SonnyBarger 0 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 And I meant hegemonic, I made that post right before I went to sleep lol sorry about that.Fair enough. I disagree that the US is hegemonic, but I rescind my call of BS. Link to post Share on other sites
kirbynator 0 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Someone saying Hussein supported Al-Qaeda is qualified to be called a clueless moron. Link to post Share on other sites
pezeveng 207 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 we're all just pawns, the Illuminati controls everything we do and everything that happens especially that ace on the river when you're holding pocket kings. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 What would a person who said Saddam never had WMDs be called? Enlightened? The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda.I think you should get ready for the day when the big giant wall of reality hits you and knocks some sense into you.It may hurt but it will be for the best.Oh and who was the first person to make the connection?surpriseWhenever a person calls me a name I am shocked at how dumb they are. I guess I attract dumb people. Oh well, they make good employees. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 we're all just pawns, the Illuminati controls everything we do and everything that happens especially that ace on the river when you're holding pocket kings.I hate that ace Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I use it to describe the hawkish branch of the GOP. And yes, I was using it for clarification purposes, not as a pejorative. I don't use neo-con like you use liberal.There you go again, trying to make me to be the bad right winger again. You can't help it, it fits your mode to be enlightened against us poor red neck Bush supporters that don't think.I don't even think you know you do it.I actually like Neo-Conservatism a great deal more than other branches of the republican party. Like might be the wrong word, I don't share their goals, I don't really give a damn about the extension of US power, but at least I can understand their goals, they make sense to me. I think they are often deluded about the success rates of wars between non equal countries. It's possible that their idea of "success" is different than mine, I'll concede. When your goal is securing and extending US military, political and economic power, you end up doing some pretty brutal and cold hearted things. I think true Neo-Cons are more honest about the necessity and reality of these brutal things than say, Pot Odd RAC. I also think that their view of the extension of "american" power to be quaint, as I think in the future the power of the west is going to be increasingly in multi-national corporations and decreasingly in naton-states.Then you would be a New World Order person, that's very Bush Sr. of you.Saddam Hussein had a secular dictatorship in Iraq. Al-Queda is a fundamentalist islamic terrorist organization, and their war is pretty much against secularism. Just because they are brown and hate the US, doesn't mean they are allies.See above, Leon Uris explained it best, Arabs hate their brothers, but will stick up for them against another family, hate their family but wil stick with them over another clan, hate their clan but will side with it against another religion, etc.etc. And I meant hegemonic, I made that post right before I went to sleep lol sorry about that.I don't know what a hegemonic is, but I bet my gardener does, I'll ask him tomorrow. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Someone saying Hussein supported Al-Qaeda is qualified to be called a clueless moron.I saw you reading this post, then you went offline. I bet you are really mad aren't you? sucks to be so wrong so many times in one thread.I for one will forgive and forget, just stick to arguing and leave out the name calling. Otherwise we are forced to make you look clueless again and again. Link to post Share on other sites
rogerwilco 0 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 What would a person who said Saddam never had WMDs be called? Enlightened?That would be a stupid believe - I meant at the time of the invasion of course.And NO, Hussein did not have any ties with Al-Qaida, there is no evidence for that at all, and it wouldn't make much sense anyway. But whatever, I can't say, that I care much what nonsense you believe in. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 There you go again, trying to make me to be the bad right winger again. You can't help it, it fits your mode to be enlightened against us poor red neck Bush supporters that don't think.I don't "make you out to be" a bad right winger, you've proven in your posts again and again what you feel about liberals, time and time again. Your support of conservatism actually makes a great deal of sense, if you are truly rich and not some internet random. Rich people supporting the republican party makes a great deal of sense to me, there's alot of money in it for them. I can understand why their interests lie with the GOP. I can't understand how you all conned the vast majority of the poor "red neck bush supporters" to vote against their economic interests.When I was younger, I certainly did have radical leftist ideals. I no longer have them. They all seem absurd and impractical. I now just try to view the world and understand it how it is, not how I want to be, with the minimum of value judgments ( sometimes I can't help myself). In all honesty, I don't care a whole hell of a lot if we do or don't go to war with Venezuela, do or don't assassinate Chavez. I think it could be a tactical blunder for the neo-cons, as I think Chavez would become a martyr for the leftists in central and south america to rally behind. As it stands now, I don't think that Venezuela is a threat to US interests regionally. Other countries can talk tough about US actions, but they need the USA, as a trading partner and as someone who gives them economic support. They are addicted to what we got, and what we got is money. Venezuela has the luxury of being able to afford socialism, or being able to be vocal US critiques. Why? Cause they have oil. THey can talk all the sht they want, and the US still trades with them, no Citgo's have closed down. Other central and south american countries don't have this luxury. This isn't a revolution that's going to spread throughout central and south america. It's going to be a single, demagogic leader who talks alot of trash for a while, pisses off alot of rich Venezuelan elites, and eventually gets over thrown. That's how I'd handicap it, at least. For every Castro that avoids coups and assassination, there's a dozen allende's who get toppled.I wouldn't say that I'm a supporter of the New World Order, I just think globalisation is as inevitable as the tide. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 What would a person who said Saddam never had WMDs be called? Enlightened?I think you should get ready for the day when the big giant wall of reality hits you and knocks some sense into you.It may hurt but it will be for the best.Oh and who was the first person to make the connection?surpriseWhenever a person calls me a name I am shocked at how dumb they are. I guess I attract dumb people. Oh well, they make good employees.The 9/11 commission disagreed..http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 The 9/11 commission disagreed..http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html The 9-11 commision was focused on 9-11. I am not saying Saddam was active in 9-11, just in support passive or active of Al Qeada/Bin Hiding overall. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 That would be a stupid believe - I meant at the time of the invasion of course.And NO, Hussein did not have any ties with Al-Qaida, there is no evidence for that at all, and it wouldn't make much sense anyway. But whatever, I can't say, that I care much what nonsense you believe in.You are wrong, I am right, but I don't want to talk about it with you. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 The 9-11 commision was focused on 9-11. I am not saying Saddam was active in 9-11, just in support passive or active of Al Qeada/Bin Hiding overall.From the acticleBut the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding. The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Link to post Share on other sites
fckthis 0 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 You are wrong, I am right, but I don't want to talk about it with you.Actually you are wrong. Dont make me bust several articles citing this, and just accept your defeat. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Actually you are wrong. Dont make me bust several articles citing this, and just accept your defeat.I'm going to go out on a limb here, and predict that Balloon doesn't accept defeat, so you better start a preemptive bustation. Link to post Share on other sites
rogerwilco 0 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 You are wrong, I am right, but I don't want to talk about it with you.lol, pulling out the pre-school arguments now, huh? :DWhatever, believe what you want if that makes you feel good. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 lol, pulling out the pre-school arguments now, huh? :DWhatever, believe what you want if that makes you feel good.Actually I paraphrased your post. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 From the acticleBut the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding. The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."Well at least they used credible sources. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Actually you are wrong. Dont make me bust several articles citing this, and just accept your defeat.I accept defeat BigD Link to post Share on other sites
ukwildcat09 0 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 We've screwed Latin America pretty good. We'll screw again, just give it time. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I accept defeat BigD I got served Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now