|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
#13812967 - 01/19/11 08:32 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What the fuck are you talking about? He could pull us out tomorrow if he wanted to.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
#13813322 - 01/19/11 10:29 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
well, yeah
fuck Obama also....
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
#13813429 - 01/19/11 10:54 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
What the fuck are you talking about? He could pull us out tomorrow if he wanted to.
oh...
Wait, is that what being President means? You mean he doesn't need to ask for Bush's permission first?
I thought it was all Bush's fault and Obama was just stuck there because of Bush?
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: johnm214]
#13817729 - 01/19/11 10:45 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
no, but why does every one care now?
i've heard 2 billion complaints about obama since he stepped in, people didn't LIKE bush....
but who really gave a shit? that was 8 years of him not pulling the troops out, 8 years of him destroying the economy. now obama is satan?
obama sent in an extra 50,000 troops, then pulled out like 50,000 troops. obama is stupid. but at least obama can ball
but bush was a fucking red neck. now if people go and vote in obama second term are going to ream them or if the economy is better will it be alright like when bush got a second term?
I HOPE you guys were complaining when Bush was around. I don't think now just because I have only $10 in my wallet that obama ruined my financial dreams, i only had $10 in my wallet when bush was around also. They BOTH suck
how am I wrong?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead


Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
#13819538 - 01/20/11 10:11 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i only had $10 in my wallet when bush was around also. They BOTH suck
I wouldn't use that as a criterion for determining the quality of a president.
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: pothead_bob]
#13819552 - 01/20/11 10:16 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pothead_bob said:
Quote:
i only had $10 in my wallet when bush was around also. They BOTH suck
I wouldn't use that as a criterion for determining the quality of a president.
Indeed. Whose suckitude is that more a testament to?
--------------------
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis


Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,122
Loc: Boston
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
#13819631 - 01/20/11 10:37 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: That is one of my favorite videos. A bunch of terrorist scum taken out.
Bradley is gonna get 50 years.
Yup, I don't see what is wrong at all with this video. This is a WAR. You may not agree with the reasons for going to war or the target country for the war, but I am glad to see the enemy in this instance taken out from afar rather than our troops being deployed to the scene and possibly risking American fatalities on the ground.
Troops were/are fighting with their hands tied behind their backs because of 'Just War Theory'. Any 'innocents' in the enemy territory should be taken as the enemy as it is impossible for soldiers to distinguish between enemy and civilian.
Let me also add that I am against these particular wars but I am for the troops, especially when the government sacrifices their lives for 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such nonsense in these instances.
Edited by RationalEgo (01/20/11 01:12 PM)
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
#13821704 - 01/20/11 04:51 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It is not uncommon for news organizations like the BBC to have armed escorts through warzones, including Iraq. Are you saying this should get them killed?
Anyway, the alleged weapons have been confirmed by other sources to be tripod are consistent with the shapes of a tripod. The part that you are mistaking for a clip is consistent with a bar often used to control the angulation of the camera.
I don't even know why you are grasping at straws with this one
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
#13822059 - 01/20/11 06:12 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: i really don't know how from that distance you can tell. maybe there is no 'confirmed' report, considering that in the report they say they killed 2 reuters reporters but then the no one is denying the army found them with rocket launchers.
i think i can safely say i wasn't there and from that distance can't confirm what they were holding, they sure did look cocky though, for people who got shredded, i'll tell you that.
the people that were shot looked mostly dead, maybe that one survivor looked a little cocky for a couple of minutes but large caliber rounds changed that in a hurry... now maybe you cant tell what you're seeing because you're unobservant, maybe I can because I was trained to look at details. when this video was released people were claiming that the AKs were tripods but I've never seen a combat photographer that used a tripod, seems counter productive... I did on the other hand see an AK sight profile and a banana magazine and what looked like the business end of a Saab AT4, anti tank weapon
Quote:
but if you watch the video of of them shooting the missile at the building, you see these people holding SOME thing in their hand, and you can see it swing back and forth, like it's a dog leash or something. i mean to be honest you have to watch the 39 minute version.
