KrustyKidd

Oh I have it Gerry, you seem to be about a year behind though. See, Bush actually began planning this war a year and a half before this meeting took place so, this is only part of the process. I'm sure he speculated on a lot more than flyng planes around too but, when did this flight take place? It didn't so, only speculation. Leaving the point to be that he was planning on invading Iraq prior to the invasion. Not much of a news flash as the shift came for the public to read when WMDs went on the back burner and Regime Change became the focus. Well prior to this meeting.

Check the news Gerry, they are killing each other in droves, not the US soldiers. It is and it has already accomplished what it set out to do by getting Saudi Arabia to take care of their Al Queda infestation. Told you before Gerry, I don't get my news from Bush, I get it from intelligence services and acredited media. I wish that it was a nationalist war and I'm sure Bush does too. If that was the case, then they could leave Iraq knowing that it would all just fit together like you say it will. However, it is not. The factions all have competing factions who are killing each other in a bid to control. Their motivations are power, protection and religion. The government was providing protection with US support through their military but as that declined (through insurgent acts which were directly targeting Shiiites in order to fruther drive people away from having any faith in the government's ability to control) so did the numbers of militis grow. Coincidence? BTW, have you addressed those posts from three days ago yet?

True. However, we don't have time to figure it out when we have so many other problems breathing down our necks. Do the research and the money devoted to global warming right now, draw up plans to deal with everything else and form a body that is an all in one type to effect what the changes have to be. Then apply those changes to the entire world. Not just the countries that can afford it.

You have it backwards. See, I dispise morons that save bottles and bitch about pesticide use in the city and crap. The time they spend on this stuff could save acres and acres of land in some third world shit hole where the chief sells rights to strip a mountain side so he can put in a well for water. This stuff is going to come back and haunt our grandchildren in a big way when countries tip and soil errosion occurs faster than anybody can even attempt to fix it. The refugees from the civil strife that will occur will topple the resources of neighboring countries and then you have entire regions, continents in disarray. Our kids, if nothing is done now, will be fighting for their lives, not lifestyles. Change has to be done soon, planning now. And, the people that stand in the way ie: backward cultures and despotic dictators have to go.

This guy agrees with me. Or maybe it me with him. In any case, there's more, use keyword shiite led militias Iraq's militias: Many little armies, one huge problem Iraq was engineered by Saddam to not be a neat parcel where people could get together. He had Sunnis brought into Shiite areas and vice versa so there is no way for any group to simply 'come together.' They all have to regroup in order to do that, sometimes hundereds of miles and leaving a life behind them. So 'split' is not exactly an apt word. Twist, buckle, risk moving during strife through factioned areas of various control all hot headed and armed to start whatever against anybody who is not them. Not so neat is it? I would agree with you had there been a forty percent turn out or less. 65% is a strong indication of what people want though. As for the US leaving sometime, well, if it's like the way it is in five years, I would be swayed to believe that it would stay that way but, like I said to other members on this board, Saddam got over a decade and they were willing to give more even though he wasn't doing anything to indicate he was cooperatiing, why not give these people the same when they are? They being the voters, not the insurgents who form less than one tenth a percent of the population.

I don't think global warming is the actual villan here either, however, it's one part of the whole gaumet of thngs that are going on and how they tie in together. For example, if global warming is caused by Martian moon rays and will stop in fity years it does little to stop the devastation that will occur along coastlines where much of the third world lives. Where are these people going to go and what are they going to do? I think the greater threat is air quality which slows plant growth and such. Coupled with over harvesting it decreases plants and trees and leads to further soil errosion. Soil that of course is necessary for further plant growth. Then I can go on with improper watering techniques, salinization and stuff like that but it all boils down to an inequity in education and lifestyle on the planet. Compounded by the natural and ecologoical problems. This means that when India and China become frist world countries with money and taste, they will pay for resources and the price goes up. Up enough to make illegal and non edologiclly sound mining and logging practices more common place in the third world - the place that only has people and natural resources. Coupled with the coastline thing above, what do these people do with no resources, no money? They move, and place a buden onto the next place until it too cannot withstand the increased human footprint and likewise folds. That pressure won't be felt here for a long while but, eventually, people have to do something, go somewhere so what happens when the rest of the world has not and we have? I think and that's one of the non formula things about my beliefs, that we have to change our ways. Not to change the world but to find the correct way to do things. Then, find an organization that can do what the UN is supposed to be doing and make it work on the rest of the world using a reward and punishment system. If a country is too screwed up to be able to make it work them selves, we have to step in and do it for them. If that involves changing the political setup, so be it. To have some countries preserving their resources while the next is rippiing them out to satisfy an impulsive dictator who gives nothing for the next generation, we can't afford for his country to become a liability to our children. We have to all get on the same footing now. That's not to be taken that we should be stopping our industry from making profits, that's saying that we also have to enforce theses laws on the entire planet equally. And, to do so takes cooperation and if necessary, force.

