It's only a cartoon for f**k's sake

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:09 pm

So by your logic the allies had no buisness intervening against the axis powers correct?

That sure was a leap in logic. Dust Devil, where exactly did I write that? Sovereign countries have a right to defend themselves.

Springbok · Post by **Springbok** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:47 pm

Hey CID, interesting to see that you back as strong as ever and still stirring the shit pot. Where did you disappear to during towards the end of last year?

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:25 pm

CID,

I think that I have proved my point rather well, I dont exactly know what your inability to properly address my point means, I agree, Israel having no right to exist in its current state is not a humble opinion.

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:32 pm

Israel having no right to exist in its current state is not a humble opinion.

What does that mean exactly? Are you suggesting that I can't have an opinion, or that I can't offer it humbly?

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:47 pm

The problem lies when you preach against spreading unfounded and uneducated hate against muslims, but yet preach it freely against the state of Israel. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.

My opinion.....you can be a dick.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:38 am

CID wrote:
Israel having no right to exist in its current state is not a humble opinion.
What does that mean exactly? Are you suggesting that I can't have an opinion, or that I can't offer it humbly?

Culling people, I'm telling you...

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:15 am

CID wrote:
So by your logic the allies had no buisness intervening against the axis powers correct?
That sure was a leap in logic. Dust Devil, where exactly did I write that? Sovereign countries have a right to defend themselves.

How was that a leap in logic? check your ww2 history. Germany never attacked Canada the U.S or Great Britain. They invaded Poland then the allied powers intervened. They saw Germany as a "potential" threat to Great Britain so the allies attacked before Germany could. How is this situation different then the one we face with Syria and Iran. I'll tell ya. If Syria and Iran get nukes the outcome will be far worse than WW2.

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:33 am

My opinion.....you can be a dick.

Niss, you're not exactly helping your position with personal attacks.

And again, you make some pretty wild unsubstantiated claims. I never "preached" any hatred towards Israel. This fight is all in your mind. If you need a target for your pent up rage, pick a worthwhile (and legitimate) target.

Dust Devil, your 10 second summary doesn't do the conflict justice. Furthermore, the conflict extended beyond Germany's borders so I don't understand how you relate what I wrote to WWII.

So what do you suggest? Should the western world invade Iran and Syria and install a new government?

niss · Post by **niss** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:44 am

They should have left the Zionists go it alone from the beginning. In my humble opinion, Israel shouldn't exist in its present form and certainly not under the circumstances that established it.

CID,

Israel shouldn't exist in its present form and certainly not under the circumstances that established it. What do you mean by that?

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:16 am

I'm not going to get involved in this one, however, I STILL wonder what the hell is CID. Where do you come from CID? You're a real enigma. Enough said.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:38 am

CID wrote: Dust Devil, your 10 second summary doesn't do the conflict justice. Furthermore, the conflict extended beyond Germany's borders so I don't understand how you relate what I wrote to WWII.

So what do you suggest? Should the western world invade Iran and Syria and install a new government?

So you feel we should wait till Syria or Iran nuke Isreal before doing anything?

I think we should first look at a diplomatic solution to the problem. unfortunatly thats not working so yes I think we should install new governments. Whether that means through military means or buy supporting another group I dont know. I'm not an expert on diplomacy and forign affairs. And it is also our right of self preservation to do so.

I and I think most people can relate the situation between Syria, Iran, and Isreal to WW2. If you can't then we can only thank god that you are not running the show because your obviously not the type to learn from past mistakes.

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:06 pm

I'm not an expert on diplomacy and forign affairs.

I agree. The good news is that we've found some common ground. Thats the first step in diplomacy.

So you feel we should wait till Syria or Iran nuke Isreal before doing anything?

Do you think we should wait until the US nukes Iran before we do anything? Should we have done something before they invaded Iraq?

In an earlier post, I mentioned that other countries can make it easy or hard for them to develop nukes. There are several sanction routes available. If the threat becomes real, nations have the right to defend themselves. That doesn't give them a right to invade and install their own government.

If they merely possess nukes, who are we to say they can't?

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:20 pm

CID wrote:
I'm not an expert on diplomacy and forign affairs.
I agree. The good news is that we've found some common ground. Thats the first step in diplomacy.

So you feel we should wait till Syria or Iran nuke Isreal before doing anything?
Do you think we should wait until the US nukes Iran before we do anything? Should we have done something before they invaded Iraq?

In an earlier post, I mentioned that other countries can make it easy or hard for them to develop nukes. There are several sanction routes available. If the threat becomes real, nations have the right to defend themselves. That doesn't give them a right to invade and install their own government.

If they merely possess nukes, who are we to say they can't?

Your a lost cause CID.

b767jetmec · Post by **b767jetmec** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:47 pm

Why can`t we all just get along???

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:57 pm

Hey CID...why can't I have a nuke? I just need a small one. Just enough to take out a medium sized city. Why should anyone care?

CID = Chamberlain

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:15 pm

Hey CID...why can't I have a nuke? I just need a small one. Just enough to take out a medium sized city. Why should anyone care?

