Cindy's own words

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own w

We could have had permanent inspections in Iraq for less than 1/100 of the cost of the Iraq war.

Inspections were only part of the containment. We were spending around $13 billion per year on containment, with no end in sight. Yes, that's cheaper in a dollar basis. But it was also perpetual, and had other, non-dollar costs as well. 1/100th the cost? I don't think so.

If you know that Saddam doesn't have any weapons in 2003, then all you have to do is put a ◊◊◊◊ load of inspectors in Iraq, and keep them there.

The inspectors were NEVER given a mandate to stay indefinitely. Their express purpose was to verify disarmament. If they had ever managed to verify that Saddam had no weapons (they didn't), then they would have been obligated to pack up and leave. Did you not know this? It would have taken a completely new mandate from the UN to get inspectors to make sure he never rearmed, and frankly, you're smoking crack if you think the UN would have been willing to do that, considering how willingly they let Saddam halt cooperation in '98 without consequences.

 

[Jocko]

I have just seen several CNN articles detailing the abuses at Abu Ghraib...and certainly if they were inlicted on me I would consider them rape.

Well, you've already demonstrated the... er... "special" relationship you have with the English language when it suits you. Under the reight circumstances, you could probably consider a handshake akin to rape as well. That's jsut kinda your thing, using words incorrectly and then blaming someone else for it.

I repeat the question: WHERE IS THE QUOTE THAT SAYS TROOPS COMMITED CHILD RAPE?

All those links, and all you come up with is this"

"In Cruz's military court hearing, Spc. Israel Rivera testified that detainees "were put together in a big bundle of bodies, and they were handcuffed together. They were made to look like they were having sex."

Rivera said Cruz and some prison guards used their feet to press down on the buttocks of the men to simulate the appearance they were having homosexual sex."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/26/cruz.abu.ghraib/ [/B]

Why not show a little dignity and admit you overplayed your hand? Or is that just a little too rape-like for you to deal with?

 

[Tony]

Either of you, please tell me which part of America does NOT completely disgust you,

Gladly, and just so you know, the parts that disgust me are not unique to America, but the parts that I love, are.

since you both obviously hate (a word used with precision) the president, the government

You're right there.

the majority of your fellow citizens that elected them, the military and their families (except Cindy Sheehan).

I don't hate the majority of my fellow citizens, and I don't hate the people serving in the military. I pity them for being the toys of government policy. However, I hate the institution of the military because it steals the majority of my tax money while doing absolutely nothing for me. I also find something sick about the deification and lionization of the military as well, it’s un-American.

So, what part of America do either of you love?

The parts that make America the great nation it sometimes is and should be. The principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and the general idea of personal freedom embodied in said documents.

What is good and important to either of you?

The principles and ideals under which this country was concieved. Without those ideals, America would be just another country.

 

[BPSCG]

Gladly, and just so you know, the parts that disgust me are not unique to America, but the parts that I love, are.

(...snip...)

The principles and ideals under which this country was concieved. Without those ideals, America would be just another country.

Do you believe the US lives by those principles and ideals today? If not, when do you believe was the last time that it did?

 

[Jocko]

The parts that make America the great nation it sometimes is and should be. The principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and the general idea of personal freedom embodied in said documents.


The principles and ideals under which this country was concieved. Without those ideals, America would be just another country.

Yet you seem so determined that these principles have been abandoned by pretty much everyone except you, don't you? It kinda sounds more like you love your interpretation of those principles more than the principles themselves.

Sorta the whole tree falling in the forest thing. Is there anyone around to "hear" you? If so, who?

 

[MarksSock]

Tony and Mark, you're peas in a pod.

Troops are child rapists.
Bush is a terrorist.
Etc. etc. etc.

Either of you, please tell me which part of America does NOT completely disgust you, since you both obviously hate (a word used with precision) the president, the government, the majority of your fellow citizens that elected them, the military and their families (except Cindy Sheehan).

So, what part of America do either of you love? What is good and important to either of you? I am desperate to find a reason to give a flying flip what either of you think.

Loving America and loving Bush are NOT the same thing, no matter how much you want to spin things that way. I love my country very much, which is EXACTLY why Bush's attempts to subvert the very things that make us great is so offensive to me. You, on the other hand, seem to love your party, without giving a rat's A$$ about your country.

I never said our troops are child rapists. That is a contemptible lie. And shows how low people on the Right will sink.

I never said Bush was a terrorist. That also is a blatant lie.

What I love most about America (and the number one thing Bush is subverting) is our INTEGRITY. Look it up. Not being a liar is a good place to start...which, with Bush as your hero, I can see why you would have a hard time with that concept.

Manny: So people keep telling me. But as I demonstrated in this very thread, Ms. Sheehan is in fact a terrorist supporter. That Ms. Sheehan is a terrorist supporter is not in dispute -- it is a truism based on her own words. It's not based on one understanding or another of what she might have implied or someone else might have inferred. Ms. Sheehan stood up at San Francisco State University, in front of a convicted terrorist, and gave a speech supporting her.

That's why I ask my question. How much weight am I supposed to give to the words of a terrorist supporter? And if, as you say, one can be against the war but not be a terrorist supporter, why has the anti-war movement failed to find a leader who fits that description?

Could you provide a link to Ms. Sheehan's exact words? And to whom she was referring? You'll pardon me for not taking your word on this. Let me read what she actually said and I will comment on it.

 

[Jocko]

Loving America and loving Bush are NOT the same thing, no matter how much you want to spin things that way. I love my country very much, which is EXACTLY why Bush's attempts to subvert the very things that make us great is so offensive to me. You, on the other hand, seem to love your party, without giving a rat's A$$ about your country.

I never said our troops are child rapists. That is a contemptible lie. And shows how low people on the Right will sink.

I never said Bush was a terrorist. That also is a blatant lie.

What I love most about America (and the number one thing Bush is subverting) is our INTEGRITY. Look it up. Not being a liar is a good place to start...which, with Bush as your hero, I can see why you would have a hard time with that concept.

Manny: So people keep telling me. But as I demonstrated in this very thread, Ms. Sheehan is in fact a terrorist supporter. That Ms. Sheehan is a terrorist supporter is not in dispute -- it is a truism based on her own words. It's not based on one understanding or another of what she might have implied or someone else might have inferred. Ms. Sheehan stood up at San Francisco State University, in front of a convicted terrorist, and gave a speech supporting her.

That's why I ask my question. How much weight am I supposed to give to the words of a terrorist supporter? And if, as you say, one can be against the war but not be a terrorist supporter, why has the anti-war movement failed to find a leader who fits that description?

Could you provide a link to Ms. Sheehan's exact words? And to whom she was referring? You'll pardon me for not taking your word on this. Let me read what she actually said and I will comment on it.

Venom, venom, venom! Is that all you ever do?

I was hoping for something a little more concrete than "integrity." Who or what fulfills that definition to you? You've already wasted enough time browbeating the universe about who you think doesn't.... who does? What does?

Come on, Mark, give it a shot.

 

[BPSCG]

So people keep telling me. But as I demonstrated in this very thread, Ms. Sheehan is in fact a terrorist supporter. That Ms. Sheehan is a terrorist supporter is not in dispute -- it is a truism based on her own words. It's not based on one understanding or another of what she might have implied or someone else might have inferred. Ms. Sheehan stood up at San Francisco State University, in front of a convicted terrorist, and gave a speech supporting her.

That's why I ask my question. How much weight am I supposed to give to the words of a terrorist supporter? And if, as you say, one can be against the war but not be a terrorist supporter, why has the anti-war movement failed to find a leader who fits that description?

Another question: Why hasn't the anti-war movement disavowed her support of terrorists?

Okay, you can say that the anti-war movement isn't an organized institution, and has no central spokesman, no central organization. But in that case, can someone point to anyone who's a significant voice in the anti-war movement, who has disavowed Shhehan's support for terrorists?

[bueller]
Anyone?

Anyone?
[/bueller]

 

[MarksSock]

Venom, venom, venom! Is that all you ever do?

I was hoping for something a little more concrete than "integrity." Who or what fulfills that definition to you? You've already wasted enough time browbeating the universe about who you think doesn't.... who does? What does?

Come on, Mark, give it a shot.

