O'Reilly upsets Joy Behar and Whoopi

[BeecherVol]

How stupid what sounds? Being the world police? Yes, I understand. So does every other civilized nation on earth, except this one.

Do you understand how stupid you sound for not being able to comprehend why someone might support the Afghanistan war, and not the Iraq war?

Makes one wonder why so many, from so many countries want to migrate here.

 

[kptvol]

You said Christians that supported the war in Iraq were hypocrites because innocent civilians were killed. You then said the murder of millions of innocent civilians was not a reason to intervene.

Yes, what are you having trouble with?

So Christians shouldn't feel good that a war will be potentially saving a great many lives? Or they should only support a war if it can be justified as revenge for a sin against them?

Are you understanding how stupid that sounds?

Maybe read it a couple of times. Take a time out. Sit down in a quiet room and really think about it for a couple of hours. If you survive, post a response.

 

[VolBurgers]

Wow. You are incredibly stupid. Not one word of that had anything to do with what I said.

I mean seriously, what the hell is that last sentence?

You seem to think killing iraqi civilians because saddam hussein is killing iraqi civilians is a good thing.

You're also basing your pointless argument on the hope that if USA continues to spend money in Iraq until the end of time, they wont be overrun by terrorist organizations, and saddam 2.0. But fight on brosef.

 

[BeecherVol]

You seem to think killing iraqi civilians because saddam hussein is killing iraqi civilians is a good thing.

You're also basing your pointless argument on the hope that if USA continues to spend money in Iraq until the end of time, they wont be overrun by terrorist organizations, and saddam 2.0. But fight on brosef.

You have posted somethings worth discussion. This is not one of them.

For what you are stating to be worth a point, you would have to concede fault by our military operations/troops which you have not. Or that we went in with a purpose to kill civilians.

 

[kptvol]

You seem to think killing iraqi civilians because saddam hussein is killing iraqi civilians is a good thing.

You're also basing your pointless argument on the hope that if USA continues to spend money in Iraq until the end of time, they wont be overrun by terrorist organizations, and saddam 2.0. But fight on brosef.

Thanks. I need a lesson in pointless arguments from the guy trying to use the war in Iraq to prove a point about Bill O'Reilly on The View.

 

[VolBurgers]

Thanks. I need a lesson in pointless arguments from the guy trying to use the war in Iraq to prove a point about Bill O'Reilly on The View.

You need lessons in a lot of things. I would start with 6th grade reading comprehension and work your way up to foreign policy 101.

 

[kptvol]

You need lessons in a lot of things. I would start with 6th grade reading comprehension and work your way up to foreign policy 101.

Cool retort. It would come across a little better if your last five posts haven't been completely idiotic due to being insanely off point.

 

[VolBurgers]

Cool retort. It would come across a little better if your last five posts haven't been completely idiotic due to being insanely off point.

I responded to all of your mindless babble with:

You're also basing your pointless argument on the hope that if USA continues to spend money in Iraq until the end of time, they wont be overrun by terrorist organizations, and saddam 2.0. But fight on brosef.

You have yet to respond. Your MO seems to be changing the subject, so I'm not surprised.

 

[kptvol]

I responded to all of your mindless babble with:

You're also basing your pointless argument on the hope that if USA continues to spend money in Iraq until the end of time, they wont be overrun by terrorist organizations, and saddam 2.0. But fight on brosef.

You have yet to respond. Your MO seems to be changing the subject, so I'm not surprised.

Yeah, you've really mastered this reading comprehension stuff. I even summarized the discussion for you and gave you instructions for formulating a response. If you can't post a counterpoint that could be considered even close to an answer to my question, that's your own fault.

 

[VolBurgers]

Yeah, you've really mastered this reading comprehension stuff. I laid it all out for you twice now. If you can't post a response that could be considered even close to an answer to my question, that's your own fault.

You haven't laid anything out besides unimportant one liners. You haven't actually posted an original thought in this thread, yet.

Please quit derailing the discussion.

 

[kptvol]

You haven't laid anything out besides unimportant one liners. You haven't actually posted an original thought in this thread, yet.

Please quit derailing the discussion.

I guess I'm the guy that devolved the thread into a GWB conspiracy discussion.

See post #227. I can't put it any more plainly than that. If you fail yet again to provide a response that addresses the appropriate topic... Well, actually my opinion of you could not drop any lower.

 

[VolBurgers]

I guess I'm the guy that devolved the thread into a GWB conspiracy discussion.

See post #227. I can't put it any more plainly than that. If you fail yet again to provide a response that addresses the appropriate topic... Well, actually my opinion of you could not drop any lower.

Dude you are arguing some ridiculous hypothetical straw man.

1) The US did not invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqis
2) Nearly 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed(counting only recorded deaths) as a result of the US invasion, and 125,00+ more were wounded.
3) It is absurd to think Iraq is going to be in a better position after US leaves (if we ever do) than they were before we got there.

Please don't respond to me again if you can't post anything of substance.

 

[tvolsfan]

Yes there is.

There is a reason America is the only nation that feels like we have to be the world police, the reason is because it's a dumbass way of thinking.

Who feels like we have to be world police?

 

[kptvol]

Dude you are arguing some ridiculous hypothetical straw man.

I didn't realize taking two of your arguments and combining them to make you look like the imbecile you are was a straw man tactic.

Once again, you've failed to address the issue. As far as the intelligence of VN posters, you're ranked lower than cats that walk across keyboards.

 

[MontereyVol]

Dude you are arguing some ridiculous hypothetical straw man.

1) The US did not invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqis
2) Nearly 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed(counting only recorded deaths) as a result of the US invasion, and 125,00+ more were wounded.
3) It is absurd to think Iraq is going to be in a better position after US leaves (if we ever do) than they were before we got there.

Please don't respond to me again if you can't post anything of substance.

1) Actually that was one of the key strategy points before the war started. One of the goals was to have Iraq become a democracy as an example to the rest of the ME.
2) You got a link for that? Do you realize who is killing the overwhelming majority of the innocent civilians in Iraq? Are you aware of the fact that every time we kill an innocent civilian it is broadcast worldwide and debated.
3) Thanks for giving an opinion on a subject after the fact. You make yourself look ignorant. That's like me saying after the UT-LSU game that Dooley should have counted the players on the field before letting them get the play off.

When you claim bible thumping Christians supported the attack do you not consider the support of all the other cross sections of our society as important? I seem to recall the Muslim council of America in full support of the war. The one exception was the military did not think it was a wise choice.

I am at a loss at to what you are arguing; WMD's? Al-Quada links? America as the world police? American idiocy? just want to insult people?

 

[rjd970]

Volburgers, all this sillines about killing civilians is nonsense. Fact of the matter is we are not specifically targeting civilians like Saddam or Bin Laden are. War is war, collateral damage happens, the US is the one country in the world that takes extreme measures to limit this.

Think about this. What if there were a perfect weapon....with this weapon, you can target any person or persons from any distance, with 100% chance of killing them, with 0% chance of collateral damage. As much as you hate Bush (some of which is understandable) you cannot possibly say he would deploy such a weapon in the same manner as a Bin Laden, or Saddam, or Kim Jong Il, etc. would. Civilians dying is unfortunate...but you argument only holds water if we are talking about equal moral playing fields. And I'm sorry, we absolutely are not.

 

[KB5252]

Do any of you believe there were no weapons of mass destruction?

Wouldn't the answer to the question about Iraq being better off today than under Hussein vary widely depending on the ethnic or religious group being asked?

Did the US with cooperation from the international community contribute to the rise of Iranian power and influence with the removal of Saddam and if so do you believe it was a mistake given hindsight?

I would particularly like to hear volburger and monterey answers to these questions.

 

[MontereyVol]

Do any of you believe there were no weapons of mass destruction?

Yes there were WMD's, I was trying to let Volburger discover for himself and form his own opinion on the Nuclear weapons. As to Biological, thats been proven by Saddam himself when he used them against the Iranians and Kurds.

Wouldn't the answer to the question about Iraq being better off today than under Hussein vary widely depending on the ethnic or religious group being asked?

Yes, however the administration responsible refused to see the most likely outcome.

Did the US with cooperation from the international community contribute to the rise of Iranian power and influence with the removal of Saddam and if so do you believe it was a mistake given hindsight?

Yes we have enabled the Iranians, although you can look at it from another angle. We sped up the process and in all likelihood may have prevented Iran from dropping a nuke on Iraq. But yes, I believe the war was a mistake.

I would particularly like to hear volburger and monterey answers to these questions.

 

[KB5252]

Yes there were WMD's, I was trying to let Volburger discover for himself and form his own opinion on the Nuclear weapons. As to Biological, thats been proven by Saddam himself when he used them against the Iranians and Kurds.



Yes, however the administration responsible refused to see the most likely outcome.

