new tactics in the hunt for Bin Laden

[Celerity]

He did not commit purjery. That is a spin the right uses. The things he lied about were irrelevant to the case and therefore legally not perjury.

"I ... did NOT ... have sexual relations with that woman...."




"My Fellow Americans. I have lied..."



You're insane.

 

[Capt. Orygun]

you don't Impeach president's for losing battles, that has NEVER been how war is conducted. We went so far as ditching Rumsfeld, nobody in there right mind would actually say "Well Bush's plan didn't work out the way we thought it would so call Al Gore"

and

President Clinton Impeached

Clinton WAS impeached for perjury, it was even passed by the house.

I enjoy debating you Sabz, especially in plain view of the entire internet but come on, at least admit the true history of what we're debating

 

[Sabz5150]

"I ... did NOT ... have sexual relations with that woman...."




"My Fellow Americans. I have lied..."



You're insane.

Myth: Clinton committed perjury

 

[Sabz5150]

you don't Impeach president's for losing battles, that has NEVER been how war is conducted. We went so far as ditching Rumsfeld, nobody in there right mind would actually say "Well Bush's plan didn't work out the way we thought it would so call Al Gore"

and

President Clinton Impeached

Clinton WAS impeached for perjury, it was even passed by the house.

I enjoy debating you Sabz, especially in plain view of the entire internet but come on, at least admit the true history of what we're debating

"Although the impeachment process succeeded at the level of the House of Representatives, without the Senate's confirming action in this matter, no further action was taken."


Fell in the Senate. We know what happens when things passed by the House fall in the Senate.

 

[Capt. Orygun]

nice rebuttal, it's a very Liberal way of looking at it. Too bad Clinton did lie, he even said he lied on national TV and confession of guilt overrides even the shakiest interpretations of criminal law

Edit: BTW, you question my news scurces and post that shit? Why don't you just link me to geocities or angelfire?

 

[Celerity]

/thread

An asshole only smells better when it's wiped totally clean.

 

[Sabz5150]

nice rebuttal, it's a very Liberal way of looking at it. Too bad Clinton did lie, he even said he lied on national TV and confession of guilt overrides even the shakiest interpretations of criminal law

Edit: BTW, you question my news scurces and post that shit? Why don't you just link me to geocities or angelfire?

Lying =! perjury. What he lied about (yes, he did lie... thats not the debate), was not admissable as perjury.

My point is not about Clinton's beej, Monicagate or whatever neat name there is for it. I simply want to know why the conservative attack dogs were let loose on Clinton like they hadn't been fed in three weeks... yet when things go fubar in Iraq or even here (Ann Coulter comes to mind... is the best thing Fox can do to defend her is bring on a liberal COMEDIAN and say "Look, he's saying bad things too!"? Come on...), they go on the defensive?

As for the link, oh yeah it's liberal as hell... but it's just a different way at looking at it versus the traditional conservative look.

It's someone's thesis or something, I'm not passing this off as an unbiased news source.

 

[klyph]

unbiased news source.

Those




Don't




Exist.

 

[Capt. Orygun]

is the best thing Fox can do to defend her is bring on a liberal COMEDIAN and say "Look, he's saying bad things too!"? Come on...), they go on the defensive?

As for the link, oh yeah it's liberal as hell... but it's just a different way at looking at it versus the traditional conservative look.

while I defend neither people for their remarks you must agree there's a big difference between referring to a senator as gay and advocating the death of the vice president as a foreign policy strategy.

and there is no Liberal or Conservative outlook on Monica gate, there is only truth. This guy cheated on his wife, got caught, and lied under oath while in office. There's no political component to that, it's just what happened. Much like how Bush put a great deal of spin on the Intel out there that was used to advocate the Iraq war under legal pretenses (it was legal as per UN documents dating back to 1991).

The fact is all of this is smoke and mirrors, remember "Man of the Year"? Weapons of Mass distraction.

We have a Senate which is bound and determined to lose the war in Iraq for no better reason then that Bush wants us to win and he's unpopular. They have declared war on us and if we cease fighting we aren't declaring peace, we're surrendering.

And to stop the potential smoke screen, don't say "Iraq didn't declare war on us" we aren't at war with Iraq in Iraq we're at war with Al Qaeda in Iraq and have been since summer of 03 when Bush declared mission accomplished.

We, lefties and righties, need to quit arguing about 10 year old blowjobs and political spin, and recommit to winning this war so our children don't have to fight it.

 

[Celerity]

I disagree and have posted links to articles. We went to war against Saddam, not IRaq Al Quaida. They came later.

Saddam DID threaten us with a chemical weapon (.. already on US Shores)

 

[klyph]

We, lefties and righties, need to quit arguing about 10 year old blowjobs and political spin, and recommit to winning this war so our children don't have to fight it.

I agree, the conflict cannot be stopped now, our strategy needs to be how we can stabilize the region in the most expedient manner possible.
However, everyone knows that without a constant and ample military presence, the region will again be engulfed by warlords.
You keep forgetting that this war has been going on for thousands of years. You cannot simply make it stop, it's not possible.
People talk like these conflicts aren't interconnected, yet the truth is they blend from full scale war to fighting the remaining insurgents, to policing, and the cycle never ends. There will always be war no matter what choice we make. The only choice TO make is whether to be involved, and if we're not involved, we can't be in control of the situation.
Let's be realistic people: Democrat control, Republican control, it doesn't matter, we're never gonna just "pull out" of Iraq. Not in 10 years, not in 100 years. We'll ALWAYS have a military presence there. Just look at Germany and Japan.

 

[Celerity]

What about the upcoming Muslim Wars ?

 

[klyph]

What about em? We'll be set up in Iraq and Afghanistan, striking them on their home turf. Right now we're winning the war against muslims, but if they ever figure out how to develop their own oil resources, the tables may turn. They would obviously need help from a superpower such as China in order to mount an effective counter-insurgency (us being the insurgents) but it is possible that due to American public opinion of the high casualty rates, we will pull out and the war front will be brought back to American soil.

 

[Capt. Orygun]

I disagree and have posted links to articles. We went to war against Saddam, not IRaq Al Quaida. They came later.

Saddam DID threaten us with a chemical weapon (.. already on US Shores)

disagree? You just repeated what I said so far as I can tell. There's no "Iraq war" currently, we are fighting Muslim extremists in Iraq

and Klyph

you don't know how many times I responded to a Dem saying "We need to leave Iraq" by laughing and asking "Well if we're getting out of countries we went to war with shouldn't we start with Germany?"

 

[Celerity]

We are not winning a war on Terrorists. It's a war against a method.

If the terrorists were all, say, within the borders of Terrorstan, Then we would have rounded them up, eliminated them, tried and hung them within 4 weeks. We have the military might to destroy an identified target accurately anywhere in the solar system within 28 days of the order being issued.

We can't win against "Terrorists" because it's a method of fighting. It's like a war on roundhouse kicking.

We are only recently beginning to identify the problem - Extreme Muslims. We thought that Terrorist training camps were in afghanistan and a few places in the middle east - we WERE wrong. It's in the backyards of even our "allies" (Like fucking Pakistan). It's everywhere. Its on US soil. Its on the internet.

Now defeating Extreme Islam is "possible" but not easy. Once we find that line between regular Islamists and Extremists, then we will eradicate the problem in foul swoop. This, I call, The Muslim Wars.

We're one step away from it.

As far as being in Iraq - we aren't there for Terrorists. We are there because intel said they had the weapons necessary to follow through on a threat that Saddam Hussein brazenly stated on Al Jazeera in 2002. One of the people that gave us that intel is Joe "fuckin yellow cake in Sudan" Wilson. When the shit hit the fan in 2001, Valerie and Joe came forth and said "we told you so". Then Valerie's name was leaked as a CIA "operative" (She filed papers 9 to 5 in Virginia) and Joe was even more armed ... "SEE ?! SEE ?! They want me dead for what I know!"

Under oath he went against his statements to the media just 9 months earlier and said "I said they were looking for yellow cake, not getting yellow cake". Either way, regardless of what he actually said - our inter departmental communication was horrible then, and even if he said "I think they are talking to Libya about nuclear material" I wouldn't be surprised if 2 steps down the grapevine it turned into "Saddam has weapons". That's how shit used to work.

Now that the system is clearer, there haven't been any mistakes. People in Guatanamo are being tried slowly and methodically, to make sure no one gets out (Like the guy that got out before, even though he was a published anti-american jihadist that claimed to plan terror attacks)(That won't happen again either)

We learn from mistakes. But be aware that Iraq was not done in search of Terrorists. We thought we got rid of the Taliban, once and for all. We had thousands of bodies identified and firmly believed it was gone. Shit, we tried "all the nazis" in nuremburg and guess what - Still NAZIs. It's an ideal, not a fighting faction.

 

[klyph]

So if you can't kill an idea with bullets, shouldn't we try an alternative means of fighting this war? Seems all of our "eradication" only makes martyrs and emboldens their following.

 

[Celerity]

Words don't work. We can't even discuss whether a baby is alive at conception or at birthing.

Bullets ALWAYS get the job done.

 

[Capt. Orygun]

I just had a great metaphor hit me:

so far as I can understand it the logic for leaving Iraq is that Al Qaeda wouldn't have been there if we hadn't attacked Iraq in 2003

So tomorrow if your acting like an idiot and spill grape juice on your carpet would you refuse to clean it up before you left the house because "If I hadn't been jumping around like an idiot it wouldn't have spilt"

 

[Sabz5150]

I just had a great metaphor hit me:

so far as I can understand it the logic for leaving Iraq is that Al Qaeda wouldn't have been there if we hadn't attacked Iraq in 2003

So tomorrow if your acting like an idiot and spill grape juice on your carpet would you refuse to clean it up before you left the house because "If I hadn't been jumping around like an idiot it wouldn't have spilt"

Great metaphor since we both put the grape juice there AND jumped around like an idiot.

 

[Capt. Orygun]

there is no both, last time I checked there is only one America

and your signature offends me. I demand you change the word Witch to Bitch