Did that "B" Pelosi cost us a war with Iran?!!!

[bushcheney08]

www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O9V6G01&show_article=1

According to those evil terrorists in Syria, "somebody" recently visited them and encouraged a diplomatic solution to the hostage situation in Iran. WFT?!!? Who died and made her President?

If it turns out that she went over there and tried to resolve a conflict non-violently behind our President's back, then I hope she's tried for treason. It's taken a long, long time to get this Iran war thing on track. I hope that A-hole Pelosi didn't screw it all up.

___

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Syria played a key role in resolving the standoff over the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, two government officials said Wednesday.
"Syrian efforts and the Iranian willingness culminated with the release of the British sailors," said Information Minister Mohsen Bilal.

He said Syria had been asked "to help positively in the issue of British" crew members since their March 23 seizure by Iran in the Persian Gulf.

He did not elaborate.

Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters that "Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue" between Britain and Iran.

Al-Moallem, who also did not give any details on the Syrian mediation, spoke at Damascus international airport before the departure of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Saudi Arabia.

A Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said Iran's decision to release the Britons was "right," and that Syria "sees it as an example of the positive results for adopting dialogue and diplomacy among states."

Syria has long been the Arab country with the closest ties to Iran, a non-Arab state. The two have moved toward each other as they were shunned by the United States and the European Union for their alleged interference in Iraq and Lebanon, and their support of Palestinian militant groups regarded as terrorist in the West

[Gary]

That's actually pretty funny.

[Copperhead]

bushcheney08 said:

www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O9V6G01&show_article=1

It's taken a long, long time to get this Iran war thing on track.

You poor, poor baby. I know that it's so hard to not get to watch all the wars happening on television.

So, when are you enlisting?

[bushcheney08]

Oh, I don't know... the same reason that 99 percent of the people who support the wars don't actually fight in them.

Nice try.

[Copperhead]

Go back & read it again, skippy. I'm not asking why. I want to know WHEN you are enlisting so you can be up front, close & personal when the war with Iran begins.

[Thorne]

Oh, I don't know... the same reason that 99 percent of the people who support the wars don't actually fight in them.

Wrong again. And I finally realize what it is that pisses me the fuck off so very badly about you. Well, other than the fact that you're a hypocritical redneck that apparently has zero education and gets all of your "news" from the radio. It's that you don't know a single thing about what you post. It used to piss me off when I would see someone post something without having a clue as to what they were posting about (not reading the thread or a link for example) and making themselves look like an idiot. You're worse by far, as you post junk that you don't know a damn thing about to begin with and then you follow it up with more bullshit like this.

If 99% of the people who support wars didn't fight in them, then why in the fuck would we have wars?? Tell that to the remaining survivors of WWII. Or Korea. Or even Vietnam (which wasn't a war, but there were a large number of volunteers for Vietnam, regardless of what some of the revisionist historians would like you to believe). Or how about Desert Storm. That would be the most recent war (before the current one), so there are lots and lots of people that will tell you about how they didn't support the war but fought in it anyway because it was their job, so they did it but didn't really mean it. Ask those members of the 82nd Airborne who jumped in on the first day of the war and saw what the Republican Guard had done to schoolchildren and teachers if they supported the war or not. Or ask the pilots of the Apache helicopters who came upon a convoy of those same Republican Guard members why they destroyed that convoy instead of letting them go back to Iraq. That convoy stretched for about two miles and was totally destroyed in about ten minutes, but since those pilots and gunners didn't support the war, then why did they do it??

Idiot.

[Gary]

People... think for a moment.

[bushcheney08]

thorne said:

Oh, I don't know... the same reason that 99 percent of the people who support the wars don't actually fight in them.

Wrong again.
Idiot.

I'm not so good at math, but maybe someone else can help...

Number of troops in Iraq: 300,000
US Population: 300,000,000

How does that work out, percentage wise?

Also, just because you disagree with someone on the political issues doesn't mean you have to start calling them names.

[tcrashfx]

but maybe someone else can help...

I think our kind of "help" is not the help you need. Seriously, I think the Psychiatric profession has some new tools and drugs to help you deal with your break from reality.

Also, just because you disagree with someone on the political issues doesn't mean you have to start calling them names.

Why can't I disagree with you and call you names?

Are you that unsteady on your opinions that you can't stand to be called a name?

[gridbug]

Oooh oooh! Can I buy a vowel?

[bushcheney08]

tcrashfx said:

but maybe someone else can help...

I think our kind of "help" is not the help you need. Seriously, I think the Psychiatric profession has some new tools and drugs to help you deal with your break from reality.

Also, just because you disagree with someone on the political issues doesn't mean you have to start calling them names.

Why can't I disagree with you and call you names?

Are you that unsteady on your opinions that you can't stand to be called a name?

