A) But weren’t refering [sic] to who was “giving the orders.” As well, Bush and Cheney aren’t actually the ones occupying Iraq, just giving the orders to go in. “Imperialist Occupiers” is right there in your statement, and the troops are the ones who occupy.

I can’t believe what I just read.

You actually went where I thought even you weren’t stupid enough to go. “Bush and Cheney aren’t actually the ones occupying Iraq”? This is so mind-bendingly stupid I’m honestly at a loss on how to set you straight.

Perhaps it would be simplest to let you set yourself straight:

The [sic] don’t come with an Imperialist or Socialist agenda.

That’s right. They’re just trying to do their best to serve their country. The agenda comes from their leaders (Bush and Cheney, remember?). It is the motives of the leaders that determines whether an occupying force is imperialist in nature, not the motives of the foot soldiers.

Again, you manage to completely contradict yourself within the space of a single paragraph. Do you practice thinking this sloppily?

Nice try to put words in my mouth. As I’ve stated, If I didn’t literally state it, it’s not my view.

And as I’ve stated before, your attempts to wriggle out of your past statements will not be successful. I don’t know if your inability to express yourself clearly is inadvertent or intentional, and I don’t really care. If you don’t stand behind your earlier statements, you can retract them, but don’t try to pretend they never happened.

Don’t get me wrong, even when I was in H.S. when this war began, I knew it was a bad idea going in.

Actually, that explains a lot. The deplorable state of our public schooling system is scandalous.

Finally, I would appreciate it if you would tone down the insults, since I am willing to do the same.

Really? After all the gratuitous schoolyard insults you’ve lobbed at me (not to mention many of my friends here), suddenly you wish me to “tone down the insults”?

I don’t think so.

I’ll continue posting as I always have. I didn’t modify my posting style to throw extra insults your way, and I’m certainly not going to
modify it now to treat you with kid gloves, simply because you realize you can’t insult me into silence, and ask me to “tone down the insults” in a childish and transparent attempt to claim the moral high ground.

Just know that I’ve levied no insults against you that you didn’t richly deserve. I’m not as indiscriminate as you.

A) But weren’t refering to who was “giving the orders.” As well, Bush and Cheney aren’t actually the ones occupying Iraq, just giving the orders to go in. “Imperialist Occupiers” is right there in your statement, and the troops are the ones who occupy. The don’t come with an Imperialist or Socialist agenda. I’m simply quoting you, not claiming that “liberals hate the troops.” Patriotism is neither Conservative nor Liberal.

Nice try to put words in my mouth. As I’ve stated, If I didn’t literally state it, it’s not my view. Nobody, including me, believes that troops could be deployed without the OK of the President and consent of the Senate. There was even negative reports from the Republican-hated UN Weapons Inspectors, who voiced their concerns. Don’t get me wrong, even when I was in H.S. when this war began, I knew it was a bad idea going in.

Finally, I would appreciate it if you would tone down the insults, since I am willing to do the same. I, for one, used to be completely democratic until last year, when the atrocities of the immigration debate started. Oddly enough, these mexican-flag waving protests turned me to the right and make me explore conservative ideals. Conservatism can be a good thing, it’s just not by the book these days. I do thank you regardless for your grammar pointers, because I am a tense writer.

You insulted the troops and this country. Your words are right there, don’t attack me for highlighting them.

Still trying to sell the “liberals hate our troops” canard, huh, Compy? It’s been debunked innumerable times, and yet, you still try your best, like an aging whore desperately trying to entice johns with drooping breasts and flabby thighs.

You’re officially past “tiresome” now…you’re squarely in “pathetic” territory.

“Imperialist Occupiers” Hey, you said it man. That’s an insult to the troops. Who are the occupiers? American forces.

And who’s giving the orders to those troops, hmm?

Here’s what makes you “liberals hate the troops” trolls so ridiculous. By condemning me for speaking out against the occupation, on the grounds that it “insults the troops”, you implicitly condemn the one on whose orders those troops continue their occupation – your beloved Chimpy. Unless, of course, you want to make the argument that the troops are occupying without orders (silly, I know, but I wouldn’t put it past you at this point…).

Who bears the responsibility for our policies towards Iraq? Where does the buck stop, Compy?

Yet you believe you have a license to “fault” everyone else for “flaws in logic”.

Not everyone…just the ones whose logic is flawed (like you).

Go look for a more proper way to disagree with someone.

I’d like to, but it looks like you have the market cornered in ranting idiocy.