you really sure you want me watching that, you sent me a link a few days ago but since you posted the link in the title of the PM it was truncated so all I got was a 404 message on some muslim martyr website
Quote:
when you watch a video of a guy crawling around and the helicopter circles back around to blow the guy to bits, you know the dudes in the cock pit are cold as shit and there is no doubt about that.
it didnt appear the fired until the guy in the van showed up an started dragging 'evidence' from the battle scene
Quote:
so maybe the moral is: WAR IS WRONG.
well, that's just like... your opinion man
sometimes war is necessary, it's still a dirty business but still, it sometimes has to be done, without it there's no telling how many countless lives would be lost, look at WWII, 6 million dead jews that were not involved in the war, a million were children
was it wrong to fight against germany in that war?
central and eastern europe through the 90s was heading in the same direction, the US stepped in under the UN banner and put an end to the 'ethnic cleansing' hat was taking place
again, was that wrong?
Quote:
hey, I could live without war.
so dont go to war but dont ask anyone to defend you if someone wages war on you
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
#13822142 - 01/20/11 06:28 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: It is not uncommon for news organizations like the BBC to have armed escorts through warzones, including Iraq. Are you saying this should get them killed?
armed escorts are typically in convoys of reporters traveling from place to place, when you learn that combat photographers are typically following troops, traveling light, you'll see just how wrong you are
Quote:
Anyway, the alleged weapons have been confirmed by other sources to be tripod are consistent with the shapes of a tripod. The part that you are mistaking for a clip is consistent with a bar often used to control the angulation of the camera.
bullshit, prove to me that the magazine was part of a tripod by posting a picture of a tripod with a head actuating arm that's wider than your hand... I know an AK profile when I see it... hell, show me a combat photographer that takes the time to set up a tripod, mount the camera and then take pictures, what kind of camera was the guy using and what lens/hood combo was used
this is a heavy duty video tripod, no wide magazine looking arm, no AK sights poking out of the end

Quote:
I don't even know why you are grasping at straws with this one
post some photographic evidence to show I'm wrong
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
#13825129 - 01/21/11 09:50 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think that it is ole Pris who is grasping at straws.
--------------------
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
#13825526 - 01/21/11 11:40 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Obviously you don't know an ak-47 profile when you see one. Because for the sake of argument if that were a gun I can tell for fucking sure it's not a Kalashnikov. For one, I don't know how much crank you've had with your bowl of fruit-loops today (it could be none I just can't be sure), but that "magazine" is not angled right and is too straight. It does look slightly banana-ed if you squint at it and hope it's a weapon long enough, but it only looks banana-ed slightly toward the individual who is holding it in his hand.
  Now I'll leave you some time to figure out if you can spot what is inconsistent in these images of actual Kalashnikovs and your phantom weapon picture. If it were a weapon it has a very long and thin magazine more characteristic of a small caliber semi-automatic weapon, though the shape looks nothing like any such weapon I'm familiar with. None of the people in the video have any apparent ammo clips on them. So even if it were a weapon, it is not an ak-47 and I'm not even going to bother with your ridiculous anti-tank weapon story, which is ridiculously stupid because it doesn't look like an RPG at all and could easily be a bulky old camera, despite that you were able to cherry-pick some pictures of some newer cameras and say it looks nothing like one.
I can show you pictures of bulky tripods that look similar on the internet, but I don't think it will appease you anyway. Something tells me you will still grasp at these straws.
Anyway, armed escorts are more common than you make it sound. I doubt seriously that you watch much if any international news. I on the other hand do and can distinctly remember some journalists heading into hotspots having armed escorts. Locations like the Congo and Darfur come to mind. Given the possibility of being kidnapped, it is not out of the question that these people would need armed guards. Not that I think this is what happened, I just think you are making culturally supremacist insinuations about what kinds of reporters are allowed to have armed escorts and not be shot down without any question or investigation.
http://www.collateralmurder.com/
Quote:
The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.
After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".
So do you think that the journalistic organization investigating what happened to their journalists is proof enough that they weren't actually terrorist militants? Or do you have another crazy conspiracy theory?
