North Korea admits to Nukes

[nevetS]

They also seek to bolster their arsenal.

It's strange to me that the inevitability of third world nations gaining nuclear weapons is something that was infathomable for so long.

The harsh part is that lesser despots and minor dictators will express very little restraint in using the weapons to gain notoriety in the world arena.

It's time for a new generation of leadership, for there is a new world to be won.

[Lever]

Some years back I had to call in an engineer to fix our fork lift truck... the guy who turned up had a pleasant enough personality, just he was badly physically disfigured; mashed up face, fingers missing etc... said he'd worked at our Atom Weapons Research Establishment... nice guy but his looks scared the f**k out o' me...

...sort of a cross between a regular guy and blinky the fish...

So that's what I think of anything nuclear... SCARY :eek:

[T0PS3O]

I just read the official statement they released and I have to say, they put it very well how the US treats countries it doesn't like. That Bush administration is a bunch of assholes in my opinion.

Why should the US be allowed to carry these f*ck-off big nuclear warheads on their submarines which cruise the world oceans 24/7, being able to nuke any major city they want within a matter of hours but at the other hand... Oh let's bully N-Korea because they have their own little program and they might have evil intentions.

What a egocentric bull-shit policy.

The way the US handles it tells me they have no intention to talk their way through it. On their hidden agenda they have a long standing appointment to pay them a physical visit.

[nevetS]

Wow. Tell us how you really feel Tops! :)

[T0PS3O]

Wow. Tell us how you really feel Tops! :)

I won't go off-topic now...

[nevetS]

Forgive me for getting political here, but this was a hot-button issue during the presidential elections, was it not?

And did not Bush himself denounce Kerry's plans for a tri-lateral commission to handle the North Korean nuclear issue, because we "can't leave the security of our country in the hands of others"? So why is there a six-country commission in place now?

This would be a political nightmare for Kerry, but for Bush it won't affect his ratings at all.

[T0PS3O]

Who cares about the president's ratings...

What does NK nukes have to do with US security?

[Lever]

NK and US are ideologically opposed, that's what it has to do with US security. You could ask what do commercial aircraft have to do with US security? A lot...

[T0PS3O]

Just because they have different ideas about certain things, doesn't make them want to fight each other does it? NK doesn't mind talking about it but the US refuses to do so and calls them names. Very childish...

If the US wasn't out to make so many enemies, it wouldn't be necessary for them to fear those countries' weaponry.

They only become enemies because the US makes them their enemies by calling them tyrannies, putting up trade restrictions etc.

I don't care much that someone a couple of blocks away from here might carry a gun. He isn't my enemy, I have no reason to fear him. But I won't be sending him letters saying he's bad and what not.

I have yet to see a real reason why the US should be worried about anything such a small country like NK is up to.

[Lever]

The UK is and always has been a small country - and yet there was once a British Empire, so size means nothing.

I neither like nor trust GW Bush and the people puliing his strings (cummon, he couldn't really think all that cronyism up by himself could he?) but the NK leader is more of unknown quantity - I'm sure Kim Jon Il has issues (http://www.latinoreview.com/films_2004/paramount/teamamerica/kimclip2.mov) too... ;)

[nevetS]

Well - the reality is that we are still fighting with North Korea today. I have friends that recently got back from "non-combat" duty up there - firing missiiles at and exchanging fire with NK.

NK is still to this day digging tunnels into Seoul. We find them every once in a while. While it's no longer front page news, the Korean conflict is alive and well.

[Haichi]

Wait they dig tunnels to South Korea?

[nevetS]

Yeah - the way I understand it, they feel it is their destiny to have control over south korea. At some point in the last couple of years they found tunnels that would have allowed over 400 hundred thousand troops direct access into Seoul - so not just a crazy asian guy with a spoon doing his own thing or anything like that.

[Haichi]

400,000 how big are these tunnels?
any linked info online about them? I can't imagine what it took to dig that

[T0PS3O]

Well - the reality is that we are still fighting with North Korea today. I have friends that recently got back from "non-combat" duty up there - firing missiiles at and exchanging fire with NK.

So why are they there then?

Is the US military there bacause they didn't like what was going on or did NK something to your country to begin with?

[nevetS]

I don't know about online info... Haven't searched for it. I just got the info from friends that served over there. Who knows, they could be blowing smoke up my pitooty - I've never been there.

We're over there as a remnant of the cold war. Our original mission was something along the lines of protecting the sovereignty of South Korea.

The North is a little crazy in that they believe that their country's leader is a demigod. They are very closed to outsiders and have a strong history of censorship. There was a huge train disaster there last year and they virtually shut down international communication to prevent information about the disaster from reaching the international community. I guess I've fallen for whatever propoganda because I really have a low opinion of North Korea.

[Lever]

"From 1953 till today, numerous other violations of the armistice have been committed by North Korea (tunnelling under the DMZ, raids south of the border, etc.)"from the
1998 Congressional Hearings on Special Weapons (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998_h/ws924983.htm) mentions tunnels but not sizes...

[nevetS]

I found this... a little old, but it mentions 30,000 troops per hour and a discovery as recent as 1990. The one my buddy told me about was found 4 years ago according to him.

According to north Korean defectors, Kim Il-Sung -- president of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- issued a sweeping order in the early 1970s that required every Korean People's Army division along the Demilitarized Zone to dig and maintain at least two tunnels into South Korea. The opposing United Nations Command had been aware of an earlier north Korean tunneling effort that never became an actuality, but was surprised when new evidence came up that indicated the north was hard at work underground again.

On November 15, 1974 while in operation in the western DMZ near Korangpo, allied reconnaissance troops found steam rising from the earth's surface indicating that a tunnel was present underneath the DMZ. The tunnels depth is believed to be some 45 meters, has a total length of 3,500 meters of which 1,000 meters invaded into the DMZ. The tunnel is along a course that would have exiting soldiers heading towards Korango, Uijongbu and is some 65 km from Seoul, 8 km northeast of Korangpo. It has a prefabricated wall of concrete and slate. When discovered, there were 220-volt and 60-watt lamps, electric lines, railways, and track vehicles. The ground is inclined by 5 degrees to the north to prevent water from gathering. There are turning points on the railroad. The tunnel is large enough to allow the transit of a regiment of troops and heavy artillery every hour.

On March 19, 1975 a second tunnel was discovered following the testimony of Kim Bu-sung, former official of the Liaison Bureau of the Workers' Party of North Korea, who participated in the construction of underground tunnels and defected to the South in 1974. The South Korean Army analyzed the sound of underground explosions which started to be heard in Cholwon in 1972, and examined suspected sites. The arch-shaped tunnel is double the size of the 1st Underground Tunnel. There is a plaza where troops gather, and three exits which were to be used for both conventional and unconventional warfare. The tunnel is located some 13 km north of Cholwon and is 101 km from Seoul. It has a total length of 3,500 meters and is 50-160 meter below the surface. About 3,000 armed troops and their vehicles, artillery and tanks can pass per hour.

On October 17, 1978 a third tunnel was discovered following th e 1975 testimony of defector Kim Bu-sung. Initial efforts to discover the tunnel failed until June 10, 1978, when an excavation hole was exploded, they started to dig a counter-tunnel which later reached the North's tunnel on October 17, 1978. It is about the same size as the 2nd Underground Tunnel, but would have been the most threatening tunnel if the North had used it to invade Seoul. According to Kim Bu-sung, North Korea planned to make five southern exits. Normally one or two were to be used, but in a decisive stage all were to be put into use. It was designed for both conventional warfare and guerrilla infiltration. The tunnel is 4 km south of Panmunjom and 44 km from Seoul. It is 73 meters underground and roughly 1,635 meters long. About 30,000 ranked, heavily-armed troops can pass per hour.

After detecting the sound of underground motors in May of 1989, the Army started excavation work using state-of-the-art reconnaissance devices developed by the Korean Institute for Science and Technology. They sent electric waves through antennas, which were put through excavation halls driven every 20 meters. Analyzing the transformation of the waves, they were able to pinpoint the tunnel's location as well as determine its size. Twenty-three days after they started digging, the counter-tunnel reached the North Korean tunnel. Forty-five Korean and foreign journalists were present at the scene of discovery of the fourth tunnel on March 3, 1990. The tunnel is 145 meters below the surface and is 2,052 meters long. It is located 26 km northeast of Yangku. The tunnel could allow the transit of some 30,000 soldiers per hour.

[nevetS]

Also here, it says that NK published guidelines for war against America in their newspaper:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/5/235945.shtml

[Cyclops]

Why should the US be allowed to carry these f*ck-off big nuclear warheads on their submarines which cruise the world oceans 24/7, being able to nuke any major city they want within a matter of hours but on the other hand... What a egocentric bull-shit policy.
There are millions of people in other countries that are saying exactly the same thing....you just don't here about it in the US.
The US is regarded as being the school yard bully by other countries, including it's allies.

[Lever]

There are millions of people in other countries that are saying exactly the same thing....you just don't here about it in the US.
The US is regarded as being the school yard bully by other countries, including it's allies.That's very true, and the answer is making sure that people get the correct information, unbiased reporting etc... if people talk about the issues then you'd hope that word gets around. :)

I think that the Bush Administration is trying to patch things up with the rest of the world right now, knowing it's pissed a lot of people off... but there's the public face of politics and always hidden agendas... so as long as people remember then they don't get hoodwinked.

We got an election in May and I remember thatTB was the one that took us into Iraq.

[Sorvoja]

Ok, things are not good in North Korea. Not only does the country starve large parts of it's own population, but also does they control large amounts of "weapons of mass destruction". Bush jr. should have invaded North Korea, and not Iraq. Don't get me wrong, someday in the very far future, long after the troops have left Iraq will be better off without Saddam. North Korea should have been the target, you can't declear war on a nation with nukes.

[nevetS]

You know... If we just dropped the bomb on any country that was developing the bomb, countries would stop developing the bomb.

(aren't you all glad I'n not in charge)

[schlottke]

I have yet to see a real reason why the US should be worried about anything such a small country like NK is up to.

A nuke is a nuke- no matter where the hell it is. Its like giving a loaded gun to a child, they are little, so who gives a damn what they will do with it, right?

[T0PS3O]

So Schlottke, why can Bush have nukes then?

[david_sakh]

Wow. Tell us how you really feel Tops! :)

He's just being honest. It's called anti-american these days to spell out the truth. Frankly, I'd prefer it to be anti-american only if we told lies. :(

[T0PS3O]

You can call it what you want, I'm just voicing my opinion.

BTW have you seen the AdSense ads for this thread?

God Loves You
How to know that God loves you

and

World Peace
Discount new & used items. Affil
search for world peace now!

The creativity of AdWords advertisers never ceases to amaze me.

Back on-topic...

[vord]

Does anyone else find these pre-emptive invasions a little odd? And more to the point destabilizing. Does anyone feel any safer for prodding countries with firm belief systems with a stick?

Surely the fair way of doing things is to wait until some country we don't like invades someone else and then go and kick ass. There is plenty of opportunity. There was Germany invading Poland in WW2. They thought they had a good motive, we disagreed and kicked butt. We had a little war over here with the Argentines who thought they had a good motive of reclaiming their islands. We kicked butt.

I guess the reason don't kick the invader's butt any more is the country that does most of the invading these days is just too damm big and powerful. :)

[david_sakh]

Well, nuclear weapons will end all of that. Hopefully a better species will rise from the ashes before El Sol throws the towl in. Maybe they'll find one of our cities or fortresses underground and turn it into a playground or something...

[schlottke]

So Schlottke, why can Bush have nukes then?

*Bush* doesn't, The United States does, and we do because we are the most powerful nation in the world, whether or not you like it, and we can be trusted to only use them when it is completely necessary.

[T0PS3O]

Your nation has proven to be reliable and trustworthy or hasn't it?

What has North Korea ever done to the world to be threatened like this? So they have issues with their neighbour. Lots of nations have.

You might call yourself the most powerful nation but it's also the most hated nation and the most aggressive nation.

I still see no reason why the US can have them and other countries can't.

[vord]

You can see where the North Koreans are coming from.

With Iraq, the Americans asked Mad Sad whether he had weapons of mass destruction. He said no, he hadn't. The Americans insisted that he had and threatened to invade unless they could go in and look for them. He let them in, they couldn't find any, so decided to invade anyway.

The the next country in the axis of evil list is going to learn from this. They're going so say yes we have got weapons of mass destruction and if you invade us we'll use them. What else can they say to try to stop themselves getting invaded.

[Lever]

North Korea is a very weird country; insular, totalitarian, no freedom of press or information, poor record on human rights, many people starving... that's a country ruled by people with a very warped sense of reallity. Put that together with posession of nuclear weapons and what have you got?

Anyway, mention of North Korea having trouble with neighbours is completely irrelevant. During the cold war Britain was not neighbour to any one of the 'Soviet Bloc' countries and yet was still alays under potential threat of attack.

[T0PS3O]

Vord: Exactly. Perfect way of putting it.

[Cyclops]

>>>and we can be trusted to only use them when it is completely necessary<<<

That trust has already been voided...think back to Japan...the war was relatively over, yet they still rushed in before the end so they could drop the big one's.

Well said Void.
Is Iraq a better place now than before ?.......I don't think so......it will take decades to recover.
And not one sign of a WMD. Now it's Iran's turn :( .