You’re not intelligent. I’ve been trying to let you in on that for your own benefit.

Intelligent enough to hand you your ass (again). Not that that’s saying much…

You insulted the troops and this country. Your words are right there, don’t attack me for highlighting them.

BackTrack 101. You still haven’t passed.

“Imperialist Occupiers” Hey, you said it man. That’s an insult to the troops. Who are the occupiers? American forces. Yet you believe you have a license to “fault” everyone else for “flaws in logic”. Go look for a more proper way to disagree with someone.

You’re not intelligent. I’ve been trying to let you in on that for your own benefit.

this is really bad, coming generation of Iraq which holds the future of this country seems to be alomost hopeless . sigh !!

who is reposible for this ?

Subject: Strike at Pipelines

The strike started at 6AM, Monday 04-06-2007.

The strike will be in two stages:

The First Stage

- Closure of the 14 inch of petroleum products gas, petrol and paraffin

- Closure of 14 inch liquefied gas (reverse-pumping pipeline) supplying
Nassiriya, Diwaniya, Hilla [these major cities south of Baghdad-SR] and
Baghdad

- The port [of Basra-SR] has stopped receiving imported petrol. No
export of crude oil (RCR) or products of the refinery.

- Loading: no loading of transporters of petroleum products to the
governorates, except Basra, Amara and Nassiriya cities.

The Second Stage

1. Closure of the 48 inch pipeline delivering gas from North Rumaila to
Khor Al-Zubair, feeding all electricity plants in Basra and all
petrochemical, fertiliser and steel plants, and Southern Petroleum and
Southern Gas [companies-SR].

2. Closure of the 32 inch pipeline feeding al-Hartha and al-Najeebiya.

3. Closure of the 48 inch pipeline, starting from GTU and heading for
Baghdad, Najaf and governorates.”

End of statement.

Here’s some paper towels, Jake. Wipe off the stool you’re standing on.

Comment by Jake

That’s right, the Iraqi Navy was at the mouth of the Mississippi ready to take control of the US. And don’t forget the Iraqi Air Force getting ready to fly over and drop the WMDs as soon as they can put big enough fuel tanks on their fighter jets to get here and they actually acquire WMDs.

Comment by david

Jake just repeats the lies he hears from O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck and the other neocon liars.

They cannot actually talk about this topic because they have no way to defend Chimpy.

Iraq IS going through a “brain drain”. The best and brightest are leaving if they can. That’s because professionals and intellectuals are being targeted by insurgents (along with gays).

Last week, a well-known Iraqi professor was gunned down in the street, and it isn’t the first time.

Comment by Jake — June 5, 2007 @ 10:35 am

That’s true — we would have been waiting a long time. Like forever.

Comment by Jake

For the record, Iraq is not Japan and this is not WWII. Only an idiot keeps fighting the last war.

The only legitimate comparison is Iraq to Vietnam, and even it isn’t a total fit.

We screwed up Vietnam. We never should have gone in there.

We screwed up Iraq. We never should have gone in there.

Don’t confuse our disdain for the White House with our brave men and women on the ground.

Judging from your past rebuttals, there’s no way it can be a third-world hell hole unless it’s a) It’s Imperialist, and b) It’s occupied by Americans. If it’s a leftist country, then there’s automatically no violence, poverty, violation of human rights and so forth, right?

Congrats, Compy. That made no sense at all.

In addition, thank you for your thinly-veiled (leaning more toward obvious) insults towards our troops. Though this noble effort isn’t going according to plans, I’m sure the troops don’t see merit in being labeled as “imperialist occupiers.” Don’t confuse your disdain for the White House with our brave men and women on the ground.

And then we go from a completely nonsensical statement to the “liberals hate our troops” canard. How tiresome.

Compy, you’re going to have to bring more to the table if you want to debate me.

“With Iraq continuing to lose its best and brightest in this fashion, it is assured that the country will remain a third-world hellhole, which is good news for the imperialist occupiers (us).”

Judging from your past rebuttals, there’s no way it can be a third-world hell hole unless it’s a) It’s Imperialist, and b) It’s occupied by Americans. If it’s a leftist country, then there’s automatically no violence, poverty, violation of human rights and so forth, right?

In addition, thank you for your thinly-veiled (leaning more toward obvious) insults towards our troops. Though this noble effort isn’t going according to plans, I’m sure the troops don’t see merit in being labeled as “imperialist occupiers.” Don’t confuse your disdain for the White House with our brave men and women on the ground.