all he said was first, and you bitch at him??? lol dont be mad becuase your so low IN LIFE YOU CAN NEVER GET FIRST POST, WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE VID
FIRST AND THREE QUARTES!!!!!!!!!!! FUCKER i hate this war on the piraq oops iral or uhm irat? o yea iraq....
Many members of my family are Civil Engineers, and we discuss these things. But you don't have to be a CE to know that the infrastructure of this country is rotting away. I remember in the early 80s all of the roads in New England were pretty good, and then Regan came to power and something happed to all of the roads. I now drive under a bridge that is supported by railroad ties piled up underneath it, because it might collapse at any time.
I would bet that more Americans are killed by bad infrastructure, than are killed in 911, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined. And this is exactly the point I was trying to make in the Angry American post.
I guess if we ever have the 1.6 trillion to make the required repairs to bring the US to "Acceptable", then the jobs will be given to anyone but Americans. Why? Because our educational system is rotting as well, along with everything else that might benefit the average American. We have a shortage of Engineers in this country.
But weapon sales who do they really benefit? Does the money from those sales go back into America anywhere a citizen would benefit from it? Maybe, but the benefit of spending taxpayer dollars on AMERICA and not IRAQI, infrastructure is a double benefit to Americans. But this won't happen because Americans will expect a ACTUAL bridge to be built, unlike in Iraq, where the money goes only the rich know.
You might win that bet, Podman. A tour of 9th Grade Civics might even tell you why. New England is falling down because most of their roads aren't federal roads but state roads and all that state money has gone to Addadicktomeys for transsexuals in Montpelier and other entitlement programs. it's been that way since the 1960s. The feds gave plenty of money for that bridge in St Paul, but the money was re-routed by a local congressman (earmarks---democrat I think, but it doesn't matter,a republican probably would've done the same) to a project he could hang his name on. You can't hang your name on repair projects, just new projects. Almost all politicians are whores, don't you agree? Millions of fed dollars were given to New Orleans in the Clinton days to fix those levies. That money went to local politicians, maybe even Jefferson's freezer. But it never got to the project phase. About those things, every American should be angry, there's even a way to fix it. Infrastructure is a big problem, hope someone finally notices it. but there's plenty of money...if you just get the whores out of the way.
As Canuck would say, in his best moments...(Y A W N)
It looks like, Canuck, you need a reminder of the obvious:
1) ALL news articles contain biases.
2) ALL news articles omit some context, current or historical.
3) ALL wars have had periods of high support and diminished support with claims of corruption from all sides. (This includes treason, sedition, etc.)
4) ALL wars contain useful idiots...those who fail to see the truth of 1-3 above.
Thus far, you find yourself illiterate, bigoted, hypocritical, a liar and irrational.
Illiterate because common English confused you and others about the US Constitution and its application to the UN Charter (Oh, and the WashMonthly article, as well.)
Bigoted because you cannot disagree without hate nor can you see another side to any argument.
Hypocritical because you actually cited the Bosnia incursion on humanitarian grounds but would not allow for any such rationale for Iraq.
A liar because you have knowingly made claims of falsehood.
Irrational for all those things listed above.
I am away this weekend and using a University computer without sound. I am sure the Jon Stewart peice has just what all edited and contrived media have: Cut and spliced images to get the desired effect, written dialogue for the same reason, and no proper context. In other words, you believe this sort of thing, not because it appeals to something higher in you, but because you must...the skeptical skills you once had are atrophied and you have become a robot who believes only what is fed you.
I have never said Bush was a great president or that I agree with everything he has done. Our allies have come and gone and some may return in our lifetime, others may not. You, however, cannot see past the end of your nose and cannot place this time in history in the context of others. You are reduced to cutting and pasting anti-Bush articles as validation for your own inability to think.
stream/chumm LMFFAO LOLOLOLOL and it doent matter cause you cant get any thing threw your head my friend that hasnt been already programed . cause you cant or just won't see the truth.... ohhh ya one sided is what you will print and liberal propaganda its all so easy to push aside since you really have and no valid fall back from this clip.
it is comedy , but there is so much truth in this humor it makes one weep lol.
Q-and another thing is why are there no bright spots or positive clips on this site or any others i stumble upon for that Knuckelhead and is drinking buds?
A-my thought is because thay are rare and most likely nonexistent .
thank you Glumbert and keep them coming!!! for im sure you can the blowback from this idiot in the white house will resound for years to come:(
Hey Randy...having a bad day, or just into the Jack Daniels? Slow up...your ideas have merit, but not when so poorly expressed. Keep in mind that there are hundreds of millions of Americans distressed by current events...and aware of our deteriorating international credibility.
Ease up...we are still a generous and heartfeeling society...poorly lead, but still, as always, good.
Chaz what have i told you about sneaking up on me.
i am actually having a very good day thank you. and i also believe my thoughts have a bit more than merit thay are shared by the majority of my countrymen. but thanks regaurdless.
wow chaz hmmm jack #7 you dont say. lol thanks but thanks. how is it that im being harh on the American public came into this reply ?
i dont see anywhere above me attacking my countrymen as a whole do you only the so called leader or better yet lack of and if so please point out. but seeing as you brought it up, those many you speak of . the distressed ones. a lot of them voted for this man and his band of thieves. TWICE!! and there are some on this site that continue to support him .. and i sir find that fuking insane. and thay arnt even Americans LOL now if my own ignorance at grammar seems to be slowing you down in uderstanding my thoughts i would find it hard to believe. knowing you comprehend them fully. now ,my ideas being poorly expressed well perhaps your right. its realy just opinions in the end after all , at least in this matter.
and if you wish i would implore you sir to pick up the proverbial saber and let your rattling of it resound.........resound....Barbaric.....Barbaric
gawd randy....get some sleep. Have you no idea of the popular opinions in the "lower 48"? We certainly don't need the level of verbal aggression I am hearing on this site...we already have factions here doing that sort of thing, thank you very much. I do have to work to understand some of your postings, not that you are not making your feelings known...just having to provide the needed punctuation, etc. to make your comments clear.
Finally...why did people vote for this man?
1. He had not been exposed at the time of his re-election campaign. His dangerous counsel and the administration's dangerous inclinations were not clear at that time. He was NOT a good candidate...but consider the alternative......
2. John Kerry...the penultimate empty suit, stuffed shirt, brahmin bullshitter, and etc., was Bush's opposition....duhhhhhhhhhhh....don't know why this sort of thing happens, but it does....too often.
Anyway.....don't blame the electorate (that would be me and the other 'mericans). We are committed to civility, and will rarely impeach. Instead, we rely on evidences of non-support from the American public to change policy...and that is usually slow in developing.
Sorry...I've run on. I do enjoy many of your postings, rand-man...keep it up (if you can).
Stewart really cares you can see it in his face at the end of the clip. And pissed off because he knows that he is having no effect on the entire situation.
Oh yes. Chum is also a expert on the highway systems of New England. But what would I know about this place I just live here. Next he will tell me I'm not seeing RR ties holding up that bridge (Where is it chum?) when I drive under it.
I'm Just so uninformed about everything in my own life. If only there was a online entity to make my mind and philosophy correct. And tell me all about my home states. And OH, lest I forget the Homosexual capital of NE - Montpelier. I have been there many times, and believe me thats not it.
My, My, My - I have so much to learn from the great Oracle, when I get out of the 8th grade.
Even Jon Stewart is slamming Bush and his lovely Arab buddies. Oh what a bad, bad, BAD misguided liberal he is! What a "traitor" he must be! OH the horror of it!! Dosen't he REALIZE that it is the SAUDIS who are Bush
If you didn't know it already, I had GW and his father. They are disciples of Billy Graham who is the biggest phoney, money-grabbing american there is.
Pod...if you were questioning me...I was responding to el Canucko's reference to Billy Graham. I thought mine was a wonderfully insightful rejoinder, immensely amusing...a dry yet pithy observation...one might say, timely too, as it appears that Billy is presently tracing a ballistic arc life-wise that will have him soon join our erstwhile captain of industry Kenny in the hereafter.
I may have tended to be a bit subjective in my analysis above...juuuust a bit. BTW, I am a fellow-New Englander, from the great state that leads the nation in counter-infrastructure-strategy...and home of the most expensive public project in American (if not world) history...the "BIG DIG"...a project assuring the construction industry not only exorbitant profits during its development, but also a steady flow of maintenance and repair projects long into the future. Now THAT is strategy...spending billions on initial construction while yielding shoddy results assuring future contracts.
A small 59% of Americans think the Iraq War was WRONG. But....but...but....don't they realize this was a HUMANITARIAN effort??? To topple a BAD MAN??? Who had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION??
The Saudi KING?? Calling the Iraq war an "illegitimate occupation"??? But-but-but....aren't these fine folks (who also brought us such gems as 9/11) supposed to be Georges FRIENDS??? I mean, gosh darn it all!
How can one possbily argue with the pristine sources that canuck has just quoted.
I agree with canuck, Bush is undoubtedly the host for an alien being that looks like the deformed Wong who was mistakenly diagnosed with a facial tumor. This Bush wants the oil to be refined into water which will be evaporated and sent into space for Wong's brethren to build shelter from. As my proof, I reference the same soruces that Canuck has been quoting these past two months.
You cite polls...why, again, Canuck?
Oh, that's right...to show that you fit in with a majority or a crowd.
Fitting in and the rationale to support it.
I'm guessing you have pretty much always been in the minority Streamlined - so no surprises there that you're proud of the fact. Civics class was probably your lifetime highlight.
What I think concerns most rational people here when reading your posts is your failure to understand WHY that minority may not necessarily be especially bright or right
It's the head in the sand mentality coming to the fore again:
Everything's good, GWB is right, the US of A continues to be revered and esteemed the world over as the purveyor of moral correctness.
It's really a shame that the U.S. government is more interested in displaying the irrational fear over a decoration on a Canadian coin, then the actual declining value of their own currency.
This is what happens when a government becomes entirely populated by the children of the rich. Normal Americans with real educations would realize that there is no point in knowing where a coin IS unless you know WHO is carrying it, and it is just absurd in every facet of the argument.
But beyond that I happen to know that the Canadian government is run by a advanced race of aliens from Orion, and these coins will exert mind control over anyone who touches the Magic Coating.
Take us to your leader....no, really...oh wait...forget it.....not HIM...take us to the next-best thing....yessss....Paris Hilton. We dhall directly deal with her instead.
Much better than the little fella we cannot understand.
Iraqi government officials concede things aren't working, but they say that's because the United States doesn't allow Iraq to really control its own destiny. "We don't have full sovereignty," said Hadi al-Amri, the chairman of parliament's Defense and Security Committee. "We don't have sovereignty over our troops, we don't have sovereignty over our provinces. We admit it."
"These statements do not concern us a lot," Maliki said to reporters while he was visiting Syria. "We will find many around the world who will support us in our endeavor."
The intelligence report underscores "a growing recognition that, for all practical purposes, there is no legitimate government in Iraq ," Bacevich said, and therefore "no light at the end of the tunnel."
A case for a strike (in IRAN) became more prominent last week when The New York Times reported the Bush administration was preparing to declare the Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization.
So. What is the nebulous line that has to be drawn to declare the conflict over?
What is the goal?
