« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic:  (Read 3211 times)

Offline Paco

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2004, 03:19:15 PM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />http://overspun.com/oreilly/ (heres a start)
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/billspins.htm (heres another)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ah...  I don't even need to click the links.  Those look like unbiased URL's.  LOL!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Paco »
Logged

Offline TheCelticOne

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2004, 03:51:41 PM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ah...  I don't even need to click the links.  Those look like unbiased URL's.  LOL!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

lol, yeah really.  I actually did click those links, and looked at a few pages.  Although I didn't look at the complete site content, they both pretty much attack his STYLE, not his facts.  Not saying Bill O'Reilly's a saint, but I'd trust him over Moore and Franken any day of the week.  But that's just me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by TheCelticOne »
Logged
It is said that on the eve of battle, Dienekes was told that the Persian archers were so numerous that, when they fired their volleys, the mass of arrows blocked out the sun.  \"Good,\" Dienekes laughed, \"then we\'ll have our battle in the shade.\"

Offline leadmagnet

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Second Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2004, 04:30:16 PM »
Paco, I don't see how allowing them to maintain a symbol such as a flag and promising them that we are going to turn over control of the government makes what we're doing over there any less a military occupation.  We don't have to start pretending until the end of June.  Heheh.

Lead
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leadmagnet »
Logged

Offline Paco

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2004, 04:40:23 PM »
I guess it depends upon your definition of "military occupation".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Paco »
Logged

Offline leadmagnet

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Second Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2004, 06:43:53 PM »
I'd be happy to hear your definition.

(Keeping in mind of course that I respect your opinion and think rather highly of you).

Lead
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leadmagnet »
Logged

Offline Paco

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2004, 07:56:51 PM »
Military occupation would be like what Hitler did to most of Europe in WWII - invading and/or conquering a nation or territory with the intent on permanently controlling and ruling it with a military government.

Nothing like the US in Iraq.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Paco »
Logged

Offline leadmagnet

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Second Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2004, 08:29:23 PM »
How about if we just remain militarily in a foreign country whether they want us there or not and we actively use our military forces to endorse only the public policy we philosophically support?

Would you interpret that as a military occupation?

Lead
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leadmagnet »
Logged

Offline Paco

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2004, 09:01:25 PM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leadmagnet</i>
<br />How about if we just remain militarily in a foreign country whether they want us there or not and we actively use our military forces to endorse only the public policy we philosophically support?

Would you interpret that as a military occupation?

Lead  

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Oh...  like in Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc... ?

We're doing just that in Germany - we're "actively us[ing] our military forces to endorse only the public policy we philosophically support" by stating that we're going to remove our military from Germany because of their stance towards us and our presence there.

Here's a picture the media won't show you:

http://www.drudgereport.com/iiraq.htm
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Paco »
Logged

Offline leadmagnet

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Second Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2004, 06:54:54 AM »
Actually, many Germans might very well consider us to be militarily occupying their country even though we haven't had to drive our tanks through downtown Berlin shooting people lately.

You know, I'm not sure that militarily occupying a country is necessarily a bad thing.  I'm not sure that being able to produce a picture of shiny happy people has anything to do with whether or not we are militarily occupying a country.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leadmagnet »
Logged

Offline Paco

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2004, 07:35:44 AM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leadmagnet</i>
<br />Actually, many Germans might very well consider us to be militarily occupying their country even though we haven't had to drive our tanks through downtown Berlin shooting people lately.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hmmm...  well their reaction to us saying that we will remove our presence from their country was met with *strong* opposition from them.  They know that a large portion of their economy is dependent upon the US forces stationed there and if we left, it would only exacerbate their economic problems.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Paco »
Logged

Offline leadmagnet

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Second Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2004, 07:49:24 AM »
Ah yes, the Germans.  Those guys always were able to recognize a cash cow when they saw one.  Get their economy poppin and they'll go along with just about anything, cough, cough.  (Sorry, the bargain basement comedian within me made me say it).