This is not the first time Reuters staff have been killed by US forces. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/1/us_pressured_spain_to_drop_case
Quote:
We were in the balcony. We were living in that hotel, approximately 200 journalists, Europeans, American journalists. And that day before the attack, we said even hello to the troops. They were in the other side of the river, Tigris River, and they were there looking around as military people.
Edited by ScavengerType (01/21/11 07:17 PM)
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: RationalEgo]
#13826424 - 01/21/11 02:22 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/05/22 05:41 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
More bullshit from the deranged left telling us what we are saying. It is the height (depth?) of stupidity. Neither the right wing, the Tea Party nor libertarians are anarchists. Military is by all accounts a legitimate function of the federal government. Just fucking stop. You don't know what you are talking about.
--------------------
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
#13827000 - 01/21/11 03:59 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/05/22 05:42 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:
More bullshit from the deranged left telling us what we are saying. It is the height (depth?) of stupidity. Neither the right wing, the Tea Party nor libertarians are anarchists. Military is by all accounts a legitimate function of the federal government. Just fucking stop. You don't know what you are talking about.
Wrong. Libertarians (i.e. not fascists like the Tea Party) do not support war (in almost all cases except in response to an unprovoked attack) & foreign imperialism. They support closing down the several hundreds bases the U.S. has around the world, withdrawing from Iraq & Afghanistan (and everywhere else), & greatly cutting the military budget (as they do cutting other areas of government), which is the largest & most unsustainable expenditure.
Further, they do not have blind, religious faith in big government on issues of life & death, & volunteer to submit their lives (and any ability to think for themselves and intelligently) for the sake of expanding big government. It is far more authoritarian to put one's life blindly in the hand of big government than it is one's money, & libertarians support neither
There is nothing either blind nor religious in supporting the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. That's other bullshit by you. Also an insult to every person who joins the military.
L. Ron Paul is not the arbiter of libertarianism. In fact, he is an isolationist jackass.
--------------------
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
|
In fact actually a new poll was released by the new york times which even showed a strong bi-partisan support for reduction of military spending to reduce the deficit. The poll contained 3 other options; reduce medicare, reduce social security and no opinion. Overwhelmingly 55% of all people surveyed chose a reduction of military spending including 42% of republicans which made it the most popular method of spending reduction among republicans and all others in the survey.
Though seldom as popular among self ascribed libertarians today as previously, non-interventionist foreign policy is not just popular among the die-hard libertarians but looking more appealing to the broader right-wing, notably among economists/economically-minded people and fiscal conservatives. However that never seems to make the war hawks happy and as others have pointed out this support which extends to leftists and democrats never seems to change the stance of democratic administrations on war and military spending.
Anyway, I couldn't help but notice somebody had earlier claimed that the people the man in the van was picking up were dead. This is false they were quite clearly living and injured, I'm not a doctor but usually in instances of non-zombie humanoids movement = living. Any decent human being tries to help an injured person when they see them, particularly if there is no readily apparent danger (the shots came from a helicopter). It's completely despicable to say that if you saw someone on the street who was shot and crying for help that you would just speed away afraid for your life even if you saw no apparent danger in helping. What kind of person does that make you?
If you support the killing of innocent people for political aims, you support terrorists. Plain as that.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
#13828028 - 01/21/11 07:41 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yep. It's getting to be time to slow that spending a bit.
But this is utter bullshit "If you support the killing of innocent people for political aims, you support terrorists. Plain as that."
To what does that refer? What do you mean, precisely, by "political aims"?
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis


Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,122
Loc: Boston
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
#13828060 - 01/21/11 07:49 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I can't see how anyone can say that these wars are 'just', in any way shape or form. They sacrifice American lives for NOTHING. If you want to kill the enemy, you have to take off the head and that target is Iran! You don't get into altruistic wars, nation building, long, drawn out expensive occupations......NO. You take out foreign enemies as quickly as possible with a minimum loss of American lives.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
#13828554 - 01/21/11 09:12 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: Obviously you don't know an ak-47 profile when you see one.
as I stated, provide photographic evidence
|
|