Removal of the threat posed by Saddam? Removal of Weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam? Removal of 911 Al Quedia terrorists who brought down the WTC, operating in Iraq? Bringing liberation to the people of Iraq? Removal of Saddam? Creation of democracy in Iraq? What happened at the Bush palace in Maine between Bush and Putin? Why did the Russians opt out of the Middle east oil fields, and then claim all of the oil fields in the arctic? Selling massive amount of arms to Saudi Arabia? Removal of Maliki in Iraq? Selling massive amount of arms to Israel? Removal of terrorist army of Iran? Why do the representatives of the people of the United Stated remain mostly silent, when the majority of the the people of the Unites States want their representatives to be otherwise?
Once again who is losing money and prosperity by these actions, and who is gaining money and prosperity by these actions?
Did you read the quote he was so upset about?
"He. Is. Illiterate."
Last time I checked, "helped" does not mean "create".
Also, the context of the last year and what has transpired is completely(conveniently) left out.
Hmmm...I wonder if there are other factors and differing opinions?
Not in Canuckistan!
It was only one part of a bigger civil war. Go back and read my post again. But just to make it easier for you, I'll give you the READERS DIGEST version of what I wrote: Former federation of Yugosalvia = Iraq War, and its aftermath.
Is that....easier for you?
Your whole attempt at understanding the "culture" in the Balkans is pathetic, actually. It's the way I've described it. EXACTLY. Read it again, and get your face away from Sean Hannity for a while. You might learn something.
Not hung upon Bosnia...just showing you, for the umpteenth time, that you make simplicity where there ain't. I know you do not want to address nuances and details, but I do.
Each time I read your post, it's still the same.
The other references to Bosnia, that you hypocritically defend, are to butress my points that you NEVER show context.
Canuck- Seriously, now that we know you hate GWB...what would you do differently in Iraq? (I know you have all the information about what is best because all of that can be found on the web and in newspapers.)
What is best to be done about our Allies who aren't 100% o board? (Again, you will likely know because all the discussions and private phone calls between heads of state are public knowledge and you are privy to it all.)
Why shouldn't we sell arms to theSauds?
What was the Clinton Admin's responses to similar situations?
Will the next US Pres withdraw troops? Should they? Why?
Yes. That was a misfire on your part about your joke, hence my response. It is clarified now, and makes sense (I think).
As far as your question(s) go, with the exception of one, I've already answered.responded to all of them. You either didn't like, dismissed or simply chose not to believe what I've said. It would be repititious of me to go back and re-hash the same damn thing, all over again. So let's just say I stand pat on all answeres given thus far; you can go back anytime and look through them. Now, the NEW question here, or a new order of business, is what you asked above, i.e., "Will the next US Pres withdraw troops? Should they? Why?"
Here goes:
Lately, Bush has been invoking parallels to Iraq and Vietnam, lessons to be learned from said parallels and ways the U.S. must move forward in Iraq, based on such parallels. This is wrong...wrong...wrong. At best, it's a hideously inept comparison, for many reasons. But IN MY OWN VIEW, I'll point out the most glaring reason, why this is so:
If President Bush truly wanted to compare the current situation in Iraq, with what happened to any nation in the past, he chose the wrong one; he should have used the former Yugoslavia as the more telling example. Here's why: From 1945 on, Yugoslavia was ruled by a dictator, Marshal Josip Broz Tito. This fellow had fought against the Nazis, when they occupied that country during WWII. Hitler threw a huge amount of Panzer Divisions into that country, to defeat the partisans (of whom Tito was a member of)....but to no avail. Finally, WWII concluded, and Tito took over as communist ruler. Now, let me be clear here: I have NO love for this person, BUT, he was intelligent enough to realize that he was sitting on top of a powder keg here; too many tribes in this new nation after the war, had fierce nationalistic tendencies: the Slovanians hated the Serbians, along with the Croatians, who in turn hated the Bosnians who hated the Montenegrans, and so on and so on. So he basically ruled six territories in a "united" Federation, forcibly making them get along with one another. If ANYONE stepped out of line, they disappeared. However, although given much assistance by Moscow, he still didn't succcumb totally to oldstyle Soviet-type rule; you could still buy blue jeans, listen to western music, buy American soda pop, etc. This, of course, pissed off the Kremilin to no end. And so it went. Then, in '89 or '90....he dies. A Serb by the name of Slobodan Milosovic takes over, and he lets the nationalist genie out of the bottle; the slaughter starts. Croats, Serbs and Bosnians all get into it. The Federation dsintegrates. Anarchy rules, butchery and bloodshed galore. The irony here, is that Serbs and Croats and Bosnians' language in virtually identical! However, they are divided along RELIGIOUS lines. Croats = mostly catholic; Serbs = mostly greek-orthodox; Bosnians = mostly muslim. Sound familiar? Eventually, the war over; suddenly, where we once had six provinces in a united "federation", we now have six brand new COUNTRIES, i.e., independent nations. The Clinton Administration played this one VERY smart: he authorized the shipment of weapons and various ordinance to the Croatian forces (who have always leaned towards the West), and only sent in U.S. ground troops as part of a larger international force, once most of the fighting was done. He knew the Serbs, at that time, wouldn't be open to "democracy", so he didn't even waste his time; he covertly helped it flourish in the other former-republics, that wanted it. Now, all is peaceful there. Clinton only used force against the Serbs DIRECTLY once the civil war was over, regarding Kosovo, because it WAS a humanitarian issue (!), and because the Serbs, under Milosovic, were getting out out of control AGAIN.
Now.
I've just given you Iraqs past, present and future.
Had a dictator there, who (using repressive rule), kept several distinct tribes apart (Sunnis, Shiites, Yitzahdis/Kurds, etc.); dictator was removed; tribes (who speak almost identically same language) begin the slaughter amongst themselves; tribes are divided along religious lines; slaughter will continure at present, and even beyond whenever foreign forces withdraw; Iraqi "federation" will splinter into at least THREE distinct entities (perhaps more), and eventually become independently-recognized nations.
And the young Americans who died prior to this outcome?
Well, their C-in-C will have to live...and sleep...with that.
