Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It really is a fairly simple question, RGS:
How many dead innocent Iraqis would you consider to be an acceptable level of "collateral damage" in a failed attempt on Saddam's life?
Another of your Strawman arguments. It is anything BUT a fair question, since we did NOT bomb any civilian facilities ON PURPOSE to get ANY Iraqi military or political leader. BUT you already know that. Your a disgrace to the Naval Service and your Uniform.
That was funny.I don't like those types of questions, but how many American lives need to be lost before it's worth our troops' lives?
I KNOW Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, with the possible exception that Saddam's payments to the Palestinians emboldened Islamicists in general. But just what would justify all out war by America?
Another of your Strawman arguments. It is anything BUT a fair question, since we did NOT bomb any civilian facilities ON PURPOSE to get ANY Iraqi military or political leader. BUT you already know that. Your a disgrace to the Naval Service and your Uniform.
When did Congress declare war?
Oh that's right. I forgot. Like Japan, America hardly ever DECLARES war....
No surprise you would fail to realize the difference between what I do and what Peg is doing.
Semantics? No, actually I was just giving you a way out because this particular argument is asinine. I don't need a way out. If you wish to quit, simply don't answer. If it helps, I don't keep score, nor do I care who gets the last word (well maybe a little). The quality of the discussion is what I am after. So, by not responding to a particular aspect of this..... you are opting out, which is fine.
Excuse me? Please do not assume you know more than I do what I meant. You do not. To state what I meant is speaking about things that you don't know anything about. But then again, that seems to be a bit of a pattern with you. Go back and re-read your entire statement (out loud). IF you use present and future tense in the same para any English teacher will tell you that it is sloppy. I also know exactly what I got out of it. If I got something out of it that you didn't mean to put in, then it's at least 50% your fault since you communicated it. Think about it. As to patterns...... well, you may believe what you please. No one here has ever managed to catch me in anything other than an honest mistake. If you believe I am talking out my ass....... prove it.
Actually YOU made an incorrect statement about the GC and US responsibilities under it. You then quoted a document that the US is not a signatory too as evidence. So, if you wish to back up your statement feel free to attempt to find applicable evidence. The responsibility of proof is yours, not mine. You made the original, incorrect, assertion. With your own words.... I love it. I made a GC comment and you asked for proof. With me so far? Good. I provided an excerpt from the GC. I got mine from the UN Human rights website if memory serves. But GC Texts are common and easy to check and so didn't think to link it. You made the assertion that my excerpt was not the one signed by the US. The burden of proof shifts at that point. IOW, for those who are slow (not necessarily you) readers...... You assumed the burden of proving your assertion that my GC wasn't the "real" GC. The "real" GC being the one that we are signatory to. Do you get it yet? I sourced my assertion, now you must source yours.
You made a claim about something. I asked you to provide evidence. The evidence you provided was not applicable. How you jump from there to the idea that I need to provide evidence I'm not quite sure. See the above. It involves you having to actually prove I am wrong. Anyway, as I said, I checked after work and found no link to the "real" GC. Thus, you have opted out? Or do you need more time?
Umm they've been held for 4 years without a trial. That violates that clause. What was the time limit specified in that clause BTW? Since you are legal oriented (I'm not a lawyer and so am not stuck in that particular rut) I would assume you found a time stipulation I overlooked? The only time constraint I noted was "at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." Now, I know you have asserted that this particular quote is invalid. But, until you prove me wrong and post the "real" one....... this is what we have to go with.
No, they aren't. Colloquialisms are NOT accurate when interpreting a legal document. I have other words to describe them. Um, "Targets" comes to mind. "Dead men walking" is another good one. Nah, you wouldn't like them either I suppose.
come on RGS... who is a disgrace to the naval service?
I would suggest it is YOU who apparently lied your way all the way through a career without having the Corps find out what an illiterate moron you are.
Fuck YOU for demeaning MY career you stupid little empty skulled, jarheaded little prick!
Your a DISGRACE, that you managed to wear the Uniform of a Naval Officer tells me the naval service was scraping the bottom of the barrel, but then Kerry was a Naval officer also wasn't he?
You have attacked me since day one here because I won't scrape and bow to your ignorant rants and moronic self deluded questions. The only point you make is the Navy allows retards and morons to be officers. You wanna get personal, fine I can name call and call you a fuckwit just as well as you can. BUT unlike you I never denied you served, I never claimed you didn't know anything and I never called you a retard or moron until now. But you qualify as such. Your a whiny ass baby that can not STAND IT when someone that you think is not your equal has the gumption to not fetch and scrape for your sorry ass.
You resort to character assassination and personal insults when someone doesn't do what you want and agree your God's gift to what ever the conversation is.
Your in Good Company with John Kerry and Jimmy Carter. I suspect your lucky you never had to serve in a line unit in a shooting war, as the troops probably would have arranged a way for your lying, pisspoor leadership and intelligence to get killed before you killed some real troops.
Now remind us all again how you have not accused American troops of being the same as terrorists or murderers. Your scum. Beneath scum. Just thinking of you in a Naval Officer's Uniform turns my stomach. You probably got the assignment to the UN to get your sorry ass away from the real Navy and in the forlorn hope one of your terrorist buddies would cap your sorry ass.
bullshit. you are a liar. we absolutely DID send a cruise missile into a restaurant in Baghdad killing all the diners because we thought Saddam was dining there.
now quit fucking tapdancing and answer the fucking question.
I am done with you Maineman, your on Ignore. Feel special, I have never put anyone on ignore ever. You can rant and whine, character assassinate all you want. I do not care. your not worth the time and effort to waste a single moment reading your idiotic crap.
you are a pussy who runs away from tough questions. I am not surprised by this turn of events.
AMF
you are a pussy who runs away from tough questions. I am not surprised by this turn of events.
AMF
and you call yourself classy?. What the fuck, why not debate me mano emano, instead of taking cheap shots at my character. You know darn well the left wing democrats who run your party, take cheap shots at republicans and conservatives every day. Calling them things like: oh i dont know lets see: if your a jew, or non-white who is conservative, youre an uncle tom, or stupid/traitor to your race, because if you were smart you would be democrat.
I never said all democrats, but smart democrats like you, are not running the party, as ive said before, ive met smart democrats, my brother is one for god sakes. But they are not running the party, and to be honest, if i have to choose between two extremes running the party. Id rather have the one who loves america, and doesnt bash it every chance it gets, doesnt call everyone it disagrees with names, and doesnt shout down and/or use physical violence to stop those they disagree with from talking. Id rather be in a party that lets gays and people who dont agree in, rather then kicking out anyone who dares, not bow down to liberal god mantra of, liberals are brilliant, conservatives are hicks. Its funny, how some people can call others racists, when they say here let us take care of you minorities and poor people, that is so condescending are racist. What are minorities too stupid too take care of themselves without mommy and daddy government taking care of them, they should just be a victim and suck of the government breast, Id rather empower them, the poor, and anyone, minority or not, that you can do it, you dont need government, sure, if you really need help, physical or mental disability fine will help you, but not everyone, not illegals, and not just cause your breathing. I have to stand for what i believe in, and you wanna be disapointed and hate me for it, then go right ahead, i still love and respect you and your opinions sir.
Bullshit. That wasn't a tough question. It was a question without merit. Neither Cmdrs nor GySgt's determine what is and is not acceptable as collateral damage, and you know it.
uuhhh you are aware that the post that set off this particular effeminate hissy fit by you was, in fact, directed at someone else altogether?
I cant read your mind, so just tell me what youre talking about. Oh, and my post above, was in reference to you neg repping me, and then calling someone a pussy, i was saying you were being hypocritical.