Gerry. If you get away from the hatred and emotional attachement to your arguments then it would fall together rather well. Take a page from Black Dog or Theloniusfleabag. Two of the foremost left wing debators on the board. They don't go on campaigns and chase a theme as they know all politicians lie out of political and job necessity. They concentrate of facts and logic, not how they feel the person is. As for my points, I'll sum up a couple; There are far more than three entities in Iraq that will be at war with one another as the entire country will fall apart into anarchy with factions within sects and such. Yes, former Regime Members will be there too as will Al Queda and Jihadists looking for a place to fight from. And, they won't have problems with finding factions ready to take them in. In all, the talk of it settling down or anybody even getting together to talk peace or understnding is a falacy as there will be no place to actually place a handle for negotiations on or provide aid. The US is in a terrible position however, it is tenuable providing they can keep the political process going. If they pull out, the process will stop overnight as without the support they need from the military, who in turn are supported by the USA, the governement will fall. Bush, as I said, is not the best man for the job, however, he is there doing that job and will not be changed until the next election. I had actually hoped that he would have stepped down prior to the last election (citing family or other reasons) thus allowed some of this mindless hatred to stop dividing the US. The US are not the ones being targeted. It is Iraqi women and children, Sunnis, Shiites, Police and military. All by various groups who are doing whatever they can not to simply expell the US, but to stall and extinguish the political process. The US will leave as part of the moves to destroy democracy so I is, like you keep saying Bush does, a lie for them to say they only want that. If they wanted that they would simply help the process then wave as the soldiers all got onto their aircraft to go home after Iraq became a true 100% democracy. Those are a few. Hope you can deal with them in a thoughtful way without the slogans and hatred.

Gerry, I am no formula right winger and agree with you on the environment and more than likely am even more passionate than you about it. What seems to be your problem is that you place people into catagories based upon their opinions thining if they believe this, then automaticlly they believe that. That's a fatal mistake in seeking knowledge and, a good incdication of why you are getting slayed on the boards here. Another point, try reading what people reply to your posts with as they contain points for you to consider in forming your opinions. If your opinions are always so 'slear' and yet you can't entertain any other opinion or process, then possibly the Flat Earth Society Forums might be a bit more friendly towards you. Or, try getting a blog then switching the 'allow comments' option to 'no.'

ecause you said to So, I was mesrely trying to show you that I was in fact well withit. So much with it in fact that you cannot keep up and are recduced to name calling and actually ignoring points like the entire point of the last post which I will post for you again so you don't fall further behind than the two or three days you already are now.

Gerry, you really are silly. In more than four threads I have said that Bush is not the most capable person for the job and that another would more than liekly do a better job. Get it through your head that I am not a Bush lover, however, recognize one who is so blinded by trivial hatred that he cannot argue straight. Rember you asked me about Bush the other night? I answered you. If you had read that answer you would not be saying such things as the above. Here, I will get it for you as you are too lazy to read the replies to your questions. You know what's funny. You replied to that without acknowledging anything in it less than two hours later. And then continued to brand me as being a Bush follower and such. It really lets everybody here know you are a trivial debator Gerry. Matter of fact, everything you put forth is trivial sniping. You seem to take an extraordinary time in making anything more than the usual personal digs such as you did when you thought I was mixed on the memo and the Blair mettings but lack even comments on the pages long answer I provided to your question of what I thought might happen if the US left Iraq. So, unless you have anything other than common sandwhich board rhetoric and immature points from move on, I think I'm going to cut out for a bit. Maybe torment you next week. Night.

Oh ya, he does that a lot. Just finishing off another post sayng the same thing. He has about five or ten multi point ones of mine he hasn't kept up with. Very strange behavior for somebody that says we're all wrong.