Good try...please read the following since people smarter than you disagree:
When President George W. Bush invoked the memory of Vietnam to justify staying in Iraq, he was drawing on a new wave of revisionist history, which maintains that America did not lose the war, but the will to win.
“Three decades later there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam war and how we left,” Bush said in a speech to army veterans last week. White House insiders admitted it was a risky topic which had previously been left to the anti-war movement. Americans generally prefer to forget Indochina and remember who won the Cold War.
Yet as the prospect of victory in Iraq has receded, the lessons of Vietnam have provoked intense discussion among historians and in current affairs magazines such as the neo-conservative Weekly Standard.
Bush has been quietly paying attention and had been thinking for months about the right moment to bring Vietnam into the debate, according to a White House official.
In "Triumph Forsaken," published last year, the historian Mark Moyar claimed that South Vietnam could have survived had the Americans not acquiesced in the overthrow of President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963, plunging the country into an “extended period of instability and weakness.”
Moyar is now working on a book about the second half of the war, in which he argues: “In the offensive of 1975, the North Vietnamese are moving around huge conventional forces that would have been pulverised by our air power.” By then, however, Hanoi was well aware that America was turning against the war and doubted that the U.S. military would be able to act decisively.
Supporters of the Iraq war have also been delving into Lewis Sorley’s book,"A Better War," which was re-released in paperback this year. The war, Sorley wrote, “was being won on the ground even as it was being lost at the peace table and the U.S. Congress.”
The North Vietnamese have given this argument a boost over the years. In an interview after his retirement, Bui Tin, who received the South Vietnamese army’s unconditional surrender in 1975, recalled that visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda, church ministers and other anti-war protesters “gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses ... through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilize a will to win”.
James Q. Wilson, a social scientist who is revered by conservatives, argued in The Wall Street Journal last year: “Whenever a foreign enemy challenges us, he will know that his objective will be to win the battle ... among the people who determine what we read and watch. We are in danger of losing in Iraq ... in the newspapers, magazines and television programs we enjoy.”
Anti-war historians have hit back at Bush’s invocation of Vietnam. “What is Bush saying?” asked Robert Dallek, the biographer of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. “That we didn’t fight hard enough, stay long enough? That’s nonsense.”
The debate is not just academic for Sen. John Warner, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who called last week for Bush to begin pulling out 5,000 troops from Iraq by Christmas. The 80-year-old Republican is still haunted by the memory of Vietnam.
“The army generals would come in [and say], ‘Just send in another 5,000 or 10,000,’” Warner recalled. “You know, month after month. Another 10,000 or 15,000. They thought we could win it. We kept surging in those years. It didn’t work ... You don’t forget something like that.”
Senior generals, including Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and George Casey, the army chief of staff, are believed to support reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to below 100,000 by the end of next year.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is also thought to favor the idea of drawing down 3,500 soldiers every other month or so and accelerating the pace after April, when troop shortages will make the surge impossible to sustain at current levels.
However, Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, is likely to demand more time for the surge to work when he reports to Congress on the progress of the war next month. Last year, in his previous job as head of the army college at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, he made a point of examining the “lessons learnt” from the Vietnam war.
One lesson was that it takes time to “clear and hold” communities and build a political settlement. Major-Gen. Rick Lynch, who is based south of Baghdad, said on Friday that pulling out American troops would allow Sunni and Shi’ite fighters to regroup within 48 hours.
The enemy would start “building the bombs again ... and we would take a giant step backwards,” he said.
Ultimately, Iraq could experience the maelstrom that overtook Vietnam and Cambodia. “One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam,” Bush warned last week, “is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people,’ ‘re-education camps’ and ‘killing fields.’”
A humanitarian disaster on this scale would cast a pall over Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. It may be some comfort to him to imagine that, 30 years on, intellectuals may launch a revisionist movement that would look more kindly on his war record.
And foider more (Bugs Bunny)...
I do appreciate your well-thought out argument for your position. However, I would strongly encourage you to look further into Clinton's rationale for going into Bosnia and the arguments against it.
(Clinton argued some enormous absurdities at the time, but those arguments were pushed aside for the larger role to be fulfilled.)
The comparisons you make are similar but not exact. The types of warring factions in Iraq really don't compare, culturally, to those in Bosnia. They may share a religion, but not a culture. (As one example, the peoples in Iraq don't view humanity, land ownership or trade the same way as those in Bosnia; so, potential strategies need to take those things into consideration.)
By the way, when NATO and allies bombed the Serbs (for a whole month) it was because they would not tolerate the Bosnia Serbs ignoring UN resolutions. Funny, that type of resolve applied to Bosnia but not Iraq.
It is wrong to treat them as the same, just like it is wrong to treat all wars the same. They all share similarities.
As a note, I am gld you keep bringing up Bosnia as it supports many of my arguments and even shows your one-sided view of history. Why is GWB so scrutnized when it comes to Iraq? Why wasBill Clinton given a pass by the US press when it came to Bosnia?
Please read this 1999 article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_15/ai_54007902
It was only one part of a bigger civil war. Go back and read my post again. But just to make it easier for you, I'll give you the READERS DIGEST version of what I wrote: Former federation of Yugosalvia = Iraq War, and its aftermath.
Is that....easier for you?
Your whole attempt at understanding the "culture" in the Balkans is pathetic, actually. It's the way I've described it. EXACTLY. Read it again, and get your face away from Sean Hannity for a while. You might learn something
Not hung upon Bosnia...just showing you, for the umpteenth time, that you make simplicity where there ain't. I know you do not want to address nuances and details, but I do.
Each time I read your post, it's still the same.
The other references to Bosnia, that you hypocritically defend, are to butress my points that you NEVER show context.
Oh yeah, thank you for NOT addressing my posts.
Sean Hannity is a weenie.
BOSTON — If blue states care less about moral values, why are divorce rates so low in the bluest of the blue states? It's a question that intrigues conservatives, as much as it emboldens liberals.
As researchers have noted, the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest are also frequently the areas where many conservative Christians live.
Advertisement
Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003, based on figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.
The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage.
In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas.
"Some people are saying, 'The Bible Belt is so pro-marriage, but gee, they have the highest divorce rates in the country,' " said Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. "And there's a lot of worry in the red states about the high rate of divorce."
The Barna Group, a California organization that studies evangelical Christian trends, has produced two studies about divorce that found that born-again Christians were just as likely to divorce as those who are not born-again Christians.
Wrong Your Ladyship. Once again, your facts are wrong, and the New York Times isn't evidence, no more than your dreams are...except in very small minds. Your fact-creating and inability to make 2 plus 2 equal four is getting really tiresome.
"Those who blow whistle on contractor fraud in Iraq face penalties"
DEBORAH HASTINGS, AP National Writer
August 24, 2007 12:24 PM
One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted.
Or worse.
For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.
There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.
He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers - all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees.
The seller, he claimed, was the Iraqi-owned company he worked for, Shield Group Security Co.
''It was a Wal-Mart for guns,'' he says. ''It was all illegal and everyone knew it.''
So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago because he didn't know whom to trust in Iraq.
For his trouble, he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he was classified a security detainee.
Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics ''reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants.''
Corruption has long plagued Iraq reconstruction. Hundreds of projects may never be finished, including repairs to the country's oil pipelines and electricity system. Congress gave more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit."
Hmmmm.....seems George and Dick have to protect some investments, huh?
(source: Santa Barbara News-Press, August 25, 2007)
Seems Tweedle Dumb suffers from real penis-envy Stream. Hard to argue with a fellow who uses newspaper articles and polls as evidence of facts. I think he wins this round. Get out while you can. Run for your life. That rapier-like wit may slice and dice you into unconsciousness. Intellect like that just can't be challenged....nor can it go unnoticed. Visit any circus and you'll see what I mean. He may even get around to saying out loud what he's never had the courage to say even to himself in the mirror, that he hates GWB so much he hopes the terrorist win. And we're now getting some idea as to why he hates GWB. Penis envy. We know he hates anyone with money, whether they earned it or not, but is himself so unskilled he can't even get a union job so his dues can actually go to a cause. I could never find any profit at worrying how much more my neighbor had than I had, but then again, I haven't climbed as high as I can go yet. haven't reached my pinnacle, as he seems to have. With the brain drain south of all the skilled positions in Canada, since we pay in real dollars that can be spent buying real stuff, I really can't blame ol' Tweedle Dumb for his hatred of the good old US. Cheers Mate Scatman
Re the Santa Barbara News-Press report, above, I know something of that a little more up-close than the newspaper report but all in all it's accurate, best I can tell, without making a few phone calls. My question is, dumb-ass, why did you go and fuck up a fairly good effort of at providing a good news report, albeit a little irrelevent, by adding your editorial comment about Bush/Cheney investments? Tell me more about those investments, dumb-ass. Show me the facts on all that, dumb-ass? Tell all your friends out there what you know about those secret and illegal kick-backs, dumb ass. Since you don't believe in God I know the angel Gabriel didn't come and stand at the end of your bed and tell you those things. Who did? And why did they only tell you, dumb ass? Why not some guy on television? Why not the same judge you're going to use to put Bush in jail for violating the UN Charter? Why would you know these deep dark secrets and not David Gregory at NBC who hates Bush every bit as much as you do, but has a bigger microphone. Why don't you tell us who your secret snitch is in the White House, dumb-ass? Or are you just wishing, dumb ass? God, I love this job.
Chummin you're really piling on the bullshit now ain't ya?
"I know something of that a little more up-close than the newspaper report but all in all it's accurate, best I can tell, without making a few phone calls"
Please Oh might one - enlighten us a little more of how much you know (and yet are unable to substantiate)
Or just use that gavel you're so proud of announcing you have.
What was I saying about the rotting educational system for average working Americans. Perhaps the wealthy elite don't have to worry about this because they will all flee to their villas in France when they have finished sucking the American taxpayer dry.
Let's keep building new madrases for the Iraqi students though. We would not want to educate our own people. Only the wealthy are 'entitled' to a quality education, even though they will never have a use for it.
Oh, I only know of two ADS's on this site, and everyone knows who they are. Mr Chumm proved it. Quoting an an old proverb, "They will first accuse you of their own conspiracy," Dumb ass.
My apologies, Pipedog, and to every honest Canadian. We're having a little sport at this self-appointed court-jester's expense. Don't talk to him, talk to his mates. They keep him around and amuse him, since as long as he's on-line they look twice as smart. He's just a lap-dog for his mates, a useful idiot for Arab terrorists....and yes, an embarassment to the Toronto rent-a-cop force. Cheers
(PSSSSST!!! Plus, I think you missed my whole IRAQ / CHENEY analogy there, Mr. Bilebag; just thought I straighten it out for ya....go back to your regular programming now)
Pretty weak analogy. Your the only one that truly understood your analogy. Ohh wait I see it now, send the war bonds in payment to Canuck. Ohh now I get it, THAT WAS SO FUNNY.
Is it just me or does every one of Chumpstream's posts smack of desperation... trying at whatever cost to stem the stream of, in most cases legitimate information that we are seeing?
Chumpstream you simply sound sad - the last to see the temple falling down around you. C'mon, bring some of YOUR information to the fore if it's so accurate?
The constant petty sniping that suggests that others are 'terror symps' in the hopes that somehow you'll get people to stand up and go, 'hey! yeah! You go Terrorists, go guys!' - Like any poster here would say that or want that!!? You're coming across as an idiot resorting to that!
The facts are that the GWBs administration HAS authorized billions of dollars of arms sales to the Saudis! Seemingly in an effort to try and maintain the status quo in the region... oh... wait. What status quo would that be? Coz it certainly ain't a peaceful one.
Hey! I know, the best way to help spread democracy and peaceful development is to flood an already volatile region with....erm... yep! Some lovely new weapons.
Gimme a break guys! To get to the crux of the issue, why is the US admin giving $20bn in weapons aid to the country that provided the human resource for 9/11.
Would the one word answer 'oil' still be too simplistic for you?
I'm not sad, after all, we're pissing in your Cheerios, not the other way around. Your circle jerk is over, Honey, just look at the people noticing you you wished would've just sort of left you alone. You bet we're giving millions to the Saudis. I've been there, and not in uniform.There's two Saudi Arabias, the family spliut down the middle with the Wahhabis in between. But you'd have to read a book to know that. We're betting on the goodguys, who will liberlize SA, brong on elections, run the religion police out out of town...you know...stuff you wouldn't even do for your neighbor, if I remember Chumm's original note to you. Togh job, laying down your lief for your friend, Eh. Easy job hiding and bitching. We may lose but it's worth a try. , But as always it's good to know you're on the side of the bad guys over there. Read a book fergodsakes. Take trip, preferably to your closet, and find what what you believe in, and not against. Inquire. Do something other than ape your cousin Tweedle-Dumber. I used to think you were smarter than him. But maybe not, hell, even savants can write poetry. Cordially
Chumpy you’ve just proved yourself incredibly sad... no actual sensible response to the question eh?
The use of vitriol, poorly spelt at that, coupled with the sidestepping for which you are renowned - let's call it your tap-out tango shall we - just tells me you're worth nothing in the way of debate and contribute zilch to the argument.
As I said - the question YOU should answer is WHY your administration deems it sensible to give billions of dollars in weaponry to the very country which provided the human resources to perform 9/11.
Your response being (sic):
‘we’re betting on the goodguys, who will liberlize SA, brong on elections, run the religion police out out of town’
Nicely put (and spelt), almost sounds as if GWB himself wrote and said it… Will you want a photo of yourself standing on the deck of the “USS Next Prez” with a banner in the background stating ‘mission accomplished’ too?
Chumpy – it’s a completely useless retort and says exactly nothing. Do grow up if you wanna play with the big boys.
I’m intrigued though Chumpstream…
You mention 'the good guys', now on who’s authority do you claim yourself able to make that call that these are in fact the good guys, numbnuts?
And these ‘good guys’ are gonna need $20bn in weapons to:
Make the country ‘liberlized’
‘Brong on elections’
‘Run the religion police out of town’ – they’re known as the Muttawa incidentally.
After all, they’ve done a great job of it so far…
Having been there you obviously feel uber-qualified – in what capacity were you there? Not in uniform you state, so wearing what; swimming trunks or the full dishdasha? If you’ve read previous posts you’ll be aware that I have and do travel regularly as part of my job so your spouting of rhetoric in an effort to sound convincing simply makes you sound like someone who lacked iodine as a child.
The mention of the Saudi royal family and the wahhabi religious leaders merely shows you can fact check. Most reasonably educated people, a category into which you patently seem not to fall, are fully aware of the societal issues in Saudi.
Do also make clear that the regime of Al Saud props up pretty much the only country in the world where the country ITSELF is named after the people who run it. Now this suggests they may have a slightly vested interest in keeping that family in place whilst many within said Kingdom no longer wish to be ruled by the Al Saud family!
Hmmm! Might THAT be why they need those weapons?
Obviously we’re all aware that this regime puts itself right up there as a paragon of virtue in the context of human rights etc. And yet again no sensible answer comes from you when questions are asked about the sanity of throwing more weapons at them…
A nice bunch of guys to have around whilst the oil’s there right?
Hmmm. A despotic style of rule…oil rich land…billions of dollars worth of arms sold to the country… certainly enough money to produce WMDs if they felt they should…
Hey! You know what?
I’m thinking that Saudi could be worth a little invasion. Whaddya say? It would appear it meets a number of criteria. And of course the humanitarian grounds are only too apparent. PLUS we could really get to grips with the nation that sent it’s men to fly aircraft into your buildings, whilst securing more oil.
Then we could all start trying to get the words Saudi Arabia into every posting here, not just Iraq. Well worth it I think…
So Chumpstream, let's NOT attempt to conveniently forget or divert the conversation away from where the majority of those 9/11 hijackers came from shall we?
Your pathetic haste to point the finger and scream ‘terror symp’ at those who think you spout utter garbage really suggests you be marked down as the type of person who makes a perfect blueprint for building an idiot.
Oh… no. It would seem the patent for that already exists and resides you know where.
Here is some taxpayer money well spent. Our bridges are falling down and the US taxpayer has just completed this one. It's a shame it's so far away that no US taxpayer will ever drive over it.
Mako: I am a referee Guppyman. It really doesn't take much to be above it here, but others here are too. I'm not the only one. Make a point, poke a hole, then something you and Tweedle Dumber can't seem to do...put in a plug for a thing or two we're for. You're both self-described haters, your entire self-image is based on what you hate. I understand trying to be a big duck on a little pond. But you're swimming around on a warm pool of piss, making you what? An insect. Sorry about the poor spelling above, I wrote it all walking away. I thought I'd answered the question pretty well, we approve of giving the arms to the good guys in the Middle East. (that was a policy statement, FYI.) Like I said, in all your earlier posts, you never mentioned the two dueling factions inside the Royal Family, so I guess, until we mentioned it, you knew nothing about them. Mucks up your reasoning, as most facts do. Read up on it then get back to me. But in truth, Chumm told you days ago we don't debate with Terror-Symps, and having been asked several questions about what you're for, and having been pregnantly quiet about since, we won't go any further with you. We'll just continue to piss on your knickers. We don't debate liars or fools, or children...or terror symps. Tell me you're a pacifist and hate all war. Tell me you're Jehovah's Witness who says F*** a lot., Tell me you're a Quaker...instead of a quaking coward. Tell me some of your best friends are Jews. Tell me you agree with the Church's definition of a Just War..they're against it too. And no, they don't agree with you, although i'm sure you've been quoted by so many. (I have by the way. Go figure.)
Read my posts you pOor little cretin - nowhere in there will you find any hate. Apart from that directed at the US admin, Chihuahuas or people who post especially sick or perverted stuff.
No hate at all for the US as a people - I challenge you to find anything there
You won't.
Now listen gently my little tantrum thrower (that iodine deficiency is certainly making itself apparent now) - I believe it was YOU who came on line stating you are the gavel carriers, profilers, people who understand others, followers of argument and consumers of factually backed up knowledge.
If that's the case then YOU work me out - and whilst you're trying to do it, I urge you not to make wildly dummy spitting statements about who you THINK I am when none of my postings herein alude to that fact.
Strange that you got especially vocal when we were disagreeing with your little alias streamlined. Politics got into it and you came out guns ablazing.
You certainly are little cyber weasels that's for sure, and I'm pretty certain you have a distinct and pathetically telegraphed political agenda for being here...
I will tell you what I hate is ignorant little turds like your good (collective) selves thinking you are some kind of galant online champions of the just and free.
Get a life you sad bunch of muppets
You just don't like the fact you can't string an argument together and aren't very good at your jobs "profiling"
You give me amusement though so please stay.
As for your pathetic response to the question - you said 'we like giving weapons to the good guys in the Middle East'
Yes. That seems apparent Mr GWB Subservient. My question was WHY you deemed it a good idea. This question was asked in the conext of this video
Erm...(asking YOU a question here) The point of the video was what exactly?
I really think you should re-watch and then come back with some sensible answers. No one gives two shits about the Al Sauds arguing...
They DO care DEEPLY about why it is that the current administration should think it sensible to give weapons to nations who have used those weapons to kill US and allied troops
The DO care DEEPLY that the very nation who supplied those 9/11 hijackers gets preferential treatment in the form of more weaponry
Not only to do I agree with it 100%, but it's actually hilarious! Plus, the large painting is priceless! I think the basic message applies more than nicely to Stream and his alter-egos.
Hi ALL .... im at a IMac store in Atlantic city but thought it would be funny to stop in and post LOLOL .. gatto go manager has to keep it moving ... the fucker lol oops he watching.please keep up the good fight guys.
Gawd.....youse guys have faaaaaaaaaaaar too much time on your hands. You must be "on" constantly in order to review all the various sites you cite for insights (puns intended). As Pipedog indicated above, you are risking becoming tiresome with your unrelenting and strident commentaries...even to your own countrymen.
I don't know what chummin means by "penis envy" (at least in the context he uses the phrase), but maybe it's a reference to the fact that our wonderful friends to the north have seldom occupied the world stage in any meaningful way...and therefore escape the scrutiny of the rest of the world. Otherwise, what horrendous unhappy episodes might be exposed for for world consumption....and don't attempt to argue your leadership is without fault. Without world impact, perhaps...but not without fault. This is unlike your southern neighbors who seem always under a global microscope.
I say that at the risk of being quoted out of context. As noted before, we see Canada as a warm friend, trade partner, and like-minded neighbor. We have enjoyed skiing there, and sharing smoked salmon with our Canadian friends (to say nothing of the wine and cheese that come with it when they visit here). Tough to sit here and read rant after rant, albeit some being waranted and on point...but when the American public becomes the target of these ascerbic posts rather than a faulted leadership...well, you do cross the line...it becomes an uniformed and ignorant assault on the very people suffering through this ignonimity.
Fortunately, most of us realize the canadian clique on this site does not represent Canada in general. This gang-bang sucks, with their stupifying righteousness directed at the American people.
And here we have little Chummin. We can see he is truly standing firm to his gavel carrying tactics of magnanimous oversight and refereeing. No use of rhetoric, no use of profanity? The highbrow among us all?
Someone to truly look up to! Oh yeah baby!!
Think we'll have to resort to calling you Thrush instead.
I believe that is the medical terminology for a faintly irritating c*nt!
If you can dig up ONE...and I mean ONE...single post I made at ANYTIME, wherein I specifically insult/slag or otherwise degrade ALL of the American people, or Amercians in general, or the United Staes as a whole, as opposed to the political administration and it foreign policy and the morons who make the decisions therein....
Then I shall issue a blanket apology to EVERY SINGLE American on this thread (including my many detractors), and retire from the Glumbert scene altogether, including the use of any "aliases" (which I've never done).
Now, I can give you HUGE example where the MINORITY of Americans on this site who are so venemous in their zealotry, and have slagged entire nations, peoples as a whole (namely MY neighbourhood) as their best defence, but such things are beneath MY dignity to do so. And also not a part of this wager.
Having said that...ONE example of where I degrade the entire people of the United States, will clinch your victory, should you choose to accept.
If I win.....then YOU must swear complete, eternal and absolute loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, And All Her Heir Apparents...as well as to ME (of which I am Her Governor-General on these threads).
Canuck- You may not disparage Americans as a whole, but by implication, you have disparaged: All Southerners, All Saudis, All church goers, and All members of the Bush admin.
So, you don't stereotype all Americans, just segments of them.
wow stumm what a put down, did you pull that out of the Bible after many hrs of research?
i mean dude please your hurting my feelings here...LMFAO( LOL LOL LOL LOL (breath in )LOL LOL LOL LOL .(wipe away tear)come on now dont be so hard on me .
really shouldnt you be campaining for thr repuplican party now......... oh thats right strum your not a American, i keep forgetting sorry.
you are a pretty confusing fellow, or just confused for that matter.
must leave there are a few Casinos calling me threw the window. it seems
thay want my money.
