CSNbbs
Can we expect some apoligies here soon? - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Can we expect some apoligies here soon? (/thread-222297.html)

Pages: 1 2

- just say no roy - 05-09-2003 09:27 PM

Can we expect some liberal apoligies here soon?Maybe this commentary will help you change your <a href='http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_5375.shtml' target='_blank'> minds.</a> :chair:

- Rebel - 05-09-2003 11:23 PM

just say no roy Wrote:Can we expect some liberal apoligies here soon?Maybe this commentary will help you change your <a href='http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_5375.shtml' target='_blank'> minds.</a> :chair:
Don't hold your breath.

- just say no roy - 05-10-2003 07:02 PM

RebelKev Wrote:
just say no roy Wrote:Can we expect some liberal apoligies here soon?Maybe this commentary will help you change your &nbsp;<a href='http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_5375.shtml' target='_blank'> minds.</a> :chair:
Don't hold your breath.
Oh im not trust me. :laugh:

- RochesterFalcon - 05-11-2003 10:28 PM

I have nothing to apologize for.

- Rebel - 05-11-2003 10:31 PM

RochesterFalcon Wrote:I have nothing to apologize for.
Yep, that's the typical liberal attitude. When faced with facts that counter their lies, they have nothing to say.

- just say no roy - 05-11-2003 10:33 