I just assumed there were forum rules about mindless personal attacks or something. Also, name calling is kinda tired and pointless. A bunch of random nobodies trying to hurt each other's feelings via an anonomous message forum?

But if everyone around here likes name calling and insults, then let me be the first to say, "FUCK YOU IN THE HEART, YOU HALF-WIT, SUBHUMAN MOON CALF."

Meh, it didn't really do anything for me. I think I'll stick to discussing the issues and let the kidies play name calling games.

[Felix]

I think Gary had the most appropriate comment earlier in this thread.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

Life is short, let's ignore pointless diversions and speak in measured, relevant comments. Let the others spew without responses.

As far as personal attacks vs. issue-related comments, I have no difficulty distinguishing the former from the latter, and BC08 falls firmly in the former, his/her/its "issues" being poorly supported and framed to inflame rather than to inform.

Feh.

[legaltender]

BC08 is mocking the opposing view and its use of faulty logic or poor arguments.

On the Iran "war" theme:

The carrier battle group Nimitz is proceeding to the Mid-East to relieve the USS Eisenhower which is on-station with the Stennis. If the Eisenhower does not return from the Gulf area, it could be an ominous sign - many fully suspect the Eisenhower will return on schedule now that the British hostages are freed, but watch carefully.

[Gary]

Do I really need to repeat this?

[Felix]

Legal observed:

BC08 is mocking the opposing view and its use of faulty logic or poor arguments.

Understood. The bad part is that in mocking another point of view, the persona in question is failing to even entertain; the mockery is too clumsy.

I would rather see actual discussion. Mockery without content, especially when administered via personal insult, belongs elsewhere.

[Thorne]

But... but... but Gary.... how else am I supposed to eat??

[Ringleman#5]

t'crash, your WOF post just earned you another karma point.

[bushcheney08]

Lame. He gets rewarded for ignoring the debate and engaging in childish name calling?

Meanwhile I'm down 17 for having the courage to defend our President, or troops, and Jesus. You guys are worse than the popular kids in high school.

[el Gusano]

marvell said:

Legal observed:

BC08 is mocking the opposing view and its use of faulty logic or poor arguments.

Understood. The bad part is that in mocking another point of view, the persona in question is failing to even entertain; the mockery is too clumsy.

Not to mention that it's only effective when used sparingly.

[bushcheney08]

marvell said:

Mockery without content, especially when administered via personal insult, belongs elsewhere.

That's awesome. It sounds like something Oscar Wilde might have said if he wasn't clever.

[TNBear]

OMG, did Longshat actually call someone/thing a "name. I am shocked and appalled.

[Tsavodiner]

Apr 5, 2007 14:50:38 GMT -5 Thorne said:

Oh, I don't know... the same reason that 99 percent of the people who support the wars don't actually fight in them.

Wrong again. And I finally realize what it is that pisses me the fuck off so very badly about you. Well, other than the fact that you're a hypocritical redneck that apparently has zero education and gets all of your "news" from the radio. It's that you don't know a single thing about what you post. It used to piss me off when I would see someone post something without having a clue as to what they were posting about (not reading the thread or a link for example) and making themselves look like an idiot. You're worse by far, as you post junk that you don't know a damn thing about to begin with and then you follow it up with more bullshit like this.

If 99% of the people who support wars didn't fight in them, then why in the fuck would we have wars?? Tell that to the remaining survivors of WWII. Or Korea. Or even Vietnam (which wasn't a war, but there were a large number of volunteers for Vietnam, regardless of what some of the revisionist historians would like you to believe). Or how about Desert Storm. That would be the most recent war (before the current one), so there are lots and lots of people that will tell you about how they didn't support the war but fought in it anyway because it was their job, so they did it but didn't really mean it. Ask those members of the 82nd Airborne who jumped in on the first day of the war and saw what the Republican Guard had done to schoolchildren and teachers if they supported the war or not. Or ask the pilots of the Apache helicopters who came upon a convoy of those same Republican Guard members why they destroyed that convoy instead of letting them go back to Iraq. That convoy stretched for about two miles and was totally destroyed in about ten minutes, but since those pilots and gunners didn't support the war, then why did they do it??

Idiot.

At this special time of year, I enjoy dragging out old animosities and dusting them off.
This is one of, if not THE best reading-out of an UTTER and complete tool I've ever witnessed here, and I reprint it now for your edification and enjoyment.

Remembrance Day, Pearl Harbor, 1941. Not forgotten.

[LimitedRecourse]

If the only tool you have is a hammer....

[Tsavodiner]

...you become the nemesis of NAILS!

[TNBear]

Very good alliteration Tsavo.

[ssmynkint]

and you thought he was ilalliterate.

[TNBear]

Where?