Yes Gerry. I knew that all when you asked me the first time. Remember this? Gerry My Reply: I would have had to read the articles to know what it was about so am familiar with all that. Duhh. As for painting the planes, so what? He can dress them up as rubber ducks for all anybody cares. Saddam isn't supposed to be shooting at anything. As for trying to provoke a response, it's merely political expeidience as he had the legal excuse anyhow, this was merely justification for public consumption. Kind of like what politicians all over the world do on a day to day basis. Yes, the Iranians talk to the US all the time, in private. They had to provide reasons in their favor to announce public talkks to their people though and tied in the Nuclear talks with it to make it less unpopular. The Iraq governemnt had to tell the US to leave, even though they won't as they know it will be the end of them in order to please all the different factions and such. See, they all lie.

Good. Now, to go on about the other part. I believe that the ecology is our prime problem on the planet. I also believe that in less than fifty years, if we don't act now, and I mean now, not next year or the decade after. Our children will see the beggining of the end, knowing that within two or three generations, their children will be facing a planet filled with problems ranging from increasing population fighting over ever shrinking resources. Compounded by the value of the resources skyrocketing and thus increasing consumption by those who can access it before it vanishes. Pretty much look at Norse Greenland, Easter Island and such and that's the way it's going to go. The problems you see with Iraq and Somalia and such are only the begginings of this trend. All pof the planets hot spots pretty much have depleted resources. Coincidence? Nope. As the resources vanish, so does any opportunity to control ce=ntrally adn, reverse the trend. Very scary shit indeed. Not just lib talking points. However, this is one subject that is not political, it's survival and, has to be taken care of aggressively. With political, military and ecological expertise put together with finaincial and industrual investement in some pretty messed up places. We don't have forever. As I said, our grandchildren if we don't change will be the first to experience starvation, with no place to run.

Nonsense. I don't care that he's a bad speaker, which is what you are blabbering about. I didn't have anything to say about it. This is about global warming and Bushs Katrina-like incompetance and dishonesty at suggesting it could be "natural". Unless that's what you're agreeing with you're sorely confused. Gerry you are a good luagh for a wednesday night. Here you are saying that you don't care he is a bad speaker yet, instead of giving us a policy in play by the administration or a speech in which he goes in depth you pick out a jumble of words purposely picked not to provide a message but rather to show how he mangles his words. Here, once again so you don't have to scroll up (poor thing must be tired after having to take a beating on three simultanious threads complete with cross linking and such) Well Gerry, the globe is warming and the fundemental debate is manmade or natural. You wish to make a thread out of this or what?

I would ask what your problem is but know that you are fumbling with about three threads right now and lacking substance on eaach of them so will just answer. No. I thought that I have explained that quite plainly about two posts up Here, in case you are too much in a hurry to scroll to it Here, this should explain a lot too. But, you would actually have to be able to spend a few minutes reading it to see. An exerpt See? Sunnis and insurgent differenciated in the same sentence. Hmmmm. Very interesting. So, what are you trying to say? I myself rarely listen to him so am not a qualified 'Bushologist' preffering to see what has transpired and read the intelligence reports rather than do lip syncing and work with mood rings and such. As I said, he is a terrible speaker and also has the impediment of having to make the message understood by people who have no idea of what is going on. Therrefore, he can be cut a lot of slack in his definitions.

Ohhhhhhhh. Now I get it. So, if Bush has the planes fly under their own colors and they get fired on it is Saddam's fault but if they look like they might be UN planes then it is the US's fault. Or something to that effect. Only in Gerry's world is Saddam allowed to fire on UN planes, or, US planes for that matter while under a gazillion resolutions. Get real Get some real stuff on him and make it stick. Stop the yapping with this hubris. Like I said, this is just another in a long line of time fillers and wasters. Like the Downing Street Memo.

In Iraq where US is trying to install freedom that spells enemy of freedom or, bad guy. Which of course goes back to the origional terrorist definition.

I agreed with you. Shit Gerry, you made the point and I agreed. Now you don't care? Hell, don't bring it up if you don't care for crying out loud.

Dishonest steps like painting your own aircraft? Then flying it along a route you are permitted to? Ooooooo. How evil.

He is a terrible public speaker isn't he?

