Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?

[Nash]

Originally posted by ravells
For GODS SAKE! HE should get the hell out of the company!Ravs

Better yet, donate the profits to the widows. Who is this guy and why does he get to win from all this misery?

[capt. apathy]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
so because he has shares in the company the troops should not have the best possible service and equipment?

you can't possibly be this slow and still manage to get your computer to the internet.

so at this point I gotta figure you know this war is a travesty, and that you've just been trolling, you got me nice catch.

[ravells]

Yeah like I'm going to give my life to orphans, Nash.

I'm only asking for second best

Ravs

[capt. apathy]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts

So, that part of it aside, you still have shown nothing to refute the article's statements regarding Saddam Hussien's backing of terrorism. Why? You repeatedly state that it was written by "nut jobs" but you provide no facts to prove it wrong. Again, PROVE IT. If it is a load of crap written by "nut jobs", surely a person of your supposedly intimidating intellect should be able to destroy it with "the truth" with little or no effort. Come on, share your amazing intellect and all those facts you have to prove the article is nothing more than the mindless ravings of "nut jobs".

there is no need to refute it.  he has backed terrorists to one degree or another.  we have supported terrorists(wasn't it the US who provided training to Bin Laden in the 80's ?).  Saudi Arabia has supported terrorists, just about every country in the mid-east has supported terrorists.  and many of them had much more direct ties to our attacks.

if Bush intends to overthrow every gov't who has supported terrorists he should really announce his plans for WW3 before the next election.  the American public should be allowed to take that into account before going to the polls.  and once he's done with the rest of the world what is he gonna do about us and our ties?  well to be fair he's already made a pretty good run at making our America suffer.

[Nash]

CVH,

You cite some article. You put faith in it as proof. Then you say that in order to refute it, I must also post some proof. I don't have to go quite so far into the realm of quack as you to also cite "proof". And lots of it.

Would it be proof of anything? Nah.

So get over this reliance on proof. Unless we are there with our Nikons and mini-cassetes we don't have any, you or I.

"There are known knowns and known unknowns".  - Rummy

Again, there are two things we do know. I mentioned them above. They obviously trouble you, as they cannot be refuted by any think tank of whatever slant.

You should be right pissed off at having to sound like a nutjob for the purposes of defending crooks that might even be innocent of this.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

He already said, about two and a half years ago, that any nation that supported terrorism was subject to be a candidate for regime change. So he's already announced his plans to topple governments that support terrorism. Maybe you missed it. You know, the "Axis of Evil". Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. I think Iraq was at the top of the list. He started with the country he stated since the beginning of the war on terror to be the prime candidate for regime change. Seems like he stated his plan a while back, and stuck to it.

I seem to remember everyone squawling about Reagan calling the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire", and Reagan sticking to his guns and going ahead with his plans to defeat the Soviet Union.

Kind of like they all squawled about Bush and his "Axis of Evil" speech. Not that Bush is anything close to Reagan. But he stuck to what he said and took on Saddam and Iraq, with help from our Allies like the British and others.

[Nash]

"Maybe you missed it. You know, the "Axis of Evil".

A Canadian speechwriter wrote the Bush "Axis of Evil" SOTU speech. Coined the term. Take that for what it's worth.

So it's doctrine that, no matter how ridiculous the premise, nor how hypocritical the practise, yer lot cling to.

You're either with us or against us.

Here's a riddle: I'm with ya here, against ya there. What am I?

Reality. Wanna fight about it?

Please don't try to use SOTU speeches for anything more than what they are.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Nash
CVH,

You cite some article. You put faith in it as proof. Then you say that in order to refute it, I must also post some proof. I don't have to go quite so far into the realm of quack as you to also cite "proof". And lots of it.

Would it be proof of anything? Nah.

So get over this reliance on proof. Unless we are there with our Nikons and mini-cassetes we don't have any, you or I.

"There are known knowns and known unknowns".  - Rummy

Again, there are two things we do know. I mentioned them above. They obviously trouble you, as they cannot be refuted by any think tank of whatever slant.

You should be right pissed off at having to sound like a nutjob for the purposes of defending crooks that might even be innocent of this.

I'm not the least pissed off. I really don't give a damn if you or other great minds here think I sound like a nut job. Confirms to me that I'm on the right track.

What you said does not trouble me. You simply do not understand.

1. I don't give a damn how much money Haliburton makes working for the government. And I do not care if Cheney owns a major part of the stock in Haliburton. This does not trouble me.

2. I figured all along that the Weapons of Mass Distraction would have been moved in one way or another before we invaded. Especailly given that we gave them about 18 months to do it. I figured Saddam would sell them, and attempt to bug out. I also counted on the fact that he and his sons were severely delusional in their belief that they'd survive and escape to enjoy the proceeds.

I just want to see what it is you are basing your arguement against that article on, other than your preconcieved notions and your bias against that side of the arguement. Is that too much to ask?

Hey, I gave you a free pass on the accusations against Bush and Cheney regarding the supposed invasion of Iraq simply to make Haliburton and Cheney richer. Really hard to prove. I grant you that.

But I really thought you'd at least offer something to refute that Saddam harbored and supported all of those terrorists. Because if you don't, then I am satisfied that preventing Saddam from offering support to those he already had, and those he would in the future, is reason enough for the invasion.

[capt. apathy]

He already said, about two and a half years ago, that any nation that supported terrorism was subject to be a candidate for regime change.

cool, so can we expect him to keep his word and bow out of the elections?  we could really use a regime change.

[ravells]

Sadly, I suspect that the terrorists are going to try to effect 'regime change' in emerica just before their elections.

ala Spain

Ravs

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
you can't possibly be this slow and still manage to get your computer to the internet.

so at this point I gotta figure you know this war is a travesty, and that you've just been trolling, you got me nice catch.

yea yea yea....I read your post...."you'd rather cheny not be involved w/ haliburton"

But the question is simple.....Do you want US troops to have the best possible equipment and services?

Its simple....you can type yes....or you can type no.

Yet you have avoided that question like the plague.....Funny thing is if Al Gore was president and Joe Liberman had stock in a body armor company none of this would even matter.  No one would ask him to sell his stock.

Its a simple question yet you do not answer it

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by ravells
Sadly, I suspect that the terrorists are going to try to effect 'regime change' in emerica just before their elections.

ala Spain

Ravs

Kerry had better hope not.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
cool, so can we expect him to keep his word and bow out of the elections?  we could really use a regime change.

Good luck.

[ravells]

Well let's see what happens.

They seem to specialise in elections.

ravs

[Nash]

In light of your "harbouring terrorists" position, can you tell me why Iraq was invaded instead of Saudi Arabia, the nationality of the 9/11 terrorists? Iraq harbours more terrorists than the Saudis?

Or how about the phat checks Hussein wrote to the Palestinean suicide bombers. Why not attack the Palestinean suicide bombers themselves?

If you give me one of them "well we gotta start somewhere, look out world!" answers I'm gonna hurl.