[schlottke]

the war was relatively over, yet they still rushed in before the end so they could drop the big one's.



If you're so dillusional that you cannot see all of the times the U.S. has come in and saved the day, I feel sorry for you. The youth of America don't really think about it either, since the last time we waited too long to do something was the 1940's. Back then, Japan had not done anything to deserve it either- until they snuck attack Pearl Harbor (are you that dim-witted?) If we didn't have nukes in the 40's, a lot of Americans would have died defending our country.

I cannot call your response stupidity, simply because I fear you just don't know anything about the history of the situation. You do realize they attacked and killed thousands of our people, correct? Ignorance of the facts is generally not an excuse when statements like yours are brought into a public forum, but atleast read up on why we bombed Japan before posting such rubbish. Even Anthony probably thinks we did the right thing in bombing Japan.

The only difference between then and now is that our government takes a proactive approach to stopping these threats before it can become a reality.

T0PS- the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, love or hate us- we are.

[T0PS3O]

The only difference between then and now is that our government takes a proactive approach to stopping these threats before it can become a reality.


But you have to agree this 'policy' is grossly abused and has been used erroneously (Iraq/Afghanistan) and then these actions are exploited in a disgusting way. Lucrative oil pipes, lucrative deals etc. all rewarded to these bastard corporate giants who suck up as many dollars as they can from an already ailing country.

A lot of non-Americans wouldn't have had a problem with their attitude if there wasn't so much selfishness involved in these operations.

After not accomplishing their goals twice in a row (not finding Bin Laden / not erasing his Terror network plus not finding WMD's in Iraq) they don't have the right IMO to pull off the same bull shit in yet another country.

Fact is, your country (I'm not saying Blair can either) can not be trusted anymore, it lost it's credibility in judgement of world affairs. Especially now they have no right interfering with other countries who have not attacked them.


T0PS- the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, love or hate us- we are.

You probably are indeed but only because you don't allow other countries to achieve the same status. With your 300 million people or so you are far from the biggest country, I don't think your economy is the largest of it's kind either. All this adds up to there being no fundamental/principle right for the US to be the sole country that pulls the strings.

[Cyclops]

If you're so dillusional that you cannot see all of the times the U.S. has come in and saved the day, I feel sorry for you. If we didn't have nukes in the 40's, a lot of Americans would have died defending our country.

I cannot call your response stupidity, simply because I fear you just don't know anything about the history of the situation. .

I do know the history of the situation and I'm not here to argue, just a couple of points though, the war with Japan was basically over when they decided to drop the bombs. It didn't need to happen.....it was a show of strength to Russia and the rest of the world. It wasn't necessary, if they had been used a few months earlier then I might have agreed with you.

When England was on the ropes the US didn't respond, the only reason the US entered the war was because Japan as you say, snuck attacked Pearl Harbour.

However that's not what we are discussing...we are talking about the reason why it is okay for the US to have nuclear weapons and the rest of the world to not have them and I was responding to the fact that you said, >>>and we can be trusted to only use them when it is completely necessary.<<<

The other point I want to make is that outside the US the press reports are a lot different, I'm not saying they are doctored but the view of the world that those in the US get is different from other countries.
Note I live in Australia and we like England are the USAs staunchest allies but we do get a lot more open coverage of world events than you guys do.

[david_sakh]

If you're so dillusional that you cannot see all of the times the U.S. has come in and saved the day, I feel sorry for you. The youth of America don't really think about it either, since the last time we waited too long to do something was the 1940's. Back then, Japan had not done anything to deserve it either- until they snuck attack Pearl Harbor (are you that dim-witted?) If we didn't have nukes in the 40's, a lot of Americans would have died defending our country.

I cannot call your response stupidity, simply because I fear you just don't know anything about the history of the situation. You do realize they attacked and killed thousands of our people, correct? Ignorance of the facts is generally not an excuse when statements like yours are brought into a public forum, but atleast read up on why we bombed Japan before posting such rubbish. Even Anthony probably thinks we did the right thing in bombing Japan.

Waging an air/nuclear war on japan was very beneficial to us, but if you only know the devastation caused by the firebombing of major civilian centers...not to mention the nukes, which caused far fewer causalties.

The air campaign in Japan was one of the fastest civilian slaughter campaigns in History. Cities the size of Los Angelos were reduced to 34% as the mostly wooden structures went up in flames.

MacNamera was quoted to say, that if the war had gone to the other side, he and his colleagues would surely have been tried as war criminals.

When England was on the ropes the US didn't respond, the only reason the US entered the war was because Japan as you say, snuck attacked Pearl Harbour.

S, don't you see that most of the time we're looking out for our own interests? We're not like superman. We only fly to the rescue if the chick is hot and willing or some idiot dares to snub his nose at us. Kind of like a drunk superman, with little regard for law...Granted that's how just about every major world player is, just don't decieve yourself and think anything different.

[anthonycea]

I see a lot of trash talking within this thread on how the USA won WW2, well the bombs put an end to Japan's part in it, but the USA DID NOT defeat Germany, the Russians did.

Next the main issue is NOT North Korea, it is China and Russia who are both against the USA and are both sending weapons into Iraq and Russia is the supplier to Iran's Nuclear program.

You guys need to wake up a bit here and face reality, the EU is a larger force than the USA on the world stage, the USA is begging NATO to go into Iraq and they WILL NOT.

So the USA is NOT the world power that some of you think we are.

There is an old military term MAD (mutually assured destruction) that still is true today. We can shoot our NUKES at China and Russia and they can shoot theirs at us, there is no WINNING in that and only God Almighty can save you in that day.

[GTech]

North Korean Nukes, proof appeasement doesn't work. I'm sure they are grateful to Clinton, Carter and Albright.

I can see why many of the countries in NATO do not want to participate. Saddam bought them off with oil vouchers. France, Russia, German and China were the biggest beneficiaries of the oil-for-food program. It's no wonder they didn't want anything to do with it. What country would want to give up BILLIONS in "lucrative" oil money?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

[Blogmaster]

Don't get me started :D

[vord]

I can see why many of the countries in NATO do not want to participate. Saddam bought them off with oil vouchers.
We had the biggest public demonstrations ever seen in Europe. Millions of people demonstrating in each major city. Perhaps there may have been some moral reasons too?

I think trade was the reason the UK went to war. Look at the amount of US trade that France lost over this. The UK couldn't afford to loose that trade.

[GTech]

I won't discount there were people that did not want to go to war. Some people have strong objections, whether political, *religious* reasons, interests of their countries, etc. I take no issue with that. However, many of these countries stood to loose BILLIONS and some top officials in these countries were bought off with oil-vouchers.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200410/NAT20041007a.html

Among the findings contained in the report, the ISG said that:

-- Before the oil-for-food program was launched, Iraq paid $1 million to the ruling French Socialist party, with the money handed by Baghdad's then ambassador to Paris, Razzaq al-Hashimi, to the then French defense minister, Pierre Joxe.

-- Saddam personally approved the funding of foreign activists campaigning for the abolition of U.N. sanctions against Iraq.

-- He focused on France, Russia and China in his bid to win support for a lifting of sanctions and opposition to a U.S. war.

-- "Saddam sought favorable relations with France because France was influential in the Security Council."

-- Iraqi intelligence officials "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac" including two of his "counselors."

-- Aziz awarded several French "individuals" oil vouchers in return for using their influence to help lift the sanctions.


Match these findings to the financial interest in the first link I posted.

I'm not aware of any trade embargos that took place against France. Nor have I heard that trade was the reason the UK went to war. Though I do recall one of of the party officials there (that was against the war) was on the list of recipients that saddam bought a vote with, using oil vouchers.

[nevetS]

I see a lot of trash talking within this thread on how the USA won WW2, well the bombs put an end to Japan's part in it, but the USA DID NOT defeat Germany, the Russians did.

Next the main issue is NOT North Korea, it is China and Russia who are both against the USA and are both sending weapons into Iraq and Russia is the supplier to Iran's Nuclear program.

You guys need to wake up a bit here and face reality, the EU is a larger force than the USA on the world stage, the USA is begging NATO to go into Iraq and they WILL NOT.

So the USA is NOT the world power that some of you think we are.

There is an old military term MAD (mutually assured destruction) that still is true today. We can shoot our NUKES at China and Russia and they can shoot theirs at us, there is no WINNING in that and only God Almighty can save you in that day.


Interesting, but wrong. :D

Ever won a game of Axis and Allies without the United States getting involved? Think the Axis powers would have fallen without D-Day?

The US supplies the troops, the weapons, the military leadership and the rest of the world sends in token troops so they can say they were a part of it or they can say they supported us when it comes time for us to dole out foreign aid or set trade requirements.

Russia is a haven for gun runners. It's the closest thing we have to Mos Eisley today. (I may have misspelled it, but I'm referring to that retched hive of scum and villainy). The weapons for sale there are effective in guerilla struggles, but the reality is that they are every bit as effective as those russian cars are compared with the real world standards. You can build an ICBM from russian parts, but you can't build 1000 of them, nor can you be assured that it's navigation systems are accurate.

The EU is a force on the world stage, but it is one that can be effectively ignored if need be. Nobody is afraid of France - economically or militarily - and they don't want to instill fear either. Many EU and other UN countries didn't want to be part of the war, but they all want to be a part of the rebuilding effort - to which the US has always held a thoughtful position: Put in some bucks and don't stretch this thing out too long and you can come on board - even if you did stand against us.

I'm probably the furthest thing you can get from an Iraqi war supporter, but I can appreciate that this administration has handled things exceedingly well politically - especially considering the rocky start.

There is no world power that throws their weight around like the US because there is no world power with as much weight. There are larger armies and it would be a huge mistake to tangle with China for a bazillion reasons, but no other country is brave enough to play world policeman except for the USA. The policing isn't uniform accross the world, and there are plenty of crimes against humanity that go unchecked, but were it not for fear of displeasing the almighty giant, many more crimes would be occurring.

You are right on the MAD comment. So I'll give you that.

[GTech]

Interesting, but wrong. :D

Ever won a game of Axis and Allies without the United States getting involved? Think the Axis powers would have fallen without D-Day?



I was hoping someone would point that out. It was an Allied Effort and to diminish any one of their contributions by saying another was soley responsible for the defeat would be incorrect.

[nevetS]

And in the next paragraph, I belittle the contributions of others. What you say is true... The contribution of any soldier - regardless of country - is great, and meaningful, in every battle.

Say what you will about the politicians, the men who so callously send children to their deaths. But the men, women, and children who sacrifice their lives in name of country and God are all to be revered. Their sacrifice is great. Their cause is more often than not selfless. Sending in but one soldier is a sacrifice too great for that soldier's family. We should not dismiss their honor so lightly.

I apologize to anyone I offended. It's easy to forget that there are people involved in war and not just flags.

[anthonycea]

Let me tell you again, if not for the Russian army Germany would have won WW2, you are the one in error with foolish pride.

If Hitler would have waited for winter to end to invade Russia he would have been able to roll over Russian troops, but instead he got bogged down by Winter storms and the Russians defeated Germany.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/6916/ww2.htm

The Invasion of Russia: The Turning Point
The Civil War had its Gettysburg, the Peloponnesan War had its Sicily, and World War One had its Marne. So too does World War Two have its turning point: Operation Barbarossa and Stalingrad. The operation was ordered on December 18, 1940. Hitler wanted to strike at Russia because it would have given Germany the "space and resources" that the Germans needed. He also wanted to strike before they made an alliance with England. Since July, Hitler had been building up forces on the eastern front, and Romania and Finland had joined Germany for the attack on Russia. The only problem for the Germans was that Italy had already been taken and Germany was vulnerable to attack from the south. Russia figured out what Germany was doing and started to send them "gifts" and relaxed their grip on Finland and Romania. Despite this, Hitler decided to commence the attack.
Hitler began his four-year campaign against Russia, sending 7.2 million troops who caught the Russian army off guard and were initially successful. By July 17 Germany was less than two miles from Moscow, and by August the Russian casualties exceeded three million. The attack was stopped in early winter, which immobilized the tanks and made it difficult for troop movement in general. The Russians, on the other hand, were adept at moving large bodies of soldiers in the snow and started a counter attack that brought the Germans into a retreat by the end of the year. One out of five German soldiers were killed, totaling at 1.44 million casualties. Perhaps Hitler should have quit earlier, while he was ahead.
The next summer, Germany launched a new offensive with three main objectives: to capture Leningrad, join the Flemish army, and cut off Moscow’s oil supplies by crossing the Volga river. The attack made it across the Volga and soon reached Stalingrad. By June, Hitler was prematurely telling his advisers that "Russia is finished."11 Hitler made the biggest error of his life (I'm not counting suicide as an error- in fact, it was one of his best) and decided to try to hold Stalingrad. His army was quickly surrounded by five Russian armies and over 200,000 Germans were taken prisoner, the rest managing to escape back to Germany. While in Russia, Hitler was so angered by their resistance that he ordered the killing of all Russian Jews and anyone related to Communism and, seeing that Russia was Communist, that meant all Russians. Germans shot 50-100 Russians for every one of their soldiers killed. The total Russian losses in the campaign exceeded 17 million as well as 1.7 million Jews.



*EDIT* GOD is in the details, "Winter Storm determined the winner", not men or their might!!!!!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You need to study history, even a kid could find this information online.

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=Russia+win+WW2&x=46&y=19

Do a search on these keywords and you can find it yourself.

Russia defeated Germany WWII

[GTech]

And only a kid would believe it the way you tell it.

"but the USA DID NOT defeat Germany, the Russians did."
to
"if not for the Russian army Germany would have won WW2"

Considerably different wording there. It was an allied effort Anthony.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0862012.html
http://www.daltonstate.edu/faculty/tveve/hist1112/wwiisym.html


1945

The Nazis fought to the bitter end. As the Americans and British crossed the Rhine River, as the Russians surrounded Berlin, and the bombing campaign at its fullest, Germany refused to surrender. Hitler remained in his Berlin bunker unwilling to see the obvious. A raving lunatic till the end, he blamed the German people for their weaknesses as the cause for defeat, and committed suicide. The Thousand Year Reich proclaimed in 1933 came to an early end when the Nazis accepted unconditional surrender on May 7, 1945.

[anthonycea]

From your infoplease link: cut and pasted...

On the Eastern Front Soviet armies swept (1944) through the Baltic States, E Poland, Belorussia, and Ukraine and forced the capitulation of Romania (Aug. 23), Finland (Sept. 4), and Bulgaria (Sept. 10). Having evacuated the Balkan Peninsula, the Germans resisted in Hungary until Feb., 1945, but Germany itself was pressed. The Russians entered East Prussia and Czechoslovakia (Jan., 1945) and took E Germany to the Oder.

On Mar. 7 the Western Allies—whose chief commanders in the field were Omar N. Bradley and Montgomery—crossed the Rhine after having smashed through the strongly fortified Siegfried Line and overran W Germany. German collapse came after the meeting (Apr. 25) of the Western and Russian armies at Torgau in Saxony,

[david_sakh]

And only a kid would believe it the way you tell it.

"but the USA DID NOT defeat Germany, the Russians did."
to
"if not for the Russian army Germany would have won WW2"

Considerably different wording there. It was an allied effort Anthony.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0862012.html
http://www.daltonstate.edu/faculty/tveve/hist1112/wwiisym.html

Actually, if Hitler hadn't betrayed the soviets and had instead stormed britiannia's shores early in the endgame, he might have won the war, truly dividing the world into an Oceania, Eastasia, and Westasia. His losses in Russia were absolutely ridiculous. And TWO fronts never help your cause.

Don't discount the heavy russian sacrifice, which was well over 2 million.

[anthonycea]

David your figures are a little off, see this cut and pasted from post #48


***Russians. Germans shot 50-100 Russians for every one of their soldiers killed. The total Russian losses in the campaign exceeded 17 million as well as 1.7 million Jews. ****

[GTech]

And TWO fronts never help your cause.

Don't discount the heavy russian sacrifice, which was well over 2 million.

I would disagree that TWO fronts never help a cause. It was an allied effort. We cannot erase history or write our own interpretations. All fronts help a cause. We're not far off on discounting the russian sacrifice. I would never presume to discount their sacrifice, ours, or Great Britains. That's the exact point I make.

[david_sakh]

no, the nazi cause :D

you misunderstand me

oh and about the numbers, wow that's shocking, I must have been recallling the jewish slaughter in russia, which was about 2 million. Wrong figure.
I'm too lazy to look this stuff up, I just remember what i can from Nova, Western Civ and AP EH.

[anthonycea]

Who is trying to change history? These are facts, without the Russians and God sending the Winter Storm we may all have been living under Germany and what would have been the power established by Hitler today.

So don't say that the USA won WWII because that is a big lie.

We did end Japan's involvement in it with the bombing, but it is sad to see folks around here making false claims about some trumped up greatness of the USA when the EU is certainly a larger power economically and will soon be as a military force.

I hate to inform the US citizens but we DO NOT control NATO or they would be in IRAQ right now.

[david_sakh]

we are a powerful nation, AC, the problem is, nukes confound the equation because in theory everyone loses.

and it's not like we are going to go to war with the EU any time soon....neither power has enough resources to conquer the other...

[anthonycea]

It matters not what Americans think, our own leaders are selling us down the tubes and will join this one world government.

Central Bankers, merchants and oil men control the game.

http://www.talkingproud.us/Eagle060704.html

One currency is coming, electronic currency, Microchips, don't leave home without yours........

[T0PS3O]

Finally Anthony, now you get to the point.

You see, we're more on the same frequency then you think. You just haven't figured yet who's behind the New World Order it seems...

[anthonycea]

Don't go overboard TOPS, I knew before you were out of grade school, ever hear the wisdom that only a fool speaks his whole mind.

Don't get me started TOPS :cool:

[GTech]

Who is trying to change history?


You are, as usual. At least you've backed off your initial claim that Russia won the battle and now are sticking with a modified version of "without the Russions."


These are facts, without the Russians and God sending the Winter Storm we may all have been living under Germany and what would have been the power established by Hitler today.


"we all may have been..." Speculation. Speculation is not fact. The war was an allied effort. Just because you hate your country doesn't mean you cannot recognize it's contribution. This was not a Russian/German war. It was a world war and there were other countries that contribute. The bottom line is, your assertion that Russia won it alone is incorrect.


So don't say that the USA won WWII because that is a big lie.


I don't say, nor have I suggested anything other than it was not Russia alone (which is what you suggest) that won it. Don't turn the words around. If you think I've said the USA won it, quote me on it. I've not edited my posts.


...folks around here making false claims about some trumped up greatness of the USA when the EU is certainly a larger power economically and will soon be as a military force.


Speculation. Just because you don't like the country you (supposedly) live in doesn't mean others are not proud of thier country. It may be your "calling" to "hate America first" as evidenced by most of your posts here, but not everyone feels the same way.


I hate to inform the US citizens but we DO NOT control NATO or they would be in IRAQ right now.

Would that be the same way you informed us that there was no official recount in ohio because the republicans prevented it? Maybe the "hate" you have, is just for your own country in general? That would be "speculation" ;)

[anthonycea]

The only thing I hate about my country are folks like yourself who are dumb enough to vote for Nixon boys then come on forum and say I hate my country. Talk about speculation, your silly assumptions are just that and your intellect on issues is non existent.

Gtech you have no class nor can you debate man. You attempt to put words in my mouth and make judgments and you are qualified to do neither since you are the same guy that said the Iraq war is not about oil money :p

[GTech]

Would that be the same class as someone that spouts off there was no offical recount in ohio because republicans prevented it? Or has no outrage over the real oil theives, or puts his country down (at the tune of fabricating stories) at every avail?

My response was to see if in fact you actually cared about your country. Your response still leaves me wondering.

Maybe if I jumped on the easy bandwagon of:

No war for oil
Bush will plant micro chips in everyone
Bushitler

et al, I would win your popularity contest? It takes no effort to do those things, except to back them up in a debate.

[anthonycea]

You completely make no sense ever, here you are saying that the UN is in a Iraq food for oil scandal but at the same time saying that the Iraq war was never about oil.

Get real man, you are the reason America is hated around the world because you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

One tone for your Republican pig brothers and another for those who are not deemed as good as you view yourself.

Mark my words, the Republican party will be voted out of power in the USA like you have never seen in landslides in the midterm and the next Presidential elections for the Bush blunders of the last 15 years.

First they screwed us when Bush Senior left Saddam in power in the first Gulf War and now Bush Junior under the direction of his dad's administration screwing us again. The funny thing is that the American people never elected him in the first place man, get real.

[GTech]

Really, so you would like me if I said "there was no offcial recount in ohio because republicans prevented it." or how about "we're only in iraq for oil and bush's friends?"

Yet there is no outrage over the UN scandal? I disputed your claims previously and did everything except to back them up. What was it, three pages of mindless posting and you wouldn't back up your claims? I guess in your mind, that makes sense? Hmmm, interesting. How's the microchip doing? :D

Republican party, yes I recall you vehemently claiming that kerry would defeat bush. Will the democrats get that many more "hate America first" members to it's left centered party? There is a strong drive for democrats to get back on center right now. Even Clinton is telling democrats to stop whining and start focusing on a message.

So you are disappointed that Bush Senior left, and disappointed Bush junior has stayed the course? I hate to see what you do appreciate. Would your opinion be different had kerry taken us to war? After all, he all but begged Clinton to do so in 1998.

Don't take things personally, just debate. Put your facts forward and enjoy the conversation. You can learn a lot (if you choose to) in a good debate. That is, unless you just want to throw out mindless chants about oil for war and the likes. That takes no effort.

[debunked]

blah blah blah blah blaaaaaah, did you say something (AC) that actually has facts behind it?

A used car saleman can even sound like he believes that the 1989 for escort is the best car ever built, and this one was a one owner, little old lady who hardly drove that 250k miles.

AC you got to get out more often and live and quite believing everything you saw on TV.....

In 2 years you will get to see some elections in some states that will show if your theory is correct... then in 4 you will see again... Is the US getting sick and tired of the same garbage we have had dished out for quite a few years?? We will see more of the changes we have been seeing the last couple of elections.

[anthonycea]

Gtech, you are a waste of my time, I really have nothing to say to you because it does not register in your mind.


The only thing you could ever understand is what is already there and that is filled with errors.


When you are ready to discuss fact, try doing it one at a time instead of your very silly rambling.

PS: Debunked, you have finally found a partner in Gtech, you guys speak the same lingo.

[GTech]

ok, I'll bite.

Let's discuss fact, since it's clear that the defeat in Germany was an allied effort and not soley the Russians. Or are you still trying to argue that.

So let's pick back up where we left off yesterday.

In this post:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=9335&page=2

You claim:


The first one was decided by the Supreme court and the state of Florida which is controlled by his Brother Governor Jeb Bush, he told Katherine Harris the secretary of state to block all attempts at even letting blacks and the poor from voting and that is what happen there in 2000 and in Ohio and other states including Florida again in 2004.

The second one was decided by the electoral votes in Ohio which the democrats did not challenge because it is controlled by a Republican governor and a Republican secretary of State that would not allow a recount of the votes.


Now I realize I'm going against your request for one at a time, but they both work together to make the primary claim that the elections were fraud.

I addressed the first paragraph with:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/2071226.htm?1c

Where it clearly shows there was an exhaust effort to recount votes and it showed that Bush won. Where is the evidence that Jeb Bush prevented poor and blacks from voting? Is that a personal beleif, or do you have any evidence to support this claim?

On to the second paragraph (and I do apologize for doing two at once here), you said:

the electoral votes in Ohio which the democrats did not challenge because it is controlled by a Republican governor and a Republican secretary of State that would not allow a recount of the votes


What do you attribute that passage to? There was an official recount and it was published December 28th. Do you have information the rest of us do not have, or was that a blind statement in the heat of the moment?

Debates work well when you put for an effort to stand by your position. Do you stand by these comments?

[anthonycea]

You believe propaganda written by someone in Miami who is a Bush supporter, everyone already knows that the first election in 2000 was a fraud decided by the Supreme court and the secretary of state in Florida under Jeb Bush.

Everyone knows the reason the DEM's did not dispute the vote in Ohio because they also had a Republican governor and a Republican Secretary of State.

You are also in the wrong thread and are still wasting the members time by trying to get folks to believe lies produced by a newspaper in Miami that is a supporter of Jeb and the Bush family.

Typical Republican tactics that no one here will fall for but Debunked and a few others. Watched Fox news of late, they have the same type of propaganda 24/7 for your enjoyment.

[GTech]

Propaganda? Everyone already knows, or everyone has already been convinced? Perhaps the New York Times will work for you? I don't think there is any question of their liberal bias or their feelings towards republicans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html


"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward"


Democrats did dispute the vote in Ohio and there was an offical recount. Those results were released December 28th, 2004.

What is, and what you wish were true, are two different things. Just because you don't want to believe facts, does not make them factual.

[GTech]

Can you provide any evidence that Jeb Bush prevented poor folks and blacks (as you put it) from voting?

[anthonycea]

I know one fact that is sure, you are a bias propaganda artist on the Republican side and no one is falling for the fabrications of Bush winning the first or second elections.

Only in the minds of Republicans who are deceived by their own leaders are the results just and not manipulated.

Like I told you, you are way off topic and if you want to discuss Bush election fraud, start a thread on it.

[GTech]

Fair enough, I didn't think you would stand behind your positions or debate them. But it was worth an effort :rolleyes:

[GTech]

Oh, and you can have the last word. I know how important that is to you ;)

[david_sakh]

................

that's all I have to say...

[anthonycea]

This thread is about Nuclear weapons not Bush Election fraud, if G-tech wants to discuss that he can start a thread on it.

[melaniejk]

PEACE is the answer.

I often wonder how the world would be different if mothers were the countries leaders.



The issue of equal participation by women is not simply an issue of gender equality and human rights but could represent the decisive factor in maintaining peaceful development in a troubled region.
- L.Seyoum, Eritrea




"Patriarchy finds its ultimate expression in war. War is the field in which the tough can prove their toughness and the winners triumph over the losers.

Wise feminists do not claim that women are innately kinder, gentler, more compassionate than men per se. If we did, the Margaret Thatchers and Condoleeza 'ice's of the world would soon prove us wrong. We do claim that patriarchy encourages and rewards behavior that is brutal and stupid. We need raucous, incautious feminist voices to puncture the pomposity, the arrogance, the hypocrisy of the war mongers, to point out that gorilla chest-beating does not constitute diplomacy, that having the world's largest collection of phallic projectile weapons does not constitute moral authority, that invasion and penetration are not acts of liberation."