I assume you mean Syria? Are there any articles or reading you can suggest. Do you believe Turkey benefited as well. Their recent posture has been concerning to me.

Edit: I meant do you believe Hussein had bio weapons at the start of the gulf war? If so do you believe they were destroyed or smuggled? It seems to me most likely they were destroyed if they existed at that time.
Yes we have enabled the Iranians, although you can look at it from another angle. We sped up the process and in all likelihood may have prevented Iran from dropping a nuke on Iraq. But yes, I believe the war was a mistake.

See bold above.

As far as Iran is concerned it seems you believe we traded one problem for another. The main difference now being that it will be much easier to figure out who's siding with who.

 

[MontereyVol]

I assume you mean Syria? Are there any articles or reading you can suggest. Do you believe Turkey benefited as well. Their recent posture has been concerning to me.

Edit: I meant do you believe Hussein had bio weapons at the start of the gulf war? If so do you believe they were destroyed or smuggled? It seems to me most likely they were destroyed if they existed at that time.

See bold above.

As far as Iran is concerned it seems you believe we traded one problem for another. The main difference now being that it will be much easier to figure out who's siding with who.

The bombing of the Syrian nuclear facility should have sent a signal to some enterprising journalist. The key elements they needed, with the help of NK, showed people they had immediate help from another source and that source was tracked down. Within the next few weeks plenty of this may come to light. (Julian Assange)

Turkey wants to be a world voice and they are worried Iran will surpass them. They did not want the second gulf war to happen for this reason.

Saddam destroyed what BW he could and buried more. Some of it (we don't know how much) left the country.

 

[TennTradition]

The bombing of the Syrian nuclear facility should have sent a signal to some enterprising journalist. The key elements they needed, with the help of NK, showed people they had immediate help from another source and that source was tracked down. Within the next few weeks plenty of this may come to light. (Julian Assange)

Turkey wants to be a world voice and they are worried Iran will surpass them. They did not want the second gulf war to happen for this reason.

Saddam destroyed what BW he could and buried more. Some of it (we don't know how much) left the country.

I find it a little odd that journalists bent over backwards to not buy the Hezbollah arms argument (as for what was at the site), and ran down the North Korean connection (along with confirming that there were North Koreans in the country). Do you think there were political reasons for not wanting to answer the Iraqi question (i.e., they didn't want to provide any evidence that might justify the war).

 

[MontereyVol]

I find it a little odd that journalists bent over backwards to not buy the Hezbollah arms argument (as for what was at the site), and ran down the North Korean connection (along with confirming that there were North Koreans in the country). Do you think there were political reasons for not wanting to answer the Iraqi question (i.e., they didn't want to provide any evidence that might justify the war).

Fear of something larger.

The NK connection was followed from the source and not by media members, the Iraq connection was followed in reverse.

As to the ME, most journalist would be like Volburger or GSVol they already think they know the answer before they start looking. You aren't getting the truth of any story over there.

 

[BeecherVol]

Do any of you believe there were no weapons of mass destruction? It was documented that he killed his own people with them, so I would say he had possession

Wouldn't the answer to the question about Iraq being better off today than under Hussein vary widely depending on the ethnic or religious group being asked?It could, but only if you desire force to be used in deciding practices

Did the US with cooperation from the international community contribute to the rise of Iranian power and influence with the removal of Saddam and if so do you believe it was a mistake given hindsight?They may be linked to an extent, but Iran's leadership has a goal that they have stated to the world. I think that is where Iraq is irrelevant to their current situation.

I would particularly like to hear volburger and monterey answers to these questions.Why?, when you could get a local to tell you

:hi:

 

[KB5252]

Even though it was diminished somewhat Hussein still posed a threat to Iran, and would have remained so had Hussein not miscalculated and invaded Kuwait. Instead of paying a debt to Kuwait Hussein thought he would kill two birds with one stone, have a debt erased, fund future military campaigns with oil money. Had that never happened Iran might still be fighting a costly war with Iraq which would leave fewer resources for nuclear ambitions.

 

[BeecherVol]

Even though it was diminished somewhat Hussein still posed a threat to Iran, and would have remained so had Hussein not miscalculated and invaded Kuwait. Instead of paying a debt to Kuwait Hussein thought he would kill two birds with one stone, have a debt erased, fund future military campaigns with oil money. Had that never happened Iran might still be fighting a costly war with Iraq which would leave fewer resources for nuclear ambitions.

That's possible. IMO, Iran's intentions would still be the same, only making time the issue on when.