Hanoi resident Vu Huy Trieu—a veteran of the communist forces that fought American troops in Vietnam—said: "Doesn’t he realize that if the U.S. had stayed in Vietnam longer, they would have killed more people? Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn’t prolonged except Bush."
The American military intervention in Vietnam left more than 1.5 million dead from 1964 to 1975, including 58,226 U.S. soldiers.
Thnks, Canuck and Podman, for citing a Communist spokesman who fought against the US as support for your arguments. I notice you gave his opinion no scrutiny. (Bush gets scrutiny...Communist gets no scrutuiny.)
I guess the millions dead after we left are of no meaning to either of you.
The official response from Vietnam, after Bush's speech, was a little different, you might say.
We didn't kill them either, Tweedle-Dumber. Chumm nailed you first day out. You idea of peace is the absence of people being killed, i.e., total slavery. And we already know how hard you would try to resist. I can't wait til that gets tried in Canada...and it will, at least east of the Red River. All the penises in Canada seem to be out Regina and Calgary way. All we're doing here is identifying whose side ytou will be on...and not whose side will win. As they say in West Virginia, "that remains to be saw". Thomas Jefferson (the guy you were congratulating for writing such purty wurds in the Declaration of Indpendence...the one you guys never wrote north of the St Lawrence...) also wrote, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Care to vote which side of this argument votes Yes on that? Go ahead, dumb ass, give all your mates here a profession of faith. let's hear a testimonial. All we hear from you is eternal hostility for any one who is hostile to tyranny. Say it ain't so, God I love this job
Nice job, Podman. Your Viet hero didn't say who killed those people, did he? A few Yanks went crazy at My Lai and kill 30-40 people, get court-martialed, while your hero-guys were killing thousands a week as an act of national policy. Please don't tell me your another genocide-symp like Tweedles-Dumb and Duyber. I guess. Like Tweedle-Dumb, you seem to be saying that peace under slavery is better risking a fight. It was a lousily-fought war, by the war, which is why democrats don't try them anymore. If your logic is that just by America being there, millions in Vietnam died, maybe that explains the sky-rocketing insanity rate in Canada and New England...that's where you're from isn't it, where Uncle Sam won't come around and pour new gravel on your county highways?
Damn, you're right, and to think we wasting all that money on tanks and ammo. All we have to do is be there.
Vietnam was a mess, but it wasn't my mess. Iraq is mine, and I plan to be judged on the side of human liberty, and not humming Deutschland Uber Alles on the uncircumcised poles of slave-masters. Chumm made a good point, way back, and I ask as well...why are you standing up and pissing on the shoulder's you're standing on? Are you embarrassed by your own ancestors? You know the ones who set the tabel your eating from right now? You still haven't figured it out, have you. G'day mate
Wisdom garnered through Vietnam is more true, than your hatred for America, Canada, New England, and any knowledge that may be gained by reading a history of the Vietnam war.
You must be very young indeed to be such a expert on my war. Should I concede all 'facts' I have lived, in light of your historic speculation? You cannot, and will never accept, that even Vu Huy Trieu knows more about the Vietnam war than you do.
Arrogance, from ignorance is the cause of war and human suffering, not it's cure.
Someday, perhaps, you will sit with the wisdom, like the wisdom I have gained by living a long life, and you may think back to a time when your words in support of violence and death for any reason, were the words of a child.
Well...wel well well...now just wait a minute, Chumster....you want to take shots at les canadiens....fire away. But as a New Englander, I challenge your credentials that permit you to shoot at your own...friendly fire ain't friendly at all. You could lose any support you might have in your crusade by cursing all around you (frankly...you won't have much support in any event). But just aim a bit further north, eh?
BTW...I think you will find that depth is not appreciated on this site...must be quippy and witty and humourous, and, apparently being Canadian helps. Which I'm not. So don't shoot in my direction...OK?
I love Chumpy's constant attempts to bring slavery into the issue
Let us remind Chumpy AGAIN that the US administration at the time TOOK A FURTHER 100 YEARS TO GET RID OF IT AFTER THE MAJORITY OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD DID
You're pathetic attempts to bring the notion that any of us here are proponents of slavery in any form is laughable
Who's spilling the hate now Chumpy
Eh?
(picks up Chumpy's comforter, dusts it off and sticks it back in his vile malignant little mouth)
I can't speak for Stream, Chaz, but that's my mission....stir the pot. You can't imagine the hours Canuck has spent doing homework just to prove a point nobody really cares about. Usually he manufactures his facts as he goes along. Stream brings that out in him. That makes it all worth the trouble.
Actually, you're all of the above and wishing and hoping won't change it. Chumm didn't ask if you were for slavery, he asked if you'd raise your hand to fight against it. You said no by your acquiesence to slave masters and tyrants. Remember the original points? American die liberating other people. That, you clearly don't believe in...and is why you favor terrorists over Americans...you like their status quo better. This is why your other observations are immaterial to me.
Hmmm immaterial you say? I suggest your failure to debate is because you have no real argument to make you. Oh well - keep plugging away Chumpstream. You paint such a good picture of yourself.
That profiling job you do going well? I wonder how they performance appraise you..?
Are there inanity targets you have to reach? Sidestepping goals? That kinda thing?
Sorry, Chaz, I missed you missive two days ago. Didn't mean to but I was talkign to old-Viet/terror symp, Podman, and totally missed it. Pod just accused me of all his own conspiracies. Must be a socialist, er...progressive. You must work for Glumbert, trying to keep the give-and-take light and hearty, and brief. No disrespect for New England I don't think, it was just a take-off on a Canuck report of a report of higher divorce rates in Red States. That's because more people get married in Red States. In Blue states, and yes, Canuckistan east of the Red River,
Comments (208)