Full article:
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/peace_starhawk.html

[david_sakh]

pe-a-ce? What is this strange concept you speak of? :o

[anthonycea]

In 2008 women may well run for President in both parties, today they said that the filthy Republicans may run Condi Rice, hard to believe they are that hard up to run a Bush Suck Arse that can draw the black and women vote that they need to win an election without fraud.

The dumb Dem's are going to run Hilary, that would be a big disaster, so we have two women running for President in 2008 :confused:

I have nothing against women, but how in the hell is this going to make America look to have a Bush suck ass and an Ex-President's wife running for President.

I will move the hell out of this crazy country ASAP. :cool:

America is insane and all of our leaders and most of the people are completely fooled at this point.

GWB only wants another 80 Billion for his war effort for the next year and a half.

What a bunch of dummies we are to have such idiots leading this nation.

[melaniejk]

Anthonycea,
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I think this is a wonderful country and I am proud to be an American. If we do end up having two women running for the office of President, I think that would be great. It's about time.

We don't always get the President we want, but perhaps we get the President we need. Maybe, by seeing such extreme decisions by a leader it helps the country realize want we do not want in the future. It helps us to learn important lessons. And, it can help us to decide what we want America to stand for. The last two elections sure helped me decide what side of the issues I was on. And, I know a lot more people got involved and became interested in the issues. I think our country will only improve with age.


Just my two cents.

[anthonycea]

Where is the common sense anymore melaniejk, don't you think that is missing in our leadership in the last 15 years or so since Bush Senior and his first Gulf war disaster that is still going on?

The American people have paid enough, we are in debt (record national debt, record trade deficits, the economy sucks, we have record fuel prices) and there is no end to the "war on terror" and the money begging Bush Jr. He must fight the so called terror war that his daddy brought on us (Saddam caused it and Bush left him in power) and he is now finishing us with more Bush debt leadership (put us all in debt and our grandchildren to pay for his daddies mistakes and thefts).

This disaster has to end for the good of the American people at some point and the only way it can end is to send the Bush's the same place Nixon was sent.

[GTech]

Anthony doesn't like facts.

Once someone tipped me off about him, everything made perfect sense.

Moonbat (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=anthonycea&btnG=Google+Search)

[anthonycea]

The main fact to be considered is that you are a Nut from Texas like GWB Gtech.

That is for sure.

[GTech]

Is it as sure as there were no election recounts in ohio? Or more along the lines of Bush implanting micro chips in us all? There are different levels of sure, ya know! Aren't you glad you're sure ;)

[anthonycea]

Gtech, do America and the world a favor, go lock yourself in your Rubber room and bounce off the walls man :p ;) :p

PS: Gtech, the Bush's don't need to implant you, your already brainwashed, did Billy Graham tell you that the Bush family would take you to the promised land Gtech :confused:

[melaniejk]

[QUOTE]
This disaster has to end for the good of the American people at some point and the only way it can end is to send the Bush's the same place Nixon was sent.[\QUOTE]

:eek:

That's a really horrible thing to say, Anthony. I no longer wish to discuss this with you.

No matter how much I disagree with someone I would never wish them dead. I may not agree with the man, but I think he is doing what he thinks is best for our country.

[GTech]

Nah, then I'd just come out being a moonbat and think I'm entitled to make up my own facts. But thank you for the kind offer ;p

BTW, I really do enjoy a good debate, but I can clown around too!

[GTech]

Oops, I missed an Anthony Edit...

[anthonycea]

Nixon was impeached and sent into retirement in California for your information :cool:

[melaniejk]

Well, Nixon died in 1994.
You should be more specific.

Your tone seemed very hateful, but I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Sorry.

Yes, I know he was impeached. It's just not where my mind went when I read your post.

I'm happy to know that you didn't mean the other. :D

[david_sakh]

i dont think AC was trying to be mean.

America impeached Nixon. The natural world killed him.

[anthonycea]

Let me clarify my statement, Nixon resigned after the Watergate election fraud scandal instead of a certain impeachment by Congress.

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=nixon+impeachment&x=40&y=14



He is the father of the current gang of Bush Republicans who are a bigger disgrace than Nixon ever was.

[GTech]

What if you changed =nixon to =clinton ?

[david_sakh]

I like what m said about learning from all of this.

The deficiet, however, is something we can't just file under 'a lesson learned,' it's a very real problem. There's lots of per capita debt, and you can't just wish it away, something on the order of 30k? Didn't I hear that somewhere?

What if you changed =nixon to =clinton ?

Clinton was a bonehead for what he did. He got squeamish and thought all the Christians and traditionalists would hate him. The affair I found amusing, I just can't stand the fact that he lied about it. But after all, he's only human, and only one person was hurt. It's not like the nation suffered a tangible blow.

[anthonycea]

What if you changed =nixon to =clinton ?


Gtech, the forum understands your problem, you are a die hard Republican propaganda artist that would defend even Richard Nixon, it is very sad Gtech, that we also understand.

Logical thinking is not possible with insane Republicans that would support even the destruction of the American spirit to keep idiots in power.

[david_sakh]

I bet ST is breathing a sigh of neutralist relief! :)

[anthonycea]

ST is welcome to jump in at any time with Gtech and Debunked, listen, I like these guys but not their hardline views David.

[GTech]

I agree he was a bonehead for what he did. I took more issue with the lying than coping a little on the side. Though I do not condone extra-marital affairs, and it is wrong in "most" religions, not just Christianity, the lying brought him down.

I take more issue with gutting the military to redcue the deficit and letting terrorists slide a few off with no recourse. He had three chances to take bin laden and he didn't, with help from Sandy Berger. Doesn't make sense. Scandals have no political boundaries.

[GTech]

Anthony, who is "we" ? Are you saying you control the minds of people here and your purpose is to make up your own facts to find people to sympathise with you? Does that work well for you?

I expect that when you cannot debate your point or stand behind your positions, you will resort to calling me a propaganda artist, et all. After all, what else could you do? That's what people do when they cannot debate :D

Oh, you forgot to mention I'm the prime minister of the evil oil empire where Bush controls the world's oil prices :rolleyes:

heh

[david_sakh]

well hopefully we can all just tone it down a bit.

AC, You've got to realize that you are on a far end of the spectrum yourself. The distance is such that it's hard to get across anything without self-restraint.

I remember plenty of forums where I got the topic locked for being too hot-headed. DP's not such a place, but I don't think anyone's opinion is going to be changed with you two name calling. Remember the ST incident? That went way out of hand, largely due to me. :shudder:

[GTech]

ST is welcome to jump in at any time with Gtech and Debunked, listen, I like these guys but not their hardline views David.

And you know what, I'd prefer to keep it like that. I think people can debate (or when they cannot debate, call them names) and still be cool.

I like you, I just don't like the facts you make up :D

[anthonycea]

Come on now G-tech, you support Bush even when the first election was a known fraud :confused:

Gtech, you do not debate facts, you ramble and move on to a new argument when you have no solid ground to stand on.

Don't tell the members about me, they already know that I do not back down on any debate nor do I make up details.

You just make yourself look bad with such statements and you will find out it will get you no place here with (us, we, the forum) DP members.

[david_sakh]

I certainly would have liked to have seen a much more impartial body choose our p-elect. I didn't know what to think after the '00 election and the court case.

[GTech]

The first election has long since been disproven as a fraud. There are still some moonbats left that, no matter how much evidence is presented, still cling to it. I think it's cute myself! Even the liberal NY Times published that Bush would have won. To think you are more liberal than the NY Times leaves me with much wonder.

Truth be told, I voted for Clinton twice and Bush twice. I'm not a "die hard" republican, but until democrats can shed the left-nut wackos that have taken over their party, that won't change. If kerry is the best they can offer, our country is in serious trouble. You don't even want me to get started on kerry!

[anthonycea]

You seem to forget who decided the election in 2000 in a state that was controlled by the winners BROTHER, get real Gtech!

Votes were stolen, not counted, voters were kept from the polls in Florida in 2000 and 2004.

Who won the popular vote in 2000 Gtech?

[GTech]

I covered that in post #69 David:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=100898&postcount=69

I've always taken the notion that if the NY Times would mention it, surely it would set home with those more left centric. I don't think there is any question of the NY Times liberal bias.

[GTech]

Popular votes do not win elections Anthony. Jeb Bush did not steal the election. A comprehensive recount of the votes clearly showed Bush "would have won" anyway.

I'm truly sorry if that upsets you, or you cannot deal with that reality, but it is true. Evidence supports, which I've presented. But I've not seen your evidence to refute it. Is the evidence simply your word? We should just all take your word for everything and disregard fact?

[anthonycea]

Gtech, I told you that the administration would like us to stay on topic within threads here at DP forums.

I also told you to start a thead on Bush Election fraud if you keep wanting to discuss it.

But you keep coming back in a thread about NK nuclear weapons and discussing issues that we covered in other threads.

Are you waiting for a PM from Shawn or what man?

[GTech]

So only you can take things off topic, and when you cannot back up your claims, you presume to "advise me?" Pfft, get a grip on yourself bud!

And you keep coming back and changing the topic and going right along with it, UNTIL, you cannot back up your position.

Go figure :rolleyes:

[GTech]

Still laughing....

[anthonycea]

I think this is the second time I told you in this thread to start a thread on the subject of election fraud in America, but you keep wanting to discuss the last two elections in a thread about NK nuclear weapons.

You just seem to have a hard time understanding any message other than the ones you post and that is part of your problem on forum man..

Man the double posting (following your own posts is something that you should also be aware of that upsets the management here), dude get with the program for your own good, OK, I really am trying to help you so you are not regarded as a crazy fanatic....

[GTech]

I'm sure the truth of the elections hurt you deeply, or you would not have participated in them. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

[anthonycea]

Gtech, just stay on topic as much as you can OK, and don't double and triple post because you are going to get yourself in trouble and piss off Shawn.

[GTech]

Anthony, you do the same, ok? I'm telling you to stay on topic as much as possible, ok, because I don't want you to get into trouble for doing the same thing I did. That wouldn't be fair to you.

</sarcasm off>

Thanks for the laughs, and you can have the last word again. I know how important it is.

[nevetS]

How about I get the last word here...


Peace.

[anthonycea]

I have a feeling this is not going to end yet nevetS, you will not get off that easy man :eek:

[nevetS]

Oh well... it was worth a shot :D

[david_sakh]

ok, who was browsing this topic around 6:30 pm? Because I think we have a Neo-Nazi on the boards.




Don't discount the heavy russian sacrifice.

I JUST GOT BAD REP FOR THIS^^

A Dp Member Is A Nazi

SOMEONE HATES RUSSIANS. :eek: :eek: :eek:

god i didn't know we had so many racists on the forums, how sick.

whoever you are, you disgust me to the core.

[GTech]

That's pretty sad David. I was arguing the same point, in that it was an allied effort and "all" made the contribution. None for me, but I'm sure that will change after I make this post.

[david_sakh]

yeah i was saying hitler was stupid for fighting on two fronts when he had an ally in russia to begin with, wasn't there a non-agression pact before the war at some western soviet city...I forget.

Anyway, you know what, that nazi can go jump in a lake. I don't normally openly diss ideologies, but Nazism and racist nationalism are some of the stupidist things to believe in.

[Mia]

You seem to forget who decided the election in 2000 in a state that was controlled by the winners BROTHER, get real Gtech!

Votes were stolen, not counted, voters were kept from the polls in Florida in 2000 and 2004.

Who won the popular vote in 2000 Gtech?

Isn't this the past? I mean can you get over it? Gore lost, got less votes.. Hmm. Sounds simple. Personally if we want to waste time looking for fraud and lost votes or "stolen votes" there should have been a recount here in WI in 2000 and 2004. The fraud here was rampant. Most of our population resides in Milwaukee, and wow, the corruption there. Yikes. The thing is the corruption in WI went the other way. Cigarettes and Undies for homeless votes. Tire slashing vans that were used to transport Republican voters. There is a long line of foul play that takes place here in the birth place of the GOP.

In any event I know I for one am sick and tired of hearing how the 2000 election was "stolen". Think about that for a bit. In order for the election to have been stolen, Gore would have had to have first won the election. This did not happen as a count, recount, and recount of the votes showed time and time again.

Move on...

[Blogmaster]

man, I am fighting with DMOZ morons now, don't get me restarted on this :)

GTech, awesome posts!

[Mia]

Yeah, this is one of those (why the hell do I get involved in this post) kind of posts.

I was bored. Taking a break. Back to work. Hi ho, Hi ho...

[anthonycea]

man, I am fighting with DMOZ morons now, don't get me restarted on this :)

GTech, awesome posts!

Yeah, great off topic, off logic posts man :rolleyes:

[Mia]

That's about a 12 hour come back delay. Getting better, but still not quite closing the gap.

[anthonycea]

Tell you what Mia, send me $1,500.00 a month with a 2 year contract payable up front every month and I will quit my day job and sit on forum and answer posts from 7:00am until 7:00pm every day for you and G-tech.

PM me when you are ready for instant responses, it will make forum more exciting for all of us :cool:

[Mia]

Tell you what Mia, send me $1,500.00 a month with a 2 year contract payable up front every month and I will quit my day job and sit on forum and answer posts from 7:00am until 7:00pm every day for you and G-tech.

PM me when you are ready for instant responses, it will make forum more exciting for all of us :cool:

5,549 posts and counting.. Looks like you already do :)

[anthonycea]

So it is not important enough for you to tender the contract and first payment :confused:

Get together with SiteTutor and G-tech, between the 3 of you it can be financed :cool:

[Design Agent]

I'd like to add a point.. just a short one, dont all jump on me and no I'm not anti American in anyway:

If the world could vote, neither North Korea OR the US (at the moment) would be high on the list of countries that should have ANY access to Nukes.. Personally, I would give them all to Finland, Norway or another country that seem to have less issues or agendas.

And from my experience, I haven't met anyone in the UK that thinks bush is right about anything..but personally, I actually believe HIS contribution is extremely overated..

If we didnt have such bad political opponents to Labour, Blair would already be learning what it feels like to claim Job Seekers Allowance (Im not anti Labour either)

[anthonycea]

Tony Blair works for the Bank of England just like Bush and Cheney do. Where do you think the oil money is deposited Rounde, not to mention the war money?

George only wants another 80 Billion for the next year or so of war, what the hell, it is nothing to us dumb poor Americans and the children who have not been born yet.

They also want to strip money from the old folks retirement funds here in the states now in addition to putting all the youth in debt before they are born.

You have to love bankers and oil men and their lawyers.

[GTech]

and sit on forum and answer posts from 7:00am until 7:00pm every day for you and G-tech.

That would be a change. Are you saying you wouldn't dodge questions anymore? Or do what you normally do when someone backs up their position, call it propaganda? :rolleyes:

BTW, hi Anthony!

[Design Agent]

George only wants another 80 Billion for the next year or so of war, what the hell, it is nothing to us dumb poor Americans and the children who have not been born yet.


Maybe this will be a good thing, no one ever has sympathy for those with money.. being an extremely poor country might sway public opinion. Just kidding!

The real question has to be where do most weapons in the world come from.. before you enlighten me anthonycea... i know ;)

[Crazy_Rob]

Tony Blair works for the Bank of England just like Bush and Cheney do. Where do you think the oil money is deposited Rounde, not to mention the war money?

George only wants another 80 Billion for the next year or so of war, what the hell, it is nothing to us dumb poor Americans and the children who have not been born yet.

They also want to strip money from the old folks retirement funds here in the states now in addition to putting all the youth in debt before they are born.

You have to love bankers and oil men and their lawyers.

It's all extremely grotesque!


The American people are being (neo)conned!

"Welcome to the USA- we steal from old people and kids!"

[GTech]

Does that mean you can change the topic, Anthony? I warned you about changing the topic and here you are doing it again. Shame, shame, shame!

The oil money went to corrupt countries, world leaders, saddam and the United Nations. We have proof of that. But once again, you show your concern for oil, but no outrage to the real oil thieves.

Real oil thieves were covered here:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=100443&postcount=44

here:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=99952&postcount=67

Still no outrage over the real oil thieves? Imagine that...

[anthonycea]

Still flogging the same crap that no one cares about G-tech?


Listen man, I already told you that you were wrong, you keep stating that the war is not over oil, but then tell us that the UN is in a food for oil scandal in Iraq, make up your mind man.

You can not have it both ways G-tech.

[GTech]

Unfortunately Anthony, you only decide what is right and wrong for those gulible enough to believe what you post. In my case, I find it very beneficial to debate based over facts that can be proven.

If I were to take your approach of "you are wrong because I say you are wrong," it wouldn't be much of a debate.

The war was not about oil in the manner you project, that Bush and Cheney were/are cheating the world out of oil and getting rich. That's easily disproven. The war was very much about oil in respect to those countries that saddam bought their vote and the UN. There's a difference. I know who the real oil thieves are. You, on the other hand, pretend it's Bush and Cheney with no evidence, and ignore any facts about who the real oil thieves are.

Your concern for oil is so sincere :rolleyes:

Still no outrage for the real oil thieves? I didn't think so.

[anthonycea]

Your the only guy in the world that does not know anything about the fraud of Halliburton and are blinded by your own bias, you know better, like I mentioned your a propagandist for the Republican party.

It is as simple as that.

[GTech]

I expected that. After all, when you cannot dispute the facts, it's much easier to say "propaganda."

Heh, not like it's a new pattern or anything. Let me know when you are man enough to debate with facts and back up your positions. I can back mine up, but clearly you cannot.

No war for oil!

[anthonycea]

Real simple, start a thread on it in General Chat and we will hammer it out just for you.

Call it "No Oil War", I am sure it will be interesting to discuss.

[Crazy_Rob]

Ask yourself if there would've been a war even if there was no oil in Iraq.

Oil played a major factor in motivating us to invade.

[GTech]

Rob, I disagree. Can you shed any light and/or facts on what supports your position?

We're not mining oil there and there are no oil contracts. On the flip side though, a number of our ally's votes were bought with oil, the UN and saddam skimmed BILLIONS in oil money and over 270 influential world leaders (some that could influence votes) were bought off with oil vouchers.

[anthonycea]

Don't waste your time, go ahead and start your thread G-tech, no one is going to answer that crap in this one about WW3 :)

[GTech]

Anthony, move on son, you are not qualified for this discussion. ;)

[anthonycea]

We are still waiting for you to enlighten us on how the war is not over oil.

Go ahead and start your thread before Saddam starts the oil wells on fire again :eek: :) :p

[GTech]

Who is we?

[anthonycea]

Me and SiteTutor and Debunked :cool:

[GTech]

That would be: SiteTutor, Debunked and I

Using "Me" first often refects that you think higher of yourself than others.

If I hear from them, perhaps, otherwise, I'd prefer to taunt you here :D

[Design Agent]

You can include me on that list of 'we' + maybe michael moore who seems to be able to say what he wants and his film not be banned..

[GTech]

Noted, anyone else?

[Mia]

Your the only guy in the world that does not know anything about the fraud of Halliburton and are blinded by your own bias, you know better, like I mentioned your a propagandist for the Republican party.

It is as simple as that.

I have yet to see anything in his posts that mentions being a Republican, or propaganda. I suppose if I got my news and current events from a film, or the NY Times I might think like you do. Personally I like to rely on the facts. I'd really need to see some factual evidence of this "fraud" you are talking about to make a conscious decision either way about the validity of your claims. Just because you say it, does not make it so.

Did you ever go outside in the morning and take a walk? Look at the trees, the sky, the animals and people in your neighborhood and think, "life is too short to be so negative." Try it some time. The world is as good or bad as you make it in your mind. Enjoy a little of it and relax. Bush will be gone in 4 short years and you no doubt have someone else to complain about. That or you can complain about 8 years of Bush/Cheney. We finally got away from the 12 years thing. Time will put an end to the debate in the long run, and there will be something new to bitch about.

Personally, I find the negative, bleak and otherwise dismal commentary a bit droll. You don't like Bush, America sucks, we are greedy, oil this, HaliWhoGivesAS$%t, life sucks, it's the end... It's getting old.

Relax...

[Mia]

We are still waiting for you to enlighten us on how the war is not over oil.

Go ahead and start your thread before Saddam starts the oil wells on fire again :eek: :) :p

I really do not want to be one to change the subject as well, but I offer this one time.

Anthony (my middle name, we have that in common), if you can explain to me exactly what started the Gulf War (the first one), I will pubically announce that your opinions are 100% fact all the time.

It's risky, I know.. But what have I got to lose.

Hint: There is only one answer to this question.

[Design Agent]

It's getting old. - I can only really see it getting old when people stop dying, until then I think the scrutiny is a good thing, biased or not. No one in this forum can really know the 'facts' the only people that could are those that were involved.

[Mia]

- I can only really see it getting old when people stop dying, until then I think the scrutiny is a good thing, biased or not. No one in this forum can really know the 'facts' the only people that could are those that were involved.

You missed my point. It's the complaining that's getting old. Not the events that continue to unfold. Complaining and pointing fingers (especially when, as you pointed out, we are all not in the know) does not solve a thing.

[Design Agent]

i dont thnk anthony istrying to solve anything, more inform..

[Crazy_Rob]

antnony, I think you need to stop FORCING people to read your posts.

Gtech, I don't think you're interested in facts. Something tells me that facts don't make any difference in the way you feel. Your mind is set and the blinders are in-place.

You're basically repeating sound bites you've picked up from TV.

[Blogmaster]

Haha.. I knew this thread wouldn't end too soon

[Design Agent]

...not so crazy rob

[Blogmaster]

if you guys think Anthony will stop .. think again. I just had to agree to disagree with him, forever that is :D

[Mia]

i dont thnk anthony istrying to solve anything, more inform..

I did not say he was trying to solve anything. I merely commented on the fact that complaining all the time really does not fix anything. It is quite counter productive.

Usually when one informs someone, they present a set of facts and let them decide based on those facts. Expressing an opinion as fact is something that is quite the opposite. In any event I value any opinion. I have an open mind. I like to look at everything, facts, opinions, debate, then make my own decision and form my own opinion. Of course my "opinion" is no more fact than anyone else's.

Example:

Fact: "it was 45 degrees today"
Opinion: "man it was cold as hell"

So I have the fact, ie., the National Weather Service, my thermometer, whatever says "it was 45 degrees". Someone's opinion of the temperature was that it was "cold as hell". I might think it was "rather balmy", still someone else may feel it was "hot". These are opinions all based on a common thing; FACT. The fact that different people garner a different opinion of the temperature is something entirerly different. So if I say it was "cold as hell", that does not mean it was really "cold as hell". It may be a fact that 45 degrees to some is cold as hell, but not all. Am I right? No. Am I wrong? I really don't think there is an answer for that. But what about me saying it was hot, while someone else argues it was cold. We both know the fact, ie., "it was 45 degrees today". Once we start our debate does the "fact" really matter?

Just think of how boring life would be if we all agreed.

[GTech]

Gtech, I don't think you're interested in facts. Something tells me that facts don't make any difference in the way you feel. Your mind is set and the blinders are in-place.

You're basically repeating sound bites you've picked up from TV.

I'm interested in how you've come to the conclusion about the war being for oil and I'm intrigued why you chose to avoid any commentary that might give insight to such a broad claim.

One might surmize that you are prepared to make such statement, but when questioned about it, attempt to turn your response into an attack. If you feel anything I've presented is not factual, I welcome you to dispute it. If all you have is "blinders, sound bytes, wouldn't know the truth." Well, thanks, but those are a dime a dozen. I prefer someone who can really debate and stand behind their positions.

[GTech]

if you guys think Anthony will stop .. think again. I just had to agree to disagree with him, forever that is :D

Anthony is funny. I have a hard time believing anyone could be that naive about world affairs, but I suspect there is something deeper there. Way deeper.

I do prefer a good debate, but tits for tats are fun sometimes too.

[Design Agent]

Mia, There are very few indisputable facts these days and those that are generally tend not to be a topic of conversation worth having... It was you that was referring to how "Personally I like to rely on the facts".

Oh and thank you for explaining the difference between a fact and an opinion to me, now everything is a little clearer..


"I merely commented on the FACT that complaining all the time really does not fix anything. It is quite counter productive." This is not a fact but you claim it to be..
Complaining all the time can sometimes fix things, what do you think a protest is if not a mass complaint...?

Also, how is it counter productive to complain about something in a forum like this ? At worst you might be regarded as biased, paranoid whatever.

[anthonycea]

I guess you were too young to remember why Bush Senior went into Kuwait to remove Saddam from those oil fields Mia and really do not understand the dynamics of the 15 year Gulf war that still has not ended.

G-tech does not believe that the war is over oil but when Saddam left Kuwait he fired up all the oil wells, I guess he does not understand that either.

Mia does not understand that Condi Rice is going to be in the running for President to extend the Bush rule over America that should have ended when Clinton was elected.

They got back in by election fraud in 2000 continuing the Nixon legacy that they follow (Watergate). This is why Colin Powell quit, he does not want to be associated with the war mongers, never wanted to go back in again and he was correct, but Cheney and Bush Senior wanted to go back in to try to correct their error of not removing Saddam the first go round.

America has paid trillions of dollars in money, lives and lost integrity because of their "so-called leadership". We are hated worldwide and can not stop the impending WW3 that is here.

There are some that think Nixon was a Patriot also and do believe that the Bush/Cheney War/Oil business is also Patriotic and that we should continue to support it even to the destruction of America as we once knew it.

This is a sad time for America, worse than the Nixon days ever were and these Nixon boys found a way to get back in power and it is up to Americans to put them back where they belong.

[Mia]

I guess you were too young to remember why Bush Senior went into Kuwait to remove Saddam from those oil fields Mia and really do not understand the dynamics of the 15 year Gulf war that still has not ended.

G-tech does not believe that the war is over oil but when Saddam left Kuwait he fired up all the oil wells, I guess he does not understand that either.

Mia does not understand that Condi Rice is going to be in the running for President to extend the Bush rule over America that should have ended when Clinton was elected.

They got back in by election fraud in 2000 continuing the Nixon legacy that they follow (Watergate). This is why Colin Powell quit, he does not want to be associated with the war mongers, never wanted to go back in again and he was correct, but Cheney and Bush Senior wanted to go back in to try to correct their error of not removing Saddam the first go round.

America has paid trillions of dollars in money, lives and lost integrity because of their "so-called leadership". We are hated worldwide and can not stop the impending WW3 that is here.

There are some that think Nixon was a Patriot also and do believe that the Bush/Cheney War/Oil business is also Patriotic and that we should continue to support it even to the destruction of America as we once knew it.

This is a sad time for America, worse than the Nixon days ever were and these Nixon boys found a way to get back in power and it is up to Americans to put them back where they belong.

Are you going to answer my question or not? You are off on a tangent and are not making any sense. This post is delusional at best.

You could have answered my question in about a sentence or two. Here it is again:

Please tell me what started the Gulf War. It's a really easy answer if you pay attention to history. I have yet to find anyone that can give the correct answer, however this is the first time I have had someone completely avoid the answer. Now we are into Nixon?

Can you answer the question or not? Answer is "yes" or "no".

[Crazy_Rob]

Gtech, I'm not here to prove anything to you. You keep encouraging people to post facts, yet you haven't posted a single one yourself.

You have to admit that controlling the oil in Iraq puts America in a strong position to exert influence on the entire planet?

The entire Cheney administration comes from an oil rich background. They know what they're doing!

Here, read this for starters.
http://www4.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

And then I suggest you do your own research.

[GTech]

Gtech, I'm not here to prove anything to you. You keep encouraging people to post facts, yet you haven't posted a single one yourself.


Rob, quite the contrarary. I've put forth considerable effort to backup my positions with articles and information from credible sources. I've shown why I've taken my positions and I've provided solid information to back them up.

It would be easy enough to take the "no war for oil" position. After all, it takes little effort and with some clever responses, one could wiggle their way out of providing anything to back it up by using bait and switch tactics. It's the popular bandwagon to jump on, I realize. Throw out a "bush/cheney oil ministry" claim and watch the suckers eat it up. I take the hard path, in that I have done my research and the facts show that is not the case.

I offer, yet again, that if you believe I my positions are incorrect, challenge them, Individually. You are welcome to refute anything I've posted, by it helps to understand "why" and it helps to refute it with substance...more than just my taking your word for it.


You have to admit that controlling the oil in Iraq puts America in a strong position to exert influence on the entire planet?


How would it be under our control?


The entire Cheney administration comes from an oil rich background. They know what they're doing!


How does invading Iraq help us get their oil? Are you sure the *entire* family comes from an oil rich background?

Here, read this for starters.
http://www4.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

And then I suggest you do your own research.[/QUOTE]

The article was offers no insight to how we are invading Iraq over oil.

My research awaits your challenges.

[anthonycea]

Mia your the one who is delusional, your posts are mostly rambles with no real points ever other than some of the wild ideas in your mind.

Most folks can understand my posts, sorry you and G-tech are having problems, seems that all Bush supporters do.

I already answered your question, sorry you can't find that answer.

PS: Crazy Rob, these guys are not really worth giving answers to because they just really do not understand the real issues so responding to them is like talking to a brick wall.

Mia why don't you tell us why the Gulf war was started other than the answer I already gave you in the first sentence of the post you quoted?

[GTech]

I'm not having any problems! I'm enjoying watching you and rob both avoid any commentary what-so-ever. I've especially enjoyed you, Anthony! You've wasted 10 pages in this post avoiding standing behind your moonbat positions. That's not a problem for me, that's a success! You've yet to refute any of my positions with any facts and I'm very flattered!

Mia, I think you are doing a great job. Anthony works hard to avoid answering any questions or backing up his positions. What he does instead, is try to turn the tables around and ask questions, rather than participate in an equal debate. And when he cannot defend them, he resorts to "I've warned you about going off topic" or "everyone already knows xyz and you are a nutcase." Anything he can do, to avoid showing any evidence that Bush/Cheney are not part of his made up oil fantasy, etc. The patterns are predictable and quite refreshing to watch!

Anthony, excellent job avoiding commentary! You are the master of propaganda and doing nothing to back it up!

[anthonycea]

Too bad for you that the forum membership decides who the nuts are around here G-tech and you got a bullet next to your name man.

You know that old song by Lynyrd Skynyrd, "Gimme back my Bullets", that was a song about how Ronnie Van Zant wanted bullets next to his songs again because that meant they were moving up the charts quickly when that Icon was used on the charts.

I hope you can understand the above G-tech but I have my doubts.

[GTech]

I understand a threat when I see one.

I understand you've made another post without backing up your positions. Thanks for another laugh!

[anthonycea]

WOW, you just confirmed what I said in my last post.....

What happened to your "no war for oil thread" G-tech?

We want you to be on topic here, remember :confused:

[Blogmaster]

It's Friday night ... let's party :D

[anthonycea]

I am, a party for me is getting off work and getting back online. This is fun stuff hu?? :confused:

Well, I am drinking some St. Pauli Girl, smoking Basic Full Flavors, listening to some Jimi Hendrix live and gona crap out in about an hour.

If that is the good life then someone please send me a care package man :p :rolleyes: :)

[Blogmaster]

I smoke Marlboro lights ... I'll quit when you do ;)

[Mia]

Mia your the one who is delusional, your posts are mostly rambles with no real points ever other than some of the wild ideas in your mind.

What "wild ideas"? I think you have me confused with your alter ego.



Most folks can understand my posts, sorry you and G-tech are having problems, seems that all Bush supporters do.

I already answered your question, sorry you can't find that answer.



No, you did not. I'll give you another shot. Here I have condensed the question.

"What started the Gulf War?"



PS: Crazy Rob, these guys are not really worth giving answers to because they just really do not understand the real issues so responding to them is like talking to a brick wall.



What an arrogant statement. You're not giving anyone any "answers". You are making statements, and others are questioning your statments. You refuse to answer any question anyone else has unless they agree with you. They call that .. well, I think I already covered what that is.



Mia why don't you tell us why the Gulf war was started other than the answer I already gave you in the first sentence of the post you quoted?

What answer? You never gave me an answer. You rambled on throwing a fit about other things and people that have nothing to do with the question I asked. I must have missed that one. I honestly did not see an answer from you.

Give it another shot.

[david_sakh]

dun dun da da dun dun dun da da dun dun dun da da, dun dun dun dun

brrrum, ta tum ta tum brrrrum ta tum ta tum,

brrrum da daaa da, brrrum da da daaa da, brrum da da daaa da

bum ba ta tum!

/thread

[anthonycea]

Mia for a guy with long winded posts you don't really say much, plus you really have no points to make, just rambles.

Study this search and maybe you will understand, because you really do not have any knowledge of the subject matter and do need to conduct some research before you post.

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=Gulf+War+Kuwait+Saddam&x=49&y=22

Come back when you have some understanding, maybe G-tech could actually understand some of the information in the above search also since he does not think that the Gulf war was and is over oil.

Get real guys and quit the silly posts.

[Mia]

I guess you were too young to remember why Bush Senior went into Kuwait to remove Saddam from those oil fields Mia and really do not understand the dynamics of the 15 year Gulf war that still has not ended.


Am I too assume this was your answer? Try showing others a little respect, and you might find others will return that courtesy to you as well.

I'm certainly old enough to have served. Too young? What is that supposed to mean?

I'll give you one more try. I asked what started the war. You really have no idea do you?

Here is a hint: Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? The answer to that, will give you the answer to my original question.

[Mia]

Mia for a guy with long winded posts you don't really say much, plus you really have no points to make, just rambles.

Study this search and maybe you will understand, because you really do not have any knowledge of the subject matter and do need to conduct some research before you post.

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=Gulf+War+Kuwait+Saddam&x=49&y=22

Come back when you have some understanding, maybe G-tech could actually understand some of the information in the above search also since he does not think that the Gulf war was and is over oil.

Get real guys and quit the silly posts.

Look, I know you act like a 4 year old purposely just to irritate people so that an argument can continue. Some people get off on that. I can respect that. But what would certainly help is if you could stop insulting people. You're really not a very nice person. Try being a little less negative and less insulting and people may actually respect what you say.

I know I would.

Peace-

[anthonycea]

A 4 year old is exactly what you act like, I give you an answer then you ask the same question again and claim I did not give you an answer to your question.

Study this and maybe you will actually understand the issue.

http://www.indepthinfo.com/iraq/index.shtml

I know that you have the secret answer that no one else has, so when you are ready to tell all of us why the Gulf war was started, please give us this mystery of the ages.

[david_sakh]

Should I reiterate? :D

This is going to go nowhere...

[Mia]

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=Gulf+War+Kuwait+Saddam&x=49&y=22


The ironic thing is, the link above lead me to the exact answer I would be giving you once you gave up on answering the question. How ironic. I asked the question because I know the answer, and I have asked the question many times, asking several people over the years. As I indicated before, I never get the answer.

But low and behold, the answer is actually in one of the links from the search query above. Too funn!!!!

[anthonycea]

Thanks for the brilliant post and clarification Mia, we are all indebted to you for what you have provided.

Now what was it you provided again so the members can truly understand this issue?

[Mia]

A 4 year old is exactly what you act like, I give you an answer then you ask the same question again and claim I did not give you an answer to your question.

Study this and maybe you will actually understand the issue.

http://www.indepthinfo.com/rraq/index.shtml

I know that you have the secret answer that no one else has, so when you are ready to tell all of us why the Gulf war was started, please give us this mystery of the ages.

No, you never answered.

Anyway, in short.

Iraq owed Kuwait money. Kuwait called the note, Saddam said, to hell with you and invaded.

That's the short version. There are some other slight incidental details, like Kuwait claming they saved Iraq's ass during the Iraq/Iran war, lowering oil/gas prices, etc..

Have a nice weekend!

[anthonycea]

Please, no one tell G-tech that the war was started because of or even related to oil, we only went in out of the goodness of our hearts like we are now in Africa where millions are starving to death :p :rolleyes:

[Mia]

Sorry man, you are wrong. Oil is only a small part of it. Kuwait, and the Saudi government asked us to remove Saddam. Kuwait had no army to speak of, is a tiny little country, and Saudi Arabia is not much different in that regard. Many in the world also felt that Iraq's invasion could de-stabilize the Middle East Region. The Saudis felt threatened, and believed they would be next.

How on earth you got back onto the oil subject again, I will never know. Anyway.

[GTech]

Still no backing up your position Anthony? I thought for sure you would have tons of information on those oil ministries and financial statements from Cheney. Oh wait, I posted the one for Cheney that comes complete with facts and resources. But for some reason, you still think Bush and Cheney are the oil thieves when it's clearly established the UN and corrupt countries from around the world were.

What, no war for oil chants? Heh!

Do me a favor though, will you dodge these facts again please? It flatters me when you cannot backup your claims!

The oil money went to corrupt countries, world leaders, saddam and the United Nations. We have proof of that. But once again, you show your concern for oil, but no outrage to the real oil thieves.

Real oil thieves were covered here:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=100443&postcount=44

here:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=99952&postcount=67

Still no outrage over the real

oil thieves? Imagine that...

[anthonycea]

Mia, those countries have nothing to do with oil, you are right man :p :p :p :p

G-tech, you are lost man, get a life, OK

Do you think Bin Laden is fighting over anything other than oil money?

You guys have a lot to learn.

Why do you think Russia the worlds largest supplier of oil is supporting Iran?

[GTech]

Thank you. A theat with bullets and continued efforts to not back up your position or discredit mine!

Since you don't or cannot dispute my claims, I can only assume you agree with me!

[GTech]

Do you think Bin Laden is fighting over anything other than oil money?

You guys have a lot to learn.

Why do you think Russia the worlds largest supplier of oil is supporting Iran?

My previous point, exactly. When you do not want to recognize you are wrong and when facts are presented that dispute your moonbat assertions, instead of backing them up, you march off with more questions in a different direction.

Some pass me a loaf of "bait and switch" please :D

[anthonycea]

You don't have a position G-tech, all you do is keep posting the same crap over and over.

[GTech]

And it disputes your claim that Bush and Cheney took us to war because of oil. Yet you refuse to back up your position. You don't want the facts, you just want to make up whatever you can to show your hatred for America, damn the facts.

[Mia]

Mia, those countries have nothing to do with oil, you are right man :p :p :p :p


Ah, your quite correct sir, those countries have some oil.. But, the war had nothing to do with oil. It was all about WAR DEBT!!! Sadaam owed Kuwait money, and he did not want to pay it back, so instead he figured he would just take over the country.



Do you think Bin Laden is fighting over anything other than oil money?

You guys have a lot to learn.

Why do you think Russia the worlds largest supplier of oil is supporting Iran?

You must have been editing your post and adding this in while I quoted it. It was not there before.

But since you metioned it. Bin Laden and oil have about as much in common as a dog and a pencil. Russia is supporting Iran, (well let's not call it supporting), they are saying there are no nukes the same reason France said there were no nukes in Iraq. They provided them with the raw materials, and or may still be doing so. Ever wonder why Israel blew up that French made Nuclear reactor in Iraq?

Russia is protecting itself. Anyway, I am quite confident Iran will fall on its own if left alone. A recent survey I read mentioned that better than 90% of young people in Iran want to be in a democracy, and love the US.

Time to check the oil

[GTech]

Bottom line, I've show repeatedly where:

1) The elections were not rigged

2) Bush/Cheney did not go to war over oil

3) That saddam bought off numerous countries, including some of our allies, with oil

4) The UN is corrupt and was bought off by saddam through the oil-for-food program

5) And various other things.

You have showed:

...

1) Nothing, other than your own claim and resorting to attacks.

Final Analyis:

You are incorrect. It's no simpler than that ;)

[anthonycea]

Your the only guy in America that does not understand Halliburton is an oil services and military services provider G-tech.

Now quit wasting the forums time with the same old crap posts, try something new instead of your flawed UN oil for food scandel.

Then you try to tell us that the war is not over oil at the same time.

Man can't you see you talk out of both sides of your mouth and it is the same old crap you posted about 50 times already?

[GTech]

I think I'd rather sit back and watch Jeremy. You have a superb grasp of events and history, excellent posts and commentary!

[anthonycea]

Like I said in prior posts, you guys have a lot to learn because you think that the war is not over oil, the entire world understands this but you two do not.

Can you answer this question, why did Saddam torch the oil wells before he left Kuwait?

[GTech]

Your the only guy in America that does not understand Halliburton is an oil services and military services provider G-tech.


I take no issue with Haliburton. You see, they provided the same services under the same conditions with no bid contracts during the Clinton administration. What's even more ironic is, that's when Cheney was part of Haliburton.

No, the issue is, you have claimed that Cheney is profitting for the war and I've clearly showed where he was not. Haliburton can take care of itself. I have no beef with them, nor will I defend them.


Now quit wasting the forums time with the same old crap posts, try something new instead of your flawed UN oil for food scandel.


You spend a lot of time presuming to speak for the forum. The UN scandal is the biggest scandal of all times. It shows clearly where our allies were bought off, the corruption of the UN and how saddam skimmed 10 billion for his spending pleasure while starving his people to death. I can't imagine why that doesn't outrage you, other than the fact you find it so simple to say Bush/Cheney took us to war for oil.


Then you try to tell us that the war is not over oil at the same time.


Incorrect. I've clearly established numerous times that I dispute your claim that it was Bush/Cheney that took us to war over oil. That is incorrect and you have produced nothing to back it up. However, I do contend on the other side, the war (or lack of the world to participate) was directly because of oil and because Saddam bought off countries, the United Nations and over 270 influential world leaders and businessmen around the world.


Man can't you see you talk out of both sides of your mouth and it is the same old crap you posted about 50 times already?

I stick with the same facts, and I take pleasure each time you avoid backing them up!

[GTech]

Like I said in prior posts, you guys have a lot to learn because you think that the war is not over oil, the entire world understands this but you two do not.

Can you answer this question, why did Saddam torch the oil wells before he left Kuwait?

We did not go to war over oil. We did not receive support from our allies because they were being bought off with oil. You have a lot to learn.

[anthonycea]

Now you are changing your story so that you can make the claim that you were not wrong about the war being one about oil.

The reason the UN wanted the food for oil program is because millions were starving to death with no clean water, food, housing, drugs for the sick and hospitals.

You have gone mad in defending Bush and Cheney when the entire world knows what is going on man.

PS: G-tech, I got some news for you, if Bush Senior and Cheney would have taken Saddam out in the first Gulf War, there would have been no "food for oil program, nor the current war that they are putting the citizens of America in debt for generations.

I know, you are right Bush and Cheney would never take a dime of the Trillions spend on this 15 year effort :rolleyes:

He only wants another 80 billion to go on another year with this scam.

[Mia]

I take no issue with Haliburton. You see, they provided the same services under the same conditions with no bid contracts during the Clinton administration. What's even more ironic is, that's when Cheney was part of Haliburton.

This is because no one else could have done the job. There is no one else on the planet that is or was capable of doing the job. Some people just have a Haliburton kick I guess.. It's kind of like hearing the silly mantra "12 years of..."

You get the picture. It gets old, but we endure. Like all bad things, this too will pass.

[GTech]

Now you are changing your story so that you can make the claim that you were not wrong about the war being one about oil.

The reason the UN wanted the food for oil program is because millions were starving to death with no clean water, food, housing, drugs for the sick and hospitals.

You have gone mad in defending Bush and Cheney when the entire world knows what is going on man.

Again, you are incorrect Anthony. You claim Bush/Cheney took us to war over oil. You provide nothing to back that up. I claim we had no support because saddam bought off countries with oil vouchers. It's really that simple. Show me where I've said anything else please?

Saddam continued to starve his people while building lavish palaces and spending millions while taking over 10 Billion from that program.

I ask again, what evidence do you have that Bush/Cheney took us to war over oil? Anthing at all.

[anthonycea]

Same old crap you posted 50 times already, do you even read the posts that I put up that have discredited your BS as many times as you post it?

[GTech]

This is because no one else could have done the job. There is no one else on the planet that is or was capable of doing the job. Some people just have a Haliburton kick I guess.. It's kind of like hearing the silly mantra "12 years of..."

It always amazes me that these same people that think there is some magical tie to Haliburton today, had no issue with them when Clinton gave them no bid contracts.

I find the double standards refreshingly laughable.

I agree very much, there is no other company capable which is why they have a long history of providing support to our military under both Republican and Democrat administrations.

[GTech]

Same old crap you posted 50 times already, do you even read the posts that I put up that have discredited your BS as many times as you post it?

Apparently they were posted with the "invisible ink" option.

I take it the real facts are very disturbing to you? If you have health insurance, you may be qualified for free or low cost medical help.

[anthonycea]

You guys are both full of it, Cheney was defense secretary under Bush Senior and bought off the entire Defense department.

[Mia]

Can you answer this question, why did Saddam torch the oil wells before he left Kuwait?

Among other things, spite. It was the final slap in the face to Kuwait for daring to ask Saddam and Iraq to repay their debt. Keep in mind also, as I mentioned previously Kuwait was deeply undercutting Iraq's oil/gas prices, and that cut deeply into Saddams castle (palace) building plans, torture chambers, rape rooms, and WMD programs. So, on your way out, put Kuwait's only revenue generation system out of commission, then reap the benefits selling your own oil. (crap, I said the magic word)

Think of Iraq as a company. It has competitors out there, "other companies", like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.. Like a lot of "mean nasty corporations" do many times, Iraq (the company) decided to try to take over another "company". That failed, so they did what they could to sabotage them.

[GTech]

Will you be providing the same level of facts to support that as everything else? Be sure and use the "invisible ink" option when you post :rolleyes:

[Mia]

You guys are both full of it, Cheney was defense secretary under Bush Senior and bought off the entire Defense department.

It's magical statements like that that have now convinced me that you must be correct. Now that I know that I am "full of it", I think I see the light. Yes, facts like "you guys are both full of it", are extremely convincing.

[anthonycea]

Mia, maybe G-tech will now see that these wars are all over oil money since you have told him that, I have been telling him this for a week now and he still does not believe it.

PS: G-tech, what ever happened to your "no war for oil thread" where you were going to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we do not fight for oil?

[GTech]

I've clearly established numerous times that I dispute your claim that it was Bush/Cheney that took us to war over oil. That is incorrect and you have produced nothing to back it up. However, I do contend on the other side, the war (or lack of the world to participate) was directly because of oil and because Saddam bought off countries, the United Nations and over 270 influential world leaders and businessmen around the world.

[anthonycea]

Your a liar just like Bush and Cheney, they claimed they went in because Saddam was responsible for 9/11, in addition he was going to blow up the world with Nuclear weapons.

The 9/11 commission proved these were lies told by the administration.

Just admit it, Cheney was defense secretary under Bush Senior and he and Bush Senior wanted to make up for the major mistake of not taking Saddam out in the first Gulf war.

Even Colin Powell the joint chief DID NOT WANT TO GO INTO IRAQ, but Bush Senior, Rumsfeld and Cheney did.

For reasons you and Mia still can not understand because you are both bias supporters of them.

[Mia]

Mia, maybe G-tech will now see that these wars are all over oil money since you have told him that, I have been telling him this for a week now and he still does not believe it.

PS: G-tech, what ever happened to your "no war for oil thread" where you were going to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we do not fight for oil?

I did not say that the war was started over oil. Oil has a part, though ultimately the war was started because Saddam did not pay his debt to Kuwait. Kuwait was not giving Saddam oil, they gave him cash to fund his war with Iran (as did many countries for obvious reasons). Saddam just did not want to pay Kuwait back. It's pretty simple. But that is how most wars get started after all.. Stupid little events in history.

[GTech]

Your a liar just like Bush and Cheney, they claimed they went in because Saddam was responsible for 9/11, in addition he was going to blow up the world with Nuclear weapons.


Incorrect, you are wrong again. They made no such claim. Please post any reference you have to support that.


The 9/11 commission proved these were lies told by the administration.


Incorrect.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/16/132355.shtml


Just admit it, Cheney was defense secretary under Bush Senior and he and Bush Senior wanted to make up for the major mistake of not taking Saddam out in the first Gulf war.


Unlike you, I need facts to support a position. I cannot make up my own facts and expect for them to not be challenged. In your case, you make up whatever you want and hope people will believe it. And yet you still do not support your claims, instead, resorting to changing the topic or saying people are crazy. It's a shame you cannot support your positions. I understand why...because you cannot.

For reasons you and Mia still can not understand because you are both bias supporters of them.[/QUOTE]

It appears to me that both Mia and I have spent time researching and clarying facts. Just because *you* don't support them doesn't mean you can make up your own facts.

[Mia]

Your a liar just like Bush and Cheney, they claimed they went in because Saddam was responsible for 9/11, in addition he was going to blow up the world with Nuclear weapons.


No one in the Bush admin, Bush or otherwise ever said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I think Bill Maher(spelling) said that one night and everyone assumes that Bush said it. It is simply not true.

Iraq however was deemed part of the "Axis of Evil" in our war against terror. We made a committment to our country and the world that we would go after terrorists and the countries that habor them, and that is what we have done. Did Saddam have ties to Bin Laden? Sure, that has been proven, but was Saddam responsible for 9/11? No, I know that, you know that, however it is really cool to say that the Bush admin does not.

Again, no one ever said this. That my friend is a snope.




The 9/11 commission proved these were lies told by the administration.



The admin never said this.



Just admit it, Cheney was defense secretary under Bush Senior and he and Bush Senior wanted to make up for the major mistake of not taking Saddam out in the first Gulf war.



Mistake? Ok, so Bush Senior does not invade Iraq = mistake. Bush junior invades Iraq = mistake? Can you say indecisive, waffle??? Flip flop? Make up your mind.

Going into Iraq at that time would have been the major mistake. Mainly because as General Schwarzkopf said at one time "we did not have a plan for invading Iraq". It would have been suicide.

Besides, on thing that you have to respect of our nation and Bush senior was the fact that for the first time in our history we set an objective, accomplished that objective, and did no more than what that objective required. Bush, and Cheney obviously learned from the the mistakes made by those that started the Vietnam war.



Even Colin Powell the joint chief DID NOT WANT TO GO INTO IRAQ, but Bush Senior, Rumsfeld and Cheney did.



Correct, in 91 he did not want to invade Iraq. I love when present news is ill-concieved by sound bites and blipverts from the past.



For reasons you and Mia still can not understand because you are both bias supporters of them.

Again with the insults. Try being a little nicer, people might return the favor.

[anthonycea]

G-tech, it is the same old cut and paste posts that you keep putting up, until you can come up with something that actually is new I will not waste time responding to your posts.

PS: Mia, Bush and Cheney learned from Vietnam????

That is why they got us into another one by not taking Saddam out in the first place.

Get real man.....

[GTech]

Other than to say "your crazy," "get real," "you are a liar" there's not much you *can* respond. Clearly you are not going to refute anything by presenting facts and standing behind your rediculous positions.

Looks to me like you've been royally owned in this thread :D

[Crazy_Rob]

Other than to say "your crazy," "get real," "you are a liar" there's not much you *can* respond. Clearly you are not going to refute anything by presenting facts and standing behind your rediculous positions.

Looks to me like you've been royally owned in this thread :D

Are you 12 years old?

[GTech]

Are you 12 years old?

Are you trying to prey on little kids?

[david_sakh]

c'mon, GTech, you know that wasn't what he was talking about...

[Blogmaster]

ok we're uo to 22 pages.. .. what is going on???

[anthonycea]

Mia incorrect, I was talking about the current war in Iraq that Colin Powell did advise against, not the one in 91.

He as Secretary of State did not want to go in, but wanted to work with the UN and negotiate diplomatically and he was correct and that is why he resigned. He nor his son wants an association with the Bush Foundation any longer, his son resigned as FCC Chairman also.

Can you show me where in the first Gulf war that he did not want to invade after Saddam took the oil fields in the early 90's?

Do you know what position he was in then? What was his title at that time?

[Mia]

Mia incorrect, I was talking about the current war in Iraq that Colin Powell did advise against, not the one in 91.

Sure that may have been what you meant, but the fact remains that the only time he advised against it was in 91.

Again, "I love when present news is ill-concieved by sound bites and blipverts from the past."

I know it seems like fact, but that is because his statements from the past have been used to describe his opinions of the present.



He as Secretary of State did not want to go in, but wanted to work with the UN and negotiate diplomatically and he was correct and that is why he resigned. He nor his son wants an association with the Bush Foundation any longer, his son resigned as FCC Chairman also.



Dude, with all due respect, you are off your rocker. Most SOS's resign after 4 years. Hell, the entire admin usually changes for serveral reasons. Many of the reasons are, people just want to move on. Like any job, sometimes you find that you can advance further if you just move on.

I've met and talked with the FCC Chair, and I can tell you that his reasons for moving on have nothing to do with the descisions of the Bush admin. Chairman Powell has been around since the Clinton admin, and he has put in his time. Its time to move on. I see him getting a nice cushy multi-figure job at some tech company or telco/net related company.

You can throw assumptions around all day, but just because you say it, does not mean it's truth.



Can you show me where in the first Gulf war that he did not want to invade after Saddam took the oil fields in the early 90's?



Sure, using your own links you provided earlier in this thread you will find the answer you are looking for. You asked me to look at them; I did. Now go and actually do the same.



Do you know what position he was in then? What was his title at that time?

General Collin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. He was a close advisor to President Bush and an architect of the allied victory over Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Happy?

I'm off to the Y. Have a nice afternoon..

[anthonycea]

You just have proven that you do not know what you are talking about, no need for me to post an answer, you just informed us of your knowledge on issues.

http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGB019G952E.html


http://vivisimo.com/search?query=Colin+Powell+Argued+Against+Iraq+Invasion&v%3Asources=Web&x=24&y=9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Members, read this:

http://www.mideastnews.com/sad0301.html

It was the no fly zone- a Five years old point of friction - that gave the new Bush administration an excuse to, noisily, declare a new policy hoping to scare Saddam off. American aircraft hit Iraqi radar installations on the outskirts of the capital Baghdad - which is outside the no-fly-zone, just one week before a grand tour of America's Middle Eastern allied nations by secretary of Sate Colin Powell - another one who failed to unseat Saddam in his previous military role as the boss of the biggest army in the world, a coalition of 28 nations when it waged war against Saddam. Now re-incarnated as the world's top diplomat, Mr Powell is trying a smarter ways of getting rid of the old foe.

Loud whispers from the corridors of power in Washington suggest, to the annoyance of Mr Powell, that old and ailing vice president Dick Cheney, who was defence secretary in the administration of Bush the father, hoping to iron-out the unfinished business of 1991. He was behind the air-raid, although British Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted to take the credit for devising them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------



Don't pay attention to false propaganda provided by Mia and G-tech.


http://vivisimo.com/search?query=Powell+against+Iraq+invasion&v%3Asources=Web&x=42&y=17

[nevetS]

this conversation is still happening? LOL :D

[Mia]

Yeah, there is no need for you to post an answer, but there is obviously a need to edit your post some time later... Funny.





Don't pay attention to false propaganda provided by Mia and G-tech.


Interesting. Last I remember we live in a free country were the sharing of ideas and conversation is paramount to our way of life, yet you ask others not to listen to someone who has an opinion different from your own. That is a very closed minded way of thinking.

No one is going to respect your opinions when you continue to insult other people. In any event I have not spread "propaganda" as you call it. I have simply shared in a conversation and apparently have a view point that is different from your own. For some reason that is threatening to you. You might want to edit your post again and quote some of the information I have detailed for you in the past in this thread all of which comes from links, you my friend provided. I understand it is easier to be hateful and insult others when you have nothing nice to say. However, you should try giving others a modicum of respect once and a while. You might be surprised and find your little box turns from red to green.

[anthonycea]

Yeah OK, go look at some of your own posts, "I am off my rocker" seems to be one of your statements.

Look at G-tech and his silly posts, "I have moonbat positions", you guys would be alright as long as you actually had truth to post.

Posting falsehoods and trying to debate upon them is not so nice either, why enter the debate with false statements then try to get folks to believe them?

That is what makes me mad, when folks step up and try to establish lies as facts.

I have nothing against you and G-tech except the fact that you support American policies that are flawed, if the government is wrong, like they have been in this war since Bush Senior let Saddam live in the first Gulf war then they should be held accountable for it.

Go explain your support for Bush to young men that went to fight and got their legs blown off or one of their mothers.

Explain it to families that lost their homes in bombings in the latest war because of failed leadership in our government.

You can only cover up the shit so long before it comes back and stinks again, we need new innovative leadership in this country and Cheney and Bush have not been the answer and it is time Americans wake up to this FACT.

[Crazy_Rob]

Nu-cu-lar!

[Mia]

Yeah OK, go look at some of your own posts, "I am off my rocker" seems to be one of your statements.

Look at G-tech and his silly posts, "I have moonbat positions", you guys would be alright as long as you actually had truth to post.

Posting falsehoods and trying to debate upon them is not so nice either, why enter the debate with false statements then try to get folks to believe them?

That is what makes me mad, when folks step up and try to establish lies as facts.

I have nothing against you and G-tech except the fact that you support American policies that are flawed, if the government is wrong, like they have been in this war since Bush Senior let Saddam live in the first Gulf war then they should be held accountable for it.

Go explain your support for Bush to young men that went to fight and got their legs blown off or one of their mothers.

Explain it to families that lost their homes in bombings in the latest war because of failed leadership in our government.

You can only cover up the shit so long before it comes back and stinks again, we need new innovative leadership in this country and Cheney and Bush have not been the answer and it is time Americans wake up to this FACT.

You my friend, are a very angry young man.

Calm down. Life is too short to be so angry and negative.

[anthonycea]

Mia, I think that folks could see my post very clear but thank you for reposting it.

Maybe one day you will be angry when your Republican friends get the draft back soon and send your son into an unjust war.

Things like that have a way of happening somehow, now don't they MIA :confused:

Hell you are safe, why worry about others that are having their lives destroyed, as long as you have food and a warm room to sleep in you could not care less, right Mia?

[GTech]

Yeah OK, go look at some of your own posts, "I am off my rocker" seems to be one of your statements.

Look at G-tech and his silly posts, "I have moonbat positions", you guys would be alright as long as you actually had truth to post.

Posting falsehoods and trying to debate upon them is not so nice either, why enter the debate with false statements then try to get folks to believe them?

That is what makes me mad, when folks step up and try to establish lies as facts.

I agree. When people post things like:


The first one was decided by the Supreme court and the state of Florida which is controlled by his Brother Governor Jeb Bush, he told Katherine Harris the secretary of state to block all attempts at even letting blacks and the poor from voting and that is what happen there in 2000 and in Ohio and other states including Florida again in 2004.



The second one was decided by the electoral votes in Ohio which the democrats did not challenge because it is controlled by a Republican governor and a Republican secretary of State that would not allow a recount of the votes.



In other words the last two elections were both frauds and purchased by the Bush foundation with the support of Sunday going folks and Rednecks that do believe that Clinton and Kerry want to take their guns from them.



Low wages, high energy costs, high taxes and NO benefits for workers, that is the BUSH policy, it is called slavery for the working folks to the bankers and oil men.



The "oil war" is costing us men and money and the world is watching the USA fall and laughing at us at the same time. The policies of the Bush administration are responsible all of the problems that this broken economy has caused and it will get worse before it gets better for all of the worlds citizens.



This war is a disaster for the US and the UK, we all know the end result, we will withdraw soon and the country will fall into civil war that will never end.



All this war crap is nothing but smoke and mirrors for the real goal, giving the leaders an opportunity to steal Billions and Trillions of dollars for their own greedy gain.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm


What a bunch of dummies Americans are to buy everything we get from offshore and close all of our manufacturing plants in the USA.



Most of the American people did not vote for him, the second election was stolen just like the first one through software manipulation.


The list goes on and on...

It almost appears as if Anthony loves his country :rolleyes:


Accusing Bush/Cheney of going after oil in Iraq, but disregarding the real oil thieves, the United Nations and corrupt countries that were bought out.

I agree Anthony, people should not be posting lies like these without facts to back them up.

[Mia]

Like I said, you are angry. When you calm down, let me know.

Off the the Y.

[anthonycea]

Thanks for reposting things that members have freely available to them G-tech, I don't know what the forum would do without you.

Maybe save some disk space on the server :confused:

Also thanks for reposting the same old UN food for oil crap that is your blockbuster answer to every question about the war.

Man you are creative and the membership should be thankful you are here to tell us the same thing everyday :p :) :p

[Crazy_Rob]

Plenty of people are angry! I know I am.

If you have Comcast on-demand cable, I recommend you watch "Uncovered- The War on Iraq"

http://www.truthuncovered.com/

It's a series of interviews w/ EX-CIA analysts and state department officials. It's very interesting.

[anthonycea]

Now we are getting down to the real truth folks, G-tech has just confirmed with his last post what I have been telling everyone, that he is a Republican propagandist.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Heritage+foundation+republican+propaganda&btnG=Google+Search

Look at the listings in the above search and you will see this fact for yourselves and why he uses the Heritage Foundation a Republican suck ass propaganda agency for his source of news.

Again, G-tech for your information, Bush Senior did leave Saddam in power, wake up man, you just continue to paint yourself into a corner and do a disservice to your Republican masters.

[GTech]

Maybe one day you will be angry when your Republican friends get the draft back soon and send your son into an unjust war.

We would have to be Democrat to be angry about bringing back the Draft. The democracts are the only ones with bills to bring back the draft:

http://www.factcheck.org/article200.html


John Kerry had a plan for a draft, but tried to erase it from his site:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002647.php

As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.

[anthonycea]

OK, Mr. Republican Propagandist :p :p :p :p

[GTech]

It's ok to be angry, just don't make up your own facts to be angry over.

[anthonycea]

You are the biggest joke since Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson G-tech, no one in their right mind will believe a word of your BS :p :p :p :p

[GTech]

If you put as much effort towards debating the facts and providing information to back up your claims, as you did in calling me names, we might get somewhere!

I don't mind the name calling. When you choose to call me names instead of standing behind your false claims, it sends a clear message.

[anthonycea]

The main fact that I have is that you are a bias Republican propagandist and the members are now completely aware of it and your tainted posts.

Your "so called facts" are proven Republican propaganda as you have a list of websites that are "Republican Propaganda Approved" that you pull your "facts" from, we all understand your problems G-tech.

[Crazy_Rob]

Anyone interested in the truth should check out this site too.
http://reopen911.org/

Especially interesting is the "911 Commission's Omissions & Lies" video
http://reopen911.org/pictures_and_videos.htm

<added>
The painful deceptions series is excellent too!
</>

[GTech]

Oops, my bad. I thought you were going to stand behind these:


The first one was decided by the Supreme court and the state of Florida which is controlled by his Brother Governor Jeb Bush, he told Katherine Harris the secretary of state to block all attempts at even letting blacks and the poor from voting and that is what happen there in 2000 and in Ohio and other states including Florida again in 2004.



The second one was decided by the electoral votes in Ohio which the democrats did not challenge because it is controlled by a Republican governor and a Republican secretary of State that would not allow a recount of the votes.



In other words the last two elections were both frauds and purchased by the Bush foundation with the support of Sunday going folks and Rednecks that do believe that Clinton and Kerry want to take their guns from them.



Low wages, high energy costs, high taxes and NO benefits for workers, that is the BUSH policy, it is called slavery for the working folks to the bankers and oil men.



The "oil war" is costing us men and money and the world is watching the USA fall and laughing at us at the same time. The policies of the Bush administration are responsible all of the problems that this broken economy has caused and it will get worse before it gets better for all of the worlds citizens.



This war is a disaster for the US and the UK, we all know the end result, we will withdraw soon and the country will fall into civil war that will never end.



All this war crap is nothing but smoke and mirrors for the real goal, giving the leaders an opportunity to steal Billions and Trillions of dollars for their own greedy gain.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm


What a bunch of dummies Americans are to buy everything we get from offshore and close all of our manufacturing plants in the USA.



Most of the American people did not vote for him, the second election was stolen just like the first one through software manipulation.


Is name calling the only response you have?

[anthonycea]

I do stand behind each one, they are all on the record or you would have never found them. Go read the threads where they were originally posted and you might actually learn something instead of reading the Republican propaganda of the Heritage Foundation.

Like I said all the members can find each thread real easy, but I am sure that DP is thankful that you continue to waste more disk space G-tech.

PS: what happened to your "no war for oil thread" G-tech :confused:

[GTech]

They are all in post, or I would not have found them. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

Can you dispute the Heritage Foundation's report? Probably not, huh? It's much easier to call something you don't agree with propaganda isn't it?

Like the Democrat draft plans?

[anthonycea]

G-tech, no one is going to "get anywhere" with you and I highly doubt that anyone would want to "go anywhere" with you either :eek:

[Crazy_Rob]

G-tech, no one is going to "get anywhere" with you and I highly doubt that anyone would want to "go anywhere" with you either :eek:


Dayyyum- BURN!!!! :p

[GTech]

G-tech, no one is going to "get anywhere" with you and I highly doubt that anyone would want to "go anywhere" with you either :eek:

I don't mind anthony, my posts are not made to win popularity contests with those that hate America. I leave that up to you. I prefer good debate over real issues, not made up facts. But you don't leave me much choice ;)

[Crazy_Rob]

GTech, you watch too much TV.

[GTech]

I guess the draft isn't an issue when we learn it was Democrats behind it? It always amazes me when you pair fact with fiction how much less an issue becomes.

[anthonycea]

Debating facts with you would be like being on "Hardball" debating Jerry Falwell, a complete waste of time because the man is blinded by his own false doctrine as you are G-tech.