Do you think Arizonans would be content with suckling off the German teat if there were a large contingent of German army personnel with their equipment stationed throughout their state?  Somehow I think not.  Well, I hope not anyway.  But then like you mentioned, there is always that almighty buck.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leadmagnet »
Logged

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2004, 10:01:54 AM »
please, theres no such thing as an unbiased link.  and theres more than a few facts.  hey, in yesterdays show, he mentioned that the democrats are calling this "torturegate" and politicizing it.  cept....  hes the first person to actually call it that, not a single democrat has reffered to it as torturegate.

as for occupation...  well, the governing council runs NOTHING, we tell themn what to do, what laws to make, ect.  the coucnil, who will be taking power (hopefully) is a group of handpicked people picked based on hating saddam.  
as for occupation, the governing council doesnt make any descicions, we make them, we tell them what to do, how to live, we have troops in place all over...  if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »
Logged

Offline Paco

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2004, 10:13:58 AM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />please, theres no such thing as an unbiased link.  and theres more than a few facts.  
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Uh, well, those were HEAVILY biased.  You know that when you can simply look at the URL and tell without even reading the info on the site!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
hey, in yesterdays show, he mentioned that the democrats are calling this "torturegate" and politicizing it.  cept....  hes the first person to actually call it that, not a single democrat has reffered to it as torturegate.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Can't say I've ever heard the show (O'Reily, I assume?), but you're sure that "not a single democrat has reffered [sic] to it as torturegate"?  Not a single one?  Not even one?  Really?  Wanna place a bet on that - and then I can show you the links and left-wing site that the show pulled the term from.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
as for occupation...  well, the governing council runs NOTHING, we tell themn what to do, what laws to make, ect.  the coucnil, who will be taking power (hopefully) is a group of handpicked people picked based on hating saddam.  
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Really?  Is that why the Baathists (Saddam's party) have an equal share in the governing council as all the other groups despite the other Iraqi groups not wanting them to?  I guess you must have missed that one.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
as for occupation, the governing council doesnt make any descicions, we make them, we tell them what to do, how to live, we have troops in place all over...  if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We?  If "we" didn't, who would?  Saddam?  If "we" didn't, Iraq would be 100X the quagmire it already is.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Paco »
Logged

Offline Paco

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2004, 10:15:45 AM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Paco</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />please, theres no such thing as an unbiased link.  and theres more than a few facts.  
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Uh, well, those were HEAVILY biased.  You know that when you can simply look at the URL and tell without even reading the info on the site!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
hey, in yesterdays show, he mentioned that the democrats are calling this "torturegate" and politicizing it.  cept....  hes the first person to actually call it that, not a single democrat has reffered to it as torturegate.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Can't say I've ever heard the show (O'Reily, I assume?), but you're sure that "not a single democrat has reffered [sic] to it as torturegate"?  Not a single one?  Not even one?  Really?  Wanna place a bet on that - and then I can show you the links and left-wing site that the show pulled the term from.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
as for occupation...  well, the governing council runs NOTHING, we tell themn what to do, what laws to make, ect.  the coucnil, who will be taking power (hopefully) is a group of handpicked people picked based on hating saddam.  
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Really?  Is that why the Baathists (Saddam's party) have an equal share in the governing council as all the other groups despite the other Iraqi groups not wanting them to?  I guess you must have missed that one.

Quote

as for occupation, the governing council doesnt make any descicions, we make them, we tell them what to do, how to live, we have troops in place all over...  if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We?  If "we" didn't, who would?  Saddam?  If "we" didn't, Iraq would be 100X the quagmire it already is.  We'll be passing the torch to them in a month and a half.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Paco »
Logged

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2004, 01:22:40 PM »
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/030713/ap/d7s8qr482.html
nope, no baathists in the council.  try again.

and i misspoke, it was over a week ago that oreilly had made the claim, and at THAT time, he was the first to use it.  

and..  how about a un council aimed at nationbuilding?  how about iraqis selected by the citizens?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »