[Mulderator]

Do You Think Bassetman's "Support The Troops Polls" are Dumb?

[iltos]

unnecessary, imo, but not dumb....it was a reasonable response to some major liberal bashing by you and your band of brothers today

but your response to it was pretty dumb....did you go out to a garage sale this weekend and find a throne or something?

as you said yesterday, you like to yank chains....but as jack has pointed out, sometimes its way on the adolescent side

doesn't become you, mulder

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by iltos

unnecessary, imo, but not dumb....it was a reasonable response to some major liberal bashing by you and your band of brothers today

but your response to it was pretty dumb....did you go out to a garage sale this weekend and find a throne or something?

as you said yesterday, you like to yank chains....but as jack has pointed out, sometimes its way on the adolescent side

doesn't become you, mulder

This thread was a joke--any Moore-On should've been able to figure that out. It was satire regarding basset's threads--perhaps it was above your head?

And there is far more "conservative bashing" that goes on here than liberal bashing but it never fails that liberals whine like babies about it. Do you ever see a conservative complaining about "conservative bashing?" Do you see LAN or me or anyone else get angry and throw a temper-tantrum when one of the many liberals in this forum bash conservatives/Republicans. The sad thing is you don't even recognize it--you see what goes on as "liberal bashing" when its bashing going on both ways. Amazing. The problem is you liberals have had it your own way for so long (no oppossing viewpoints) that when you see oppossition, you see it as "bashing!" But you don't see your own half-arsed threads that way because you think what your saying is universally accepted as some sort of liberal truth.

[LANMaster]

I can't vote in this thread.

My answer would be that they were simply written wrong.

The real question should read, Do you support a US military victory in Iraq?

Afterall, that what this war (and any other war the US enters into) needs to be about. Victory.

[xico]

Originally Posted by Mulder

This thread was a joke--any Moore-On should've been able to figure that out. It was satire regarding basset's threads--perhaps it was above your head?

And there is far more "conservative bashing" that goes on here than liberal bashing but it never fails that liberals whine like babies about it. Do you ever see a conservative complaining about "conservative bashing?" Do you see LAN or me or anyone else get angry and throw a temper-tantrum when one of the many liberals in this forum bash conservatives/Republicans. The sad thing is you don't even recognize it--you see what goes on as "liberal bashing" when its bashing going on both ways. Amazing. The problem is you liberals have had it your own way for so long (no oppossing viewpoints) that when you see oppossition, you see it as "bashing!" But you don't see your own half-arsed threads that way because you think what your saying is universally accepted as some sort of liberal truth.

Mulder, I think I can read your mind. I know pretty much what you're going to say before you say it. Amazing. LOL A joke? Really? Come on, pm your brothers to help you out. The joke flopped. LOL

[Lurker1]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I can't vote in this thread.

My answer would be that they were simply written wrong.

The real question should read, Do you support a US military victory in Iraq?

Afterall, that what this war (and any other war the US enters into) needs to be about. Victory.

What are you talking about LAN? Its already over. Bush said so. "Mission accomplished". Now lets just bring the troups home where they belong.

[brite750]

Originally Posted by Lurker1

What are you talking about LAN? Its already over. Bush said so. "Mission accomplished". Now lets just bring the troups home where they belong.

The banner didnt explain what mission was the one that was accomplished, I'll let you fill the blanks. We did topple Sadams regiem, but I'm not sure there was much of a plan beyond that, which is scary. Any idiot watching the history channel could have figured out that this country Iraq being lead by a brutal, self imagined "Godfather" was going to fall into caos once this regiem was toppled. It really makes you wonder what brainiacs they have working at the state department/CIA, etc., at some point we are going to have to cut these Iraqi's loose and let them get back to their constant fighting, assassinations, atrocities etc., you know the things that have been going on there since forever. I have to admit that the WMD thing has me a little ticked off, but who do you balme?, the world's inteligence agencies?, our government, if so which one, the Clinton administration, GW's, the CIA, the French?, Saddam for looking just as guilty as one could possibly look, I mean there were radio intercepts from the Iraqi army pretending to have chemical weapons during the invasion, it was all apparenty a hoax. I'm wondering how this one is going to go down in the history books, should be fasinating reading.

[linskyjack]

Well actually this is the first post you have made that I can agree with. You seem to understand that Sadaam Hussein was the logical leader of a country that has probably the has sectarian problems that rival the one's in Rwanda! The only one who kept that country from descending into civl war before was the brutal dicator who put a bullet in anyone's head who raised hell. I say we arm the Kurds so they can create their own country in the north, and leave the rest of the Iraqi's to fend for themselves. That means that we now have billions of dollars freed up to fight REAL terroists. At the same time, we now have a friend in the Middle East--with OIL----strategically located.

[brite750]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Well actually this is the first post you have made that I can agree with. You seem to understand that Sadaam Hussein was the logical leader of a country that has probably the has sectarian problems that rival the one's in Rwanda! The only one who kept that country from descending into civl war before was the brutal dicator who put a bullet in anyone's head who raised hell. I say we arm the Kurds so they can create their own country in the north, and leave the rest of the Iraqi's to fend for themselves. That means that we now have billions of dollars freed up to fight REAL terroists. At the same time, we now have a friend in the Middle East--with OIL----strategically located.

Well, how else do you look at this? he was the leader because he was the biggest baddest dog on the block, he killed anyone that even looked at him the wrong way, I just would like to know why he self destructed, if he would have admitted that he made no WMD's by giving free access, and not acting so guilty GW may not have been able to pull the trigger, did Saddam's people make him think he had them?, was he pretending that he had them?,this thing reads like a bad dime store novel. And yes I would like our guys pulled out of there asap, they are solders not a police department.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by brite750

Well, how else do you look at this? he was the leader because he was the biggest baddest dog on the block, he killed anyone that even looked at him the wrong way, I just would like to know why he self destructed, if he would have admitted that he made no WMD's by giving free access, and not acting so guilty GW may not have been able to pull the trigger, did Saddam's people make him think he had them?, was he pretending that he had them?,this thing reads like a bad dime store novel. And yes I would like our guys pulled out of there asap, they are solders not a police department.

You are reading Sadaam Hussein from a western perspective. In that neighborhood of the world, allowing "free access" would have been seen as a sign of weakness---cowtowing to the infidels. And yes, the only constant in Iraq was Sadaams willingness to do whatever was necessary to keep the factions under control.

[xico]

Apparently (because I'm not sure of what is and what isn't spin) Saddam was bluffing in hopes that chemicals or whatever would deter Georgie from invading. I watched Dan Rather's interview with Saddam, and he made it plain that he didn't have WMD or chemicals.

Good posts Brite.

[brite750]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

You are reading Sadaam Hussein from a western perspective. In that neighborhood of the world, allowing "free access" would have been seen as a sign of weakness---cowtowing to the infidels. And yes, the only constant in Iraq was Sadaams willingness to do whatever was necessary to keep the factions under control.

You would have thought self presevation would have kicked in somewhere, maybe he just didnt believe GW was going to go through with it. I knew when all those boats where floating around full of American solders that this probably wasnt a bluff, Saddam is going to pay a huge price for his pride, and of course so are we.

[brite750]

Originally Posted by xico

Apparently (because I'm not sure of what is and what isn't spin) Saddam was bluffing in hopes that chemicals or whatever would deter Georgie from invading. I watched Dan Rather's interview with Saddam, and he made it plain that he didn't have WMD or chemicals.

Good posts Brite.

I know, it sucks now to look back on it, Saddam was such a liar that the one time he was telling the truth there was no way we were going to believe him, irony anyone.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by brite750

You would have thought self presevation would have kicked in somewhere, maybe he just didnt believe GW was going to go through with it. I knew when all those boats where floating around full of American solders that this probably wasnt a bluff, Saddam is going to pay a huge price for his pride, and of course so are we.

No one ever said that Saadam was sane. Or you could look at it this way, he had two choices both bad and both could lead to his downfall.

1. Allow free inspections with absolutely no delays etc.... That would show him as being weak in his own region and would certainly have caused him to lose face and threatened his regime.

2. Be intransigent---thats what he did and the result is that he was overthown.

[xico]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

No one ever said that Saadam was sane. Or you could look at it this way, he had two choices both bad and both could lead to his downfall.

1. Allow free inspections with absolutely no delays etc.... That would show him as being weak in his own region and would certainly have caused him to lose face and threatened his regime.

2. Be intransigent---thats what he did and the result is that he was overthown.

But Jack, he did allow the inspections! It wass GW that called them off. France and Germany were saying let the inspections continue!