Sorry dude. You're just not smart enough to pull it off so do your worst. By the way, if I were you, I'd be careful what I wrote. You might find yourself sans air-side pass one day.

CID = Chamberlain

In this context, appeasement means "The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace."

Do you really think that "not" invading a sovereign state is the same thing as "appeasment"? You're thinking of something else: Pre-emptive strike" The two are not the same.

Haza=sniffing too many 100LL fumes.

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:22 pm

LOL!

Seems that CID has forgotten the difference between real life and the internet. I hope you find your way out of the Tardboard box that you have created for yourself...

You are a simple and terrible Troll. I'd like to see you roll on a real board

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:25 pm

Oh...CID...I hope that you like mustard on your crow:

Intelligence Summit to Air 'Saddam's WMD Tapes'
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 15, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which according to the New York Sun has already authenticated the Saddam tapes, has reopened its investigation into the possible existence and location of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But some long-time liberal skeptics are showing no inclination to change their minds.

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, the Bush administration argued that the war was necessary as a preemptive strike because the Iraqi president had WMD and there was a danger that he would use them against the United States.

On Oct. 6, 2004, Charles Duelfer, advisor to the director of Central Intelligence on Iraqi weapons, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the invasion and that the weapons were likely destroyed following the first Persian Gulf War in 1991. On Jan. 12, 2005, the U.S. announced that is was stopping its search for the weapons in Iraq.

But a four-day Intelligence Summit, to be held Feb. 17-20 in Arlington, Va., is re-igniting the debate over the Iraqi WMD. The featured discussion, on Saturday, Feb. 18, is titled: "Saddam's WMD Tapes: 'The Smoking Gun' Evidence." The agenda for the event indicates that the person who will speak about the tapes is at this point "anonymous."

The New York Sun on Feb. 7 reported that Rep. Peter Hoekstra's (R-Mich.) committee had obtained the audio tapes from former federal prosecutor John Loftus. According to the report, Loftus received the tapes "from a former American military intelligence analyst." Loftus is president of the Intelligence Summit, which is a yearly gathering of experts in the fields of counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering.

Jodie Evans of the anti-war group Code Pink, however, told Cybercast News Service that she does not think the Saddam recordings will lead to any new information. The government, according to Evans, has "said a lot of things for a long time."

"There's a difference between what they've been saying and what's real, and when they find something real, I'll comment."

Danny Schechter, author and producer of the film version of "Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception," said he is "weary of these intercepts."

"Nobody denies that Saddam Hussein did have a WMD program. The United States knows that, we have the receipts, we supplied some of the initial technology," Schechter said.

But the weapons were destroyed in 1991, after the first Gulf War, he asserted.

"The question is not, did he have a program, but did that program represent a threat to the United States, to England, or to anywhere else," Schechter said. "I would be hesitant about raw intelligence that has not been analyzed, but that is being used in a partisan way by members of Congress," he told Cybercast News Service.

"Saddam Hussein is probably one of the most demonized world leaders, with Dick Cheney a close second," Schechter added.

Saddam is currently on trial in Iraq for ordering the killings of more than 140 Shiite Muslims in 1982. One of his former military advisors and top generals, Georges Sada, has written a book titled: "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein."

Sada, who is a national security adviser in Iraq's new government, alleges that in June 2002 Saddam transported weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and into Syria aboard several refitted commercial jets, under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission for flood victims.

A Feb. 2 Cybercast News Service article quoted Jamal Ware, the communications director for Rep. Hoekstra as saying that "the chairman has read General Sada's book ... He will meet with General Sada to hear first-hand him laying out the case that this transferal may have happened." The New York Sun article from Feb. 7 indicated that Sada has since met with Hoekstra to talk about the issue.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P ... 00602\NAT2 0060215a.html

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:39 pm

Man...it sure took them long enough to "make" the evidence.

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:39 pm

As long as it did to "make" the conspiricy theories and to hide the WMD.

What fucking side are you on?

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:55 pm

Haz,

You asked if it was ok for you to own a small nuke. You really don't need a nuke. I know it would be fun, but a simple rifle shot would be far more effective. I think we should ask springbok what they use to cull elephants in Africa, and if that would be applicable to CID. After the head size is roughly the same.

Again for those who missed it, the solution to all your problems is a simple culling of the herd. I'm going to start handing out tags tomorrow.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:13 pm

I am truly dissapointed in you guys.

Every time one of you respond to the creature who posts here as CID you are stroking his warped mind and wasting valuable Avcanada bandwith.

Ignore the c.cksuc.er.

Cat

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:19 pm

Cat.

Feeding the Trolls is a sport here in the Haza household

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:26 pm

Cat,

Nice to have you back. Every time I read one of your posts I feel immensely superior. You show me the line I don't want to cross.

Thanks for coming out.

What fucking side are you on?

I would respond, but I can't take you seriously. Your lack of knowledge and understanding makes you irrelevant in serious threads.

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:34 pm

Seriously CID...

Are you a champion of freedom?

Or are you just another wet blanket thrown over the face of Lady Liberty?

This is an either or question with no room for bullshit cop-outs.

Answer or fill the tub and strop the razor...

It's only a cartoon for f**k's sake

CID the Troll