Another standard Right Wing tactic: personally insult and lie about someone, then complain when they strike back. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop listening to liars and hypocrites like Rush Limbaugh.

Integrity? As far as presidents and/or hopefuls...

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter
Both regarded as inferior presidents. Isn't that interesting?

On the current scene? No one on either side, with the possible exception (I haven't made ip my mind about him) of Howard Dean.

That'll have to be my last word for a while. I have to take a friend to the hospital.

 

[Jocko]

Another standard Right Wing tactic: personally insult and lie about someone, then complain when they strike back. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop listening to liars and hypocrites like Rush Limbaugh.

You know, for complaining so much about others putting words in your mouth, you sure do love to paint a mural based on a postage stamp's worth of information. That, and your unrelenting vitriol lead me to suspect you are a fundamentally very, very unhappy person.

Integrity? As far as presidents and/or hopefuls...

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter
Both regarded as inferior presidents. Isn't that interesting?

Indeed. So you haven't had a moment of peace since 1980, is that what I'm reading from this? Because it would explain a great deal of your bitterness. Are you saying there is nothing since then that has exemplified something GOOD in America since then?

On the current scene? No one on either side, with the possible exception (I haven't made ip my mind about him) of Howard Dean.

Sure, you have a great deal in common. Take that as you like.

 

[Giz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

And guess which country---and political party---was supplying him with weapons when he was doing it.

So the USA supplied a bad guy with weapons.. while he was fighting somebody worse.

Stalin (much worse than Saddam) was given aid and weapons too... whilst he was fighting somebody worse. Was that wrong? Is perhaps taking an event out of context and saying "waaah, we gave a bad guy guns!!!" a bit simplistic?

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own w

So the USA supplied a bad guy with weapons.. while he was fighting somebody worse.

Stalin (much worse than Saddam) was given aid and weapons too... whilst he was fighting somebody worse. Was that wrong? Is perhaps taking an event out of context and saying "waaah, we gave a bad guy guns!!!" a bit simplistic?

It's cool, Mark disagrees with Mark anyway

Originally posted by Mark
The world, sadly is not a black and white place.

Unless it only applies when we compare Bush to terrorists.

 

[MarksSock]

You know, for complaining so much about others putting words in your mouth, you sure do love to paint a mural based on a postage stamp's worth of information. That, and your unrelenting vitriol lead me to suspect you are a fundamentally very, very unhappy person.



Indeed. So you haven't had a moment of peace since 1980, is that what I'm reading from this? Because it would explain a great deal of your bitterness. Are you saying there is nothing since then that has exemplified something GOOD in America since then?



Sure, you have a great deal in common. Take that as you like.

Just time for one last post:

Your words:
"Tony and Mark, you're peas in a pod.

Troops are child rapists.
Bush is a terrorist.
Etc. etc. etc.

Either of you, please tell me which part of America does NOT completely disgust you, since you both obviously hate (a word used with precision) the president, the government, the majority of your fellow citizens that elected them, the military and their families (except Cindy Sheehan)."

And now you have the bare faced, hypocritical gall to complain that I am insulting you. People on the Right are so abused. Waah, waah.

Anyway, once again, you are trying to make things black and white. I named (in answer to your question) the two presidents who I felt had the most integrity. Not ALL, just the most.

Johnson: A war criminal.

Nixon: a thug, but OK on foreign affairs.

Ford: a decent enough man. Too brief to really know much about him. Kind of a bufoon.

Carter: a lousy leader, but a very, very tough man who sacrificed his career rather than cave to the Iranians.

Reagan: immediately caved to the Iranians, but TALKED tough. Given credit for things he had nothing to do with. Popbably a nice guy to be around.

Bush Sr. OK, more or less.

Clinton: a terrific president (can you say balanced budget?), but a boor and a slob in his personal life. A fool in terms of underestimating his opponents' desire to bring him down.

Bush Jr. A disaster in every way. Seems pathologically unable to tell the truth about anything.

Happy now?

 

[MarksSock]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's o

It's cool, Mark disagrees with Mark anyway



Unless it only applies when we compare Bush to terrorists. [/B]

I didn't compare Bush to a terrorist. Can any of you on the Right post something about me without lying?

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi

I didn't compare Bush to a terrorist. Can any of you on the Right post something about me without lying?

Paranoid much?

Ok, fair enough, you did not call him a Terrorist. I appoligize for insinuating that.

However, you did "understand" why people would consider him a war criminal. Not sure if it's worse or better than terrorist...

It still goes for my point that you pick and choose when the world is Black and White.

 

[Jocko]

Just time for one last post:

Your words:
"Tony and Mark, you're peas in a pod.

Troops are child rapists.
Bush is a terrorist.
Etc. etc. etc.

Either of you, please tell me which part of America does NOT completely disgust you, since you both obviously hate (a word used with precision) the president, the government, the majority of your fellow citizens that elected them, the military and their families (except Cindy Sheehan)."

And now you have the bare faced, hypocritical gall to complain that I am insulting you. People on the Right are so abused. Waah, waah.

Anyway, once again, you are trying to make things black and white. I named (in answer to your question) the two presidents who I felt had the most integrity. Not ALL, just the most.

Johnson: A war criminal.

Nixon: a thug, but OK on foreign affairs.

Ford: a decent enough man. Too brief to really know much about him. Kind of a bufoon.

Carter: a lousy leader, but a very, very tough man who sacrificed his career rather than cave to the Iranians.

Reagan: immediately caved to the Iranians, but TALKED tough. Given credit for things he had nothing to do with. Popbably a nice guy to be around.

Bush Sr. OK, more or less.

Clinton: a terrific president (can you say balanced budget?), but a boor and a slob in his personal life. A fool in terms of underestimating his opponents' desire to bring him down.

Bush Jr. A disaster in every way. Seems pathologically unable to tell the truth about anything.

Happy now?

Not really, I wasn't much interested in a three-word summary of presidents according to Mark.

I want to know what you love about America, and what persons or institutions exemplify that. If you read my original post up there again, it should be patently obvious. All you've given me is that there have been two presidents in the last 100 years you respect, without much explanation of why.

What is good about America to you? Mom, apple pie, Chevrolet, baseball, what? There must be something that keeps you on this side of the Canadian border. What is it?

 

[Manny]

There must be something that keeps you on this side of the Canadian border. What is it?

Canada ain't like the US; they won't take just any mope off the streets. To go to Canada you've gotta have m4d 5k1LZ.

 

[Manny]

Could you provide a link to Ms. Sheehan's exact words?

Already did, in this very thread. In fact, you responded to the post. Didn't answer my question, but you did respond to the post. So you, or at least your doppleganger, knows about it.

And to whom she was referring? You'll pardon me for not taking your word on this.

You mean just like last time? Oh, my heart's all afflutter.

Wait until your password "error" is cleared up (something else about which you're lying). I'm done conversing with violations of Rule 7.

 

[Jocko]

Canada ain't like the US; they won't take just any mope off the streets. To go to Canada you've gotta have m4d 5k1LZ.

I passed the test, even though I don't know a lick of French. Ain't that tough. I'd be glad to surrender my Canadian qualifications to anyone interested in having them, of course. My price is quite reasonable.

 

[Daylight]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

And why did Wolfowitz say that we would not need more than 100,000 troops in Iraq? Why did Rumsfeld originally plan on scaling back troop levels to 40,000 by Fall 2003? We all know the truth: Bush was completely caught off guard by the insurgency. Please do not insult the intelligence of the posters here by insinuating that 'terrorists killing Americans in Iraq is good because that means they aren't attacking us here', as if Bush knew this would happen all along.
Oh yeah, and Bush lied about WMD. End of story.

Actually, this is not true. Bush and friends knew what would happen.

Before the invasion in the simulated war games the US lost. The losing generals cried foul because the person playing the Iraqi’s used insurgents and guerrilla warfare.

The sad part is all these Americans are dieing because of this gross incompetence.

The time has come to fire these incompetent generals and upper CIA officials who put their political career first and get some generals who are fighters and want to kick donkey. They did this in Korea and it turned things around. Unfortunately, Bush’s good old boys club won’t do this and Americans will continue to die.

It’s time to hold Bush and his Generals accountable for their incompetent actions.