Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Upcoming war with Iran.

Upcoming war with Iran.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
comgame-devquestionlearning
66 Posts 15 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • R Red Stateler

    Paul Watson wrote:

    Well I am not even going to discuss that.

    Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

    P Offline
    P Offline
    Paul Watson
    wrote on last edited by
    #12

    Just like you keep avoiding my statement about blind patriots. Frankly I don't know enough about the details of Bush's reason for going to war in Iraq to make a strong case for him having lied or not. It would take me months if not years to research it properly. I doubt you know enough either. I do know there are some dubious details though, details that the US public should be calling him up on. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!

    adapted from toxcct:

    while (!enough)
    sprintf 0 || 1
    do

    R 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • P Paul Watson

      Just like you keep avoiding my statement about blind patriots. Frankly I don't know enough about the details of Bush's reason for going to war in Iraq to make a strong case for him having lied or not. It would take me months if not years to research it properly. I doubt you know enough either. I do know there are some dubious details though, details that the US public should be calling him up on. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!

      adapted from toxcct:

      while (!enough)
      sprintf 0 || 1
      do

      R Offline
      R Offline
      Red Stateler
      wrote on last edited by
      #13

      Paul Watson wrote:

      Just like you keep avoiding my statement about blind patriots.

      Huh? Wouldn't that require Bush to have lied in order for us to be "blind patriots"? I admit it's stupid to think it's OK for Bush to have gone into Iraq based on lies he perpetrated, but you also agreed and said that he lied (only complaining that he was OK with the war).

      Paul Watson wrote:

      Frankly I don't know enough about the details of Bush's reason for going to war in Iraq to make a strong case for him having lied or not. It would take me months if not years to research it properly. I doubt you know enough either.

      Trust me. If Bush lied about something, the left in this country would have seized on that.

      P 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • P Paul Watson

        ToddHileHoffer wrote:

        Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK

        :| One president has his cigar sucked and he gets impeached. Another starts a war on false pretenses, on a lie, over a 1000 US citizens are killed along with countless Iraqis and that is OK with you? Holy smokes, Batman. []Let us be clear. I am not saying Bush did or did not lie. I am using what the poster above said and asking how what he believes can be OK but that when Clinton lied about sex (not war, not killing people, not corruption, just some sex (what he did was wrong, I agree)) that is impeacheable.[] regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!

        adapted from toxcct:

        while (!enough)
        sprintf 0 || 1
        do

        -- modified at 13:21 Thursday 9th March, 2006

        K Offline
        K Offline
        kgaddy
        wrote on last edited by
        #14

        Paul Watson wrote:

        One president has his cigar sucked and he gets impeached.

        Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.

        Paul Watson wrote:

        Another starts a war on false pretenses, on a lie

        What lie? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"

        D 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • R Red Stateler

          Paul Watson wrote:

          Just like you keep avoiding my statement about blind patriots.

          Huh? Wouldn't that require Bush to have lied in order for us to be "blind patriots"? I admit it's stupid to think it's OK for Bush to have gone into Iraq based on lies he perpetrated, but you also agreed and said that he lied (only complaining that he was OK with the war).

          Paul Watson wrote:

          Frankly I don't know enough about the details of Bush's reason for going to war in Iraq to make a strong case for him having lied or not. It would take me months if not years to research it properly. I doubt you know enough either.

          Trust me. If Bush lied about something, the left in this country would have seized on that.

          P Offline
          P Offline
          Paul Watson
          wrote on last edited by
          #15

          Do you not have a problem with TodHileHoffer having said; "Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK."? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!

          adapted from toxcct:

          while (!enough)
          sprintf 0 || 1
          do

          R 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • K kgaddy

            Paul Watson wrote:

            One president has his cigar sucked and he gets impeached.

            Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.

            Paul Watson wrote:

            Another starts a war on false pretenses, on a lie

            What lie? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"

            D Offline
            D Offline
            Daniel Ferguson
            wrote on last edited by
            #16

            kgaddy wrote:

            Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.

            Which is just a technicality. The reason he was questioned in the first place is for his antics with his cigar. If it wasn't for the cigar bit, there would have been no questioning, thus no perjury and no impeachment.