Hate to bring you down man but Bush is not being entirely forthcommng with you Gerry. Insurgents will not 'fill' the vacum but would become part of what is left over after the place explodes. I take it you mean they being terrorists. If you thinkhe said the place would explode then I thnk you heard right for whatever reason he says or doesn't say. As for creating a base to overthrow ME governments I doubt that the entire country would be available for them however, they would certainly have room and cooperation to operate from certain sects that they help out during whatever nightmare comes if the US should pull out as a reward. Yes, makes sense to me. Through the political process. It is not a fast one but, it has to go forward throgh all this hardship in order to be strong. Yes of course. That's why the attacks are happening against police, government, Iraqi forces and just women and children. Becasue the US is a lightening rod. Bush speak: terrorists = enemies of freedom. Better get that one in your vocabulary. It sells much better to the public rather than trying to name forty odd groups of Saddamists, Sunni factions, Iranian supported Shia, power hungry Militia leaders like Al Sadr, AL Queda operatives, foriegn and domestic Jihadists and on and on. Remember, terrorist = enemy of government and freedom. Try getting over the semantics and go with the atual idea itself. Believe me, you won't get your thighs strapped in debate as much.

Gerry, it's the same shit, saying the same thing from a different source. I didn't ignore it, it just doesn't mean anything that we don't already know. I mean, when Bush shifted the entire public campaign to sell the war from WMDs to 'Regime Change; only an idiot would figure that the invasion was anything but a certainty. Now, run along so you and Newbie can make a thread called 'Impeach Bush' and add this to the long list of failures the movement and those like it have experienced, despite having 'groundbreaking evidence' for same time after time.

Actually, kind of glad you people didn't spring a few bucks for Woodward's 'Plan of Attack.' There he chronicles the Rumsfeld/Bush meeting in Nov '01 in which Bush has Rumsfeld begin drawing up plans for invasion. Imagine that would get the liberal Chihuahuas yapping pretty good.

I can tell. These guys want it so bad they are selling t shirts to pay for it. They have (ok, had) Bush sweating bullets last year. Since then, he has been on the run doing the normal duties of President. Heck, they even have ichons of sanity like Striesand and you know she wont sing for less than a few mill. Hey, even nutcase Sheehan has an excuse for not having the civility to place a headstone on her hero son's grave. "I was too busy trying to impeach Bush" she can opine on about now. Yes, it's inevitable! But, they need help. They need well............ they need a plan, and here, Krsuty has found the skinney on that one too; Ooooooo. Lawn signs. Bush is running for the hill (capitol hill that is) Hey Gerry, you reading this? The crap goes back to last year and remember where you said This site chronicles one year anyhow. I'm sure with minimal effort, you can find more.

No, it's not the same information worked from a different angle. And no, you didn't realize it. In your last post you clearly believed the topic was about the Downing Street Memo which came out over a year ago. This is a transparent attempt to cover up your ignorance. Is that why I put 'DSM' in brackets and said it was the same thing? An attempt to screw Bush by saying he had already decided to go to war? Is this information recent? It is same era crap and says the same thing and will get the same results - air time but no results. Here is your quote from another thread and my reply. Here, you explain the entire concept of it (inconsiderately without providing a link, I had to get that off Newbie) And then I gave my reply.My Reply: Well, there I addressed this meeting and, below, on the same thread I also address the DSM acknowleging they are not the same things. Note: you might want to visit Impeach Bush to get with the times. (after you have the courtesy to answer the posts I reffer to at the end of this one)KK Gerry It's not? Here's what you say about it Gerry Here is what I summed up to Monty when he wondered what your problem was. KK I guess I got it wrong and it really wasn't the same crap as the DSM who's main argument was; Hmm. It appears to be the same argument. Maybe I have it wrong though and there is some hidden meaning in there that escapes me. In any case, they are ineffectual in that Saddam was in breach of the Resolutions and had made no attempt to correct that fact. Hence, preparations for an invasion to go along with the policy of the times in the US which was regime change in Iraq were made. In all Gerry, I wish you would stick to the threads and the point counterpoint arguments rather than try to sidetrack them into bitchy lilttle spats when you flounder. And, please address the things I asked you to last night. They were replies to your points and questions and it would be quite rude for you not to. On a personal note, I saw this when I was gong over your stuff to gather the quotes (caps mine) Just wondering, you have used this before on at least two occasions with me and on both occasions I shot your argument out of the water. So why do you think things are so clear when they are so ful of water they can't float? I use terms such as probably, possibly and things like that as I know nothing is absolute. Here again, I proved that it was not as 'clearly' evident as you said. It's an indication of somebody with a weak argument actually Gerry. A red flag if you will. Anyhow, looking forward to you returns on last nights assignments. Thanks