet everyone who disagrees with you must be a liar in your eyes.
I see a LOT wrong with that.
[/quote]
The thing is lixy, is that you are in NO way balanced, you make up your own lies, spread propaganda without any sort of balance and paint the world black and white… And then you have the nerv to call others out when they do it far less than you do…
[quote]lIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
As far as lixy goes, he’s got his agenda. It’s to divide us. Don’t lose sight of that. I’d be willing to bet his goals aren’t yours.
I’ve said this many times, America is like a family (including dems). While I may want to smack you around sometimes, you are still family. However, when other family members start ripping on you, my loyalty is to you first.
If anyone in my family smacked me around I’d have some serious issues.
To comment about your idea of lixy’s “agenda” I would say that if you think people can be “divided” as easily as you imply with mere words then this country REALLY has some SERIOUS issues.
Your idea of “loyalty” scares the hell out of me. Are you intelligent enough to know when your loyalties need to change?[/quote]
Hey, liftus:
To sum up: You cherish communist dogma, you can’t understand loyalty to family/country, and you are a pacifist.
Does this scream retired Marine to anyone else?
I didn’t think so.
I don’t know if I can make it any clearer to you.
dems (even though some are ridiculous) are still Americans. I don’t automatically start with the premise that they are trying to hurt the United States. I give them the benefit of the doubt. Much like you would for a family member.
Since you don’t read, I’ll retype that that loyalty has it’s limits.
JeffR
[quote]reckless wrote:
[/quote]
reckless, you’ve quite outdone yourself today.
Question: Is trolling really that satisfying? The only thing you do is embarrass your country.
No one takes your opinion seriously. I think even lixy is having trouble supporting you.
I simply don’t understand why you do it. You aren’t funny. You aren’t witty. You can’t spell. You don’t understand the ramifications of the stances you take. You don’t have any support. Your facts are wrong.
In short, you just don’t have much worth.
You might consider either trying to explain your presence or cleaning up your act.
Just a friendly suggestion.
JeffR
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
…or when you’re obviously a stupid fuck, you’re out of the discussion.
Then why haven’t you stopped typing?
Sorry T, you’re out of the discussion.
You’re going to wind up having a discussion with yourself. I know you like that, because its the only way you ever win an argument.
[/quote]
HH,
Excellent line!!!
JeffR
I don’t think lixy is the biggest troll. I actually don’t think he’s a troll at all. I think he is wrong most of the time.
I think he is an anti-Semite despite his lame attempts to dispel it or thinly veil it, but I don’t think he is a troll. He has the balls to go toe to toe with folks and argue his points. Also, you gave his view way to mush power and credence by starting this here thread to which I a contributing to.
I consider the biggest troll to be wreckless. He crawls out from under his rock, spews his venom and hate, and crawls back under his rock. He does not have the balls to craft an argument or go toe to toe with anybody.
He drops by, bashes people, America, Israel, etc. and leaves with out so much a smidgen of logic or even an attempt at an argument. He simply hopes his arrogance will feign intelligence.
I for one, like lixy, even though the first time he ever addressed me was with an unholy slew of insults. He brings an interesting view on the world.