            I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts

            « eikonoklastes »

            R P K 3 Replies Last reply
            0
            • P Paul Watson

              Do you not have a problem with TodHileHoffer having said; "Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK."? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!

              adapted from toxcct:

              while (!enough)
              sprintf 0 || 1
              do

              R Offline
              R Offline
              Red Stateler
              wrote on last edited by
              #17

              Paul Watson wrote:

              Do you not have a problem with TodHileHoffer having said; "Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK."?

              espeir wrote:

              I admit it's stupid to think it's OK for Bush to have gone into Iraq based on lies he perpetrated

              THAT WAS IN THE POST YOU RESPONDED TO! I also said that you agreed that he lied. So I'm asking where/when.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • D Daniel Ferguson

                kgaddy wrote:

                Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.

                Which is just a technicality. The reason he was questioned in the first place is for his antics with his cigar. If it wasn't for the cigar bit, there would have been no questioning, thus no perjury and no impeachment.

                I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts

                « eikonoklastes »

                R Offline
                R Offline
                Red Stateler
                wrote on last edited by
                #18

                Or maybe if he didn't commit perjury... L'il Kim is going to prison over that.

                P 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • D Daniel Ferguson

                  kgaddy wrote:

                  Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.

                  Which is just a technicality. The reason he was questioned in the first place is for his antics with his cigar. If it wasn't for the cigar bit, there would have been no questioning, thus no perjury and no impeachment.

                  I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts

                  « eikonoklastes »

                  P Offline
                  P Offline
                  Paul Watson
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #19

                  And it shows how restrictive western society is that a president felt he had to lie about a mistake like this. I read a bit of Roth that said (paraphrased) "And a sign draped over the White House said 'A human lives here'." He, Roth, was talking about Clinton. I do find the lie to be far worse than the act that made him lie. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!

                  adapted from toxcct:

                  while (!enough)
                  sprintf 0 || 1
                  do

                  R K 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • R Red Stateler

                    Or maybe if he didn't commit perjury... L'il Kim is going to prison over that.

                    P Offline
                    P Offline
                    Paul Watson
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #20

                    I may be wrong but you and your kin seem to prefer bombing people to a bit of sex in the White House. It seems very immature to me. I'd love to be corrected. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!

                    adapted from toxcct:

                    while (!enough)
                    sprintf 0 || 1
                    do

                    R K 2 Replies Last reply
                    0
                    • R Red Stateler

                      I'm still trying to figure out where he lied.

                      V Offline
                      V Offline
                      Vincent Reynolds
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #21

                      Maybe this will help you figure it out: The Other Lies of George Bush[^] Bush Watch[^] Partisan, sure, but still valid behind the rhetoric. If only 10% is true, it is far worse for the American people than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." And hiding behind the claim of "faulty intelligence" -- especially when the intelligence is so obviously questionable in the first place -- is the equivalent of saying "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". Ass-covering. Dissembling. Lying.

                      R K X 3 Replies Last reply
                      0
                      • V Vincent Reynolds

                        Maybe this will help you figure it out: The Other Lies of George Bush[^] Bush Watch[^] Partisan, sure, but still valid behind the rhetoric. If only 10% is true, it is far worse for the American people than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." And hiding behind the claim of "faulty intelligence" -- especially when the intelligence is so obviously questionable in the first place -- is the equivalent of saying "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". Ass-covering. Dissembling. Lying.

                        R Offline
                        R Offline
                        Red Stateler
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #22

                        I stopped reading that first link after the very first claim. Bush said that there were numerous contacts with Al Queda and that they did not lead to a "material relationship". That's actually what he told the reporters! Of course that's twisted by psychopaths like yourself to mean that he was stating that Iraq and Al Queda directly "dealing" with eachother. Geeze, man. Get a clue!

                        V 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • P Paul Watson

                          I may be wrong but you and your kin seem to prefer bombing people to a bit of sex in the White House. It seems very immature to me. I'd love to be corrected. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!

                          adapted from toxcct:

                          while (!enough)
                          sprintf 0 || 1
                          do

                          R Offline
                          R Offline
                          Red Stateler
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #23

                          Huh? What? Where does? Huh? What do you? Nevermind. Hello brick wall how are you today? Fine? Oh good! Let's have a spot of tea, shall we? No? What's that you say? You prefer coffee? SWINE!

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • P Paul Watson

                            And it shows how restrictive western society is that a president felt he had to lie about a mistake like this. I read a bit of Roth that said (paraphrased) "And a sign draped over the White House said 'A human lives here'." He, Roth, was talking about Clinton. I do find the lie to be far worse than the act that made him lie. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!

                            adapted from toxcct:

                            while (!enough)
                            sprintf 0 || 1
                            do

                            R Offline
                            R Offline
                            Red Stateler
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #24

                            Mature societies embrace adultery.

                            V D 2 Replies Last reply
                            0
                            • P Paul Watson

                              ToddHileHoffer wrote:

                              Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK

                              :| One president has his cigar sucked and he gets impeached. Another starts a war on false pretenses, on a lie, over a 1000 US citizens are killed along with countless Iraqis and that is OK with you? Holy smokes, Batman. []Let us be clear. I am not saying Bush did or did not lie. I am using what the poster above said and asking how what he believes can be OK but that when Clinton lied about sex (not war, not killing people, not corruption, just some sex (what he did was wrong, I agree)) that is impeacheable.[] regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!

                              adapted from toxcct:

                              while (!enough)
                              sprintf 0 || 1
                              do

                              -- modified at 13:21 Thursday 9th March, 2006

                              T Offline
                              T Offline
                              ToddHileHoffer
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #25

                              "When Clinton lied no body died." I'm just saying we moved into Iraq to set up a western capitalist nation, not because Saddam had weapons. As an added bonus we can use it a base in case another of those governements (like Iran) gets out of line. But he couldn't just tell the American people the truth, because people can't accept the truth. The people prefer lies, it is much easier that way. *** Edit. Oh yeah, we get a bonus to the economy and cheap oil. And the Iraqi people will have a higher standard of living. Its a win win situation for everyone. "People who never make mistakes, never do anything." My Blog -- modified at 13:36 Thursday 9th March, 2006

                              J K 2 Replies Last reply
                              0
                              • T ToddHileHoffer

                                "When Clinton lied no body died." I'm just saying we moved into Iraq to set up a western capitalist nation, not because Saddam had weapons. As an added bonus we can use it a base in case another of those governements (like Iran) gets out of line. But he couldn't just tell the American people the truth, because people can't accept the truth. The people prefer lies, it is much easier that way. *** Edit. Oh yeah, we get a bonus to the economy and cheap oil. And the Iraqi people will have a higher standard of living. Its a win win situation for everyone. "People who never make mistakes, never do anything." My Blog -- modified at 13:36 Thursday 9th March, 2006

                                J Offline
                                J Offline
                                jasontg
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #26

                                ToddHileHoffer wrote:

                                Its a win win situation for everyone.

                                Except for, of course, those who are dead or severely injured. -J


                                Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect

                                T 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • J jasontg

                                  ToddHileHoffer wrote:

                                  Its a win win situation for everyone.

                                  Except for, of course, those who are dead or severely injured. -J


                                  Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect

                                  T Offline
                                  T Offline
                                  ToddHileHoffer
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #27

                                  I know, I'm just playing around. But at least our military is volunteer. People who sign up know the risks involved. I wouldn't do it, but hey some people really want to kill people and it is the only way you can do it legally. "People who never make mistakes, never do anything." My Blog

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • R Red Stateler

                                    I stopped reading that first link after the very first claim. Bush said that there were numerous contacts with Al Queda and that they did not lead to a "material relationship". That's actually what he told the reporters! Of course that's twisted by psychopaths like yourself to mean that he was stating that Iraq and Al Queda directly "dealing" with eachother. Geeze, man. Get a clue!

                                    V Offline
                                    V Offline
                                    Vincent Reynolds
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #28

                                    A half-assed rebuttal to one item from one link, without addressing my actual point. Typical.

                                    R 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • V Vincent Reynolds

                                      A half-assed rebuttal to one item from one link, without addressing my actual point. Typical.

                                      R Offline
                                      R Offline
                                      Red Stateler
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #29

                                      I asked you for evidence of a lie, not a link to some guy who is literally making stuff up. Honestly find me the quote. And then find me evidence that it's a lie. I'm not the one making the claim. You are. Back it up.

                                      V 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • R Red Stateler

                                        Mature societies embrace adultery.

                                        V Offline
                                        V Offline
                                        Vincent Reynolds
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #30

                                        Whereas your ideal society would go with the scarlet "A" on the forehead and some time in the stocks?

                                        R 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • V Vincent Reynolds

                                          Whereas your ideal society would go with the scarlet "A" on the forehead and some time in the stocks?

                                          R Offline
                                          R Offline
                                          Red Stateler
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #31

                                          Let me know what you think about it when your wife sleeps with the gardner.

                                          V 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups