posted May 08, 2006 11:26 AM              

Why do you think we have terrorist attacks?

Do you think they will stop if they keep getting into other countries business?

Nope.

Wake up idiots.

posted May 08, 2006 11:33 AM              

quote:

---

The problem with our government, is that they think they are the world police.
Why do you think we have terrorist attacks?

Do you think they will stop if they keep getting into other countries business?

---

posted May 08, 2006 01:08 PM            

Your nonsense knows no bounds. Terrorists are being killed and captured in the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two countries have representative governments..free from murderous thug dictators, Libya has given up their WMD programs, Syria is out of Lebanon and more than 250,000 Iraqi security personnel have been trained...primarily without the aid of European nations who have the most to lose by having the Middle East fall to radical Islamic terrorists. The same radical murderous scum who are fighting against the legitimate governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

posted May 08, 2006 01:53 PM            

This being the formal definition of terrorism, what makes the United States intrusion into Iraq any different from terrorists intrutsion in other countries? I'm not necessarily saying that it's wrong or right for us to be in Iraq, I'm simply stating that our presence there does fit the formal definition of terrorism.

posted May 08, 2006 02:19 PM            

The use of force in Iraq was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 678, temporarily suspended by UN Security Council Resolution 687 the Cease-Fire resolution giving Saddam Hussein time to bring Iraq into compliance with demands made by the UN Security Council.

17 UN Security Council Resolutions later 1441..demanding Saddam comply with his cease-fire agreement as stated in UN Resolution 687, found Saddam still in material breach of his agreement as did all the other 16 preceding UN Security Council Resolution find Saddam in material breach of his cease-fire agreement.

Now, if there's anyone crazy enough to believe the United States needs the United Nations to authorize the United States to strike a nation which is a direct threat to the United States, I can find a good psychiatrist for them.

posted May 08, 2006 02:53 PM            

Is that your standard BlueRoamer, that the enemy nation must agree we can attack them or else we be declared terrorists before the nations of the world? Verbal agreement OK with you Blue or do you insist on a formal document?

Now, BlueRoamer, do you really give a flying flip what Saddam, the butcher of Baghdad thinks or thought?

The President was in possession of a CIA briefing document which said Saddam was training al-Qaida operatives in the use of WMD...WMD Saddam wasn't supposed to have. WMD Saddam said he didn't have.

Al-Qaida, the same terrorist organization which struck the WTC and Pentagon.

Let me put this straight to you BlueRoamer. How many American civilians are you willing to see murdered by a sneak attack by terrorists and those who support terrorist organizations; terrorists who struck the United States repeatedly all though the 1990's with impunity?

My standard number is none, zip, zilch, zero. If you have a different number in mind BlueRoamer then volunteer to be at ground zero in the next terrorist attack.

Anyone want to raise their hands and volunteer.

posted May 08, 2006 03:47 PM              

quote:

---

The use of force in Iraq was authorized by a Joint Resolution of the United States Congress.

---

A joint resolution of a REPUBLICAN majority congress. Forgot to mention that, Jwhop. The vote could not have gone any other way and it was not even allowed a debate. It was pushed right through without a floor discussion. Like so many other things.

quote:

---

"You become what you fight"
A very helpful cliche...

---

Very wise words indeed, Iq. Thanks for reminding me of that because it applies to more than just the governments doesn't it?

quote:

---

Now, BlueRoamer, do you really give a flying flip what Saddam, the butcher of Baghdad thinks or thought?

---

The butcher of Baghdad has only been replaced by another butcher of Baghdad, G.W. Bush. He's the one who is killing innocent men, women and children there now and creating medical problems for decades to come both in Baghdad and in the troops and their offspring who are forced to fight his war. Bush and his father together, along with Clinton have killed more people in Baghdad than Hussein ever did. Now Jwhop will say I support Hussein and his tactics on his people. So I will clarify that I think Bush is equally as evil as Hussein and do not support either dictator.

posted May 08, 2006 04:23 PM            

House Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

October 10, 2002

House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq

The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us

Senate Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

October 11, 2002

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us

posted May 08, 2006 04:24 PM            

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix


John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:
"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
October 10, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

posted May 08, 2006 04:33 PM            

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec03/193182.asp?format=print

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina
May 3, 2003 http://www.vote-smart.org/debate_transcripts/trans_1.pdf

John Kerry, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

posted May 08, 2006 04:48 PM            

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998 http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

posted May 08, 2006 11:36 PM              

**************************************

goatgirl's post......

And I quote...

quote:

---

she(goatgirl) was not personally under attack

---

Really? Let's go back over some of your recent statements to me.
I wonder if you act this way in public or if you reserve it for the warm comfortable womb of the faceless internet.

quote:

---

Impressionable idiots then read this crap, without looking into all the facts, but instead memorize and spew forth the perverted diatribe as fact.
It really only makes that person as well as the author look like a person devoid of intellect.

---

You have just described every major religion known to humankind. I was unaware that this was a religious issue for you.

quote:

---

See, this is where you are showing your true hateful colors.

---

No, I show those “colors” only when needed. Here's a sample: Fu2k 0ff you jack booted, goose stepping, propaganda spewing, fascist pig. Your mother's pu22y schtaanks like carpet cleaner. (See how I've cleverly obfuscated the profanity so as to save the children? Here's a hint...I put numbers in place of letters!!!! SHHHHH...don't tell anyone. It's almost as clever as Caesar's Hash!)

quote:

---

Oh yeah, here is another point for you and your USA hating friends...

---

Assumption number one: You have a point.
Assumption number two: I hate the USA.
Assumption number three: My friends hate the USA.
Wrong on all three counts. (Especially number one)

quote:

---

Now I am sure you "googled" theory to try and throw a monkey wrench in my post and makes(sic) yourself look intelligent

---

Why are you so “sure”? Is there some reason that you assume that I am not aware of the distinctions and minutae of generally accepted scientific methodology? Do YOU have to “google” common terminology to use it properly? Let us hope for the public safety and health of your community that this is not the case.
By the way, I don't generally need to do much of anything to “makes” myself “look intelligent.” This is the sort of behavior resorted to by those who are not intelligent.

quote:

---

her example was poor as it was from a summary she found during a quick google session.

---

What example? Which google session? If you are making reference to the e-coli bioassay technique that you had used as an example, I just happen to know the individual developing this technology.

quote:

---

It was her intention to try to throw dirt on quick explantion(sic) on how one can take numerous sources, include them all in a bibliography, but never quote any of them and instead still come up with their own theories.

---

Here I will say it again. Research (including lab work or source work) supports or refutes hypotheses not theories. NOT THEORIES. (This bears repeating.) An individual with a liberal arts or (especially) science education, or, he77(there I go with that clever obfuscation, again), just an education, should understand this distinction. Hypotheses only become theories after a community (read “a whole bunch of qualified individuals”) of researchers has come to consensus (read “reasonable agreement”) on the matter. “Padding your bibliography” is generally discouraged within the realm of legitimate research endeavors. Of course, having that “East Coast University” education, you already knew all of that. Silly me, I only have a higher education and degree from one of the nation's top ten private colleges. What do I know? It's not like other people out in the world have the capability to THINK, or KNOW, right?
That being said, How do you know what my “intention” was? Did they teach you how to read minds at that “East Coast University”?

quote:

---

My other major point was that you cannot use the source in question to back up the source in question as that creates bias.

---

quote:

---

Too bad there aren't any facts and each "intervention" is reduced to a simple paragraph.

---

quote:

---

So, she counters with an attack on my background.

---

quote:

---

It is an endless battle because topics aren't addressed when there are more attacks on the person, background and on semantics.

---

Indeed. This does seem to be how you have handled this exchange thus far. What a beautifully concise summary!

Now...when are you going to answer my questions?

*********************************

Goatgirl.........I just want to tell you how much I admire the clear, precise, exacting way you express what's on your intelligent mind!

You're sensible, insightful, reasonable and perceptive! (and what's more you make sense...tee hee)

posted May 09, 2006 12:24 AM            

I feel like I'm part of the CLIQUE!!!!

Cheerleader in high school and loving it!!!

posted May 09, 2006 02:01 AM              

quote:

---

Goatgirl, I haven't read all the material that you posted but I intend to and then I can better give my opinion. But I sure loved your Chomsky post. I also like and respect the way you express yourself. I like your thoughts.

---

posted May 09, 2006 02:56 PM            

This is too funny.

Your post is riddled with useless drivel. We have already been over the points and yet you said nothing for the longest time. Not until the little cheerleading squad came out (again from their rocks) to throw in their two-cents.

Of course rainbow things your arguments are clear and concise - half the time she can't understand my words.

I would like clarification as to what you were saying about "Jack boot wearing.. goose-stepping"... Are you using an example of how you address people OR was that meant for me and how you think of me? I am just curious.

You can beat the dead horse theory in to death concerning research. I've been there and done that goatgirl. I have already been over my background -so let's leave it at that. Me using a simple example and you salivating to try and find the slightest problem with it is CUTE. You actually missed the real point that was being made.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. You can pretend you are someone that just loves this country, but you again and again post against all that we are. Maybe you should take a clear look at your posting pattern and determine why it is you take such joy in trying to desconstruct America.

I am sure others here (and boy there are some that would pee their pants in glee should America fall) will be willing to help you.

Have fun.... by the way, anymore predictable posts? Rainbow, would you like to throw in something else? Say, maybe I missed a quotation or possibly used a word in a manner that you didn't like?

posted May 09, 2006 03:21 PM              

*Rolls eyes

posted May 09, 2006 03:31 PM              

It is unfair, within the confines of civil debate, to alter or derail the nature of the conversation with attacks, misdirections, or terms that are too open to interpretation as to be useful.

When are you going to answer my questions?

posted May 09, 2006 03:39 PM              

When posed to you the question of your own personal definition of “Communism”, I was doing so to understand your personal perception on the matter, not some textbook explanation of “Communism” as a political ideal. At the time of my posing these questions to you, I already had a good grasp upon the main tenants of not only Marxist theory, but also Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist and the North Korean take on the subject of Communism. In addition, the Latin American experiments with Communism as a political ideal, as well as Socialism's impact are not out of my grasp of understanding, either. However, what remains in the dark for me in an understanding of your use of the term “Communist”. YOUR use. I am asking you to take a stand and speak out for your beliefs, here.
As far as your defaulting to the much less agreed-upon term “Progressive” to try and create a lateral argument about the authors in question, this, I fear, may bite you in the rear end in the long run, seeing as many of the programs being rolled out by the GOP are labeled as “Progressive”. Does this make the Republican party as a whole Commies?