Wow, there are scumbags, and then there are scumbags, but this guy takes the cake. - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard
ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Re: Wow, there are scumbags, and then there are scumbags, but this guy takes the cake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Boy
"Stop" she cried, then she pulled up her bloomers and fled.
lol... is there an ignore feature on these forums? i'm not finding it...
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Re: Wow, there are scumbags, and then there are scumbags, but this guy takes the cake
Quote:
Originally Posted by PressCoverage
great schlock here... but you continue to appear UNABLE to answer the question... over and over and over again, talking around the issue, insulting ME, but never really tackling the issue... it's truly unbelievable.... you serve up a main course of Clinton deflection, with a side of Social Security and for desert? Some Reid and Edwards distraction.... Hooray!!... but what are you talking about? lol
Anyhow, back to accountability: Still waiting, RW, for your explanation on why "resolution breaking" was not the stated reasoning for asking for Congressional and/or UN approval to rape Iraq?...
Could you explain your question a little better. I truly don't understand what is it you are asking. Ask it in english, and I'd be happy to enlighten you.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Re: Wow, there are scumbags, and then there are scumbags, but this guy takes the cake
cheeky.... i've asked it 5 different times in this thread, and you continue to avoid it, and now you're playing dumb about it...
a poster here stated that Iraq's "violations" of UN resolutions was enough to justify war... my question to you, clearly, was: Why then wasn't that the stated reasoning provided to the UN and the American public for permission for war, rather than lies about Atta in Prague, aluminum tubes, uranium in Niger and on and on on and on and on and on and on... ?
is that clear enough for you, or will you be needing flash cards?
Re: Wow, there are scumbags, and then there are scumbags, but this guy takes the cake
Quote:
Originally Posted by PressCoverage
cheeky.... i've asked it 5 different times in this thread, and you continue to avoid it, and now you're playing dumb about it...
a poster here stated that Iraq's "violations" of UN resolutions was enough to justify war... my question to you, clearly, was: Why then wasn't that the stated reasoning provided to the UN and the American public for permission for war, rather than lies about Atta in Prague, aluminum tubes, uranium in Niger and on and on on and on and on and on and on... ?
is that clear enough for you, or will you be needing flash cards?
Because Bush, the Democrats and the whole world believed the WMD's were there.
Saddam got rid of them or hid them.
When the democrats found out the WMD's were not there they turned and stuck it up Bush's a$s, they back stabbed their own president.
Ted Kennedy said "Saddam has to go"-----Saddam is gone.
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
Re: Wow, there are scumbags, and then there are scumbags, but this guy takes the cake
Quote:
Originally Posted by PressCoverage
cheeky.... i've asked it 5 different times in this thread, and you continue to avoid it, and now you're playing dumb about it...
a poster here stated that Iraq's "violations" of UN resolutions was enough to justify war... my question to you, clearly, was: Why then wasn't that the stated reasoning provided to the UN and the American public for permission for war, rather than lies about Atta in Prague, aluminum tubes, uranium in Niger and on and on on and on and on and on and on... ?
is that clear enough for you, or will you be needing flash cards?
Um, again, no clue what your asking here. Your question is kinda dumb. The UN resolutions were passed as a means to recieve UN acceptance of force. It kinda goes back to the legality issue. Therefore the US, or coalition, whichever you prefer, put forth a resolution at the UN which requested Iraq put forth it's weapons systems, and allow UN Inspectors access to investigate, or it would face "Serious consequences".
I'm sure you know that there were some 14 resolutions passed that Iraq had violated prior. The US went to the UN to "legalize" actions it was intending to take against Saddam. Resolution 1441, which was passed by the council, did that. If your asking why the previous violations weren't mentioned, well they were. TV not working in the basement back then?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Re: Wow, there are scumbags, and then there are scumbags, but this guy takes the cake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real World
Um, again, no clue what your asking here. Your question is kinda dumb. The UN resolutions were passed as a means to recieve UN acceptance of force. It kinda goes back to the legality issue. Therefore the US, or coalition, whichever you prefer, put forth a resolution at the UN which requested Iraq put forth it's weapons systems, and allow UN Inspectors access to investigate, or it would face "Serious consequences".
I'm sure you know that there were some 14 resolutions passed that Iraq had violated prior. The US went to the UN to "legalize" actions it was intending to take against Saddam. Resolution 1441, which was passed by the council, did that. If your asking why the previous violations weren't mentioned, well they were. TV not working in the basement back then?
now you're just being flat evasive... of course Saddam's no-fly zone violations were mentioned... for years, ... but at the crucial time, they were not presented as the primary reasons given to the UN, nor the nation in the Feb. 03 State of the Union Address by your hero in office... the issues that swayed Congress, and convinced the UN were all the up-front allegations in both Powell's UN speech, and the president's internationally televised speech in early 2003... which you seem to be constantly ignoring, and that the administration knew well ahead of time was either completely bogus, or at best, highly unsubstantiated and dubious...
they were:
- aluminum tubes for enrichment (they were proven rocket tubes, nothing satisfactory for uranium enrichment)
- Atta meeting with Iraqi agents in Prague (absolutely no evidence confirming it never happened, in fact some circumstance provided were completely false)
- mobile bio weapons labs (from one source, a known fabricator with a stake in Chalabi's INC... truck labs found had no drains, were not for bioweapons production at all)
- numerous nuclear and bioweapons facilities with "vast" weapons of mass destruction capability throughout Iraq (we're still waiting for one of these to be found, should be any day now).
- secret deal by Saddam to buy pure uranium from the country of Niger (no deal was ever made; an Italian rogue intelligence source forged papers and became very rich... )
the last one being so trumped up, so repated, that it led to the intentional and perhaps coordinated blown cover of a high-level clandestine CIA operative by the White House...
the point is, "resolution breaking" would not have been enough to warrant invasion in the eyes of the people, nor the U.N. ... so, saying so or leaning on that "justification" is just incorrect...
Last edited by PressCoverage; 01-14-2007 at 01:37 PM..
Re: Wow, there are scumbags, and then there are scumbags, but this guy takes the cake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Boy
Because Bush, the Democrats and the whole world believed the WMD's were there.
Saddam got rid of them or hid them.
When the democrats found out the WMD's were not there they turned and stuck it up Bush's a$s, they back stabbed their own president.
Ted Kennedy said "Saddam has to go"-----Saddam is gone.
"the Democrats and the whole world believed??"
absolutely and unequivocaly false... shall i provide the links of dissenting opinion throughout 2002 and 2003, or do you wish to recant right now and stop looking more and more foolish?.... at least for today?
Re: Wow, there are scumbags, and then there are scumbags, but this guy takes the cake
Quote:
Originally Posted by PressCoverage
"the Democrats and the whole world believed??"
absolutely and unequivocaly false... shall i provide the links of dissenting opinion throughout 2002 and 2003, or do you wish to recant right now and stop looking more and more foolish?.... at least for today?
Oh Jesus, he's back, Professor Link, Saturday night last night, I hope you had sex with somebody:
Your favorite Democrats all voted for this war, they said "Saddam and his weapons have to be destroyed", Saddam was destroyed but no weapons were found, the Sniveling Whiney democrats then wanted us to leave immediately, abandoning the Iraqi people that we were supposed to help, the kind caring Democrats didn't give a ***** about them this was a good chance to get even with the Hated Bush, the scumbag Democrat Bastards smelled blood, we got him now.
Get Bush--Get Bush--Get Bush.
Bad Bush
Bad America
Bad Neo Con
Bad Coulter
Bad Limbaugh
Bad Jenna Bush
Bad Fox News
Bad White People
Bad Christmas
Bad God
Bad Jesus
Bad SUV's
Bad Halibuton
Bad Bad Military
Bad Country Music
Bad Flag
Bad President Ford
Bad Mel Gibson
Bad Cops
Bad CIA
F-cking Hateful Sore Losing Bastards.
Oh Beautiful For Spacious Skies
For Amber Waves Of Grain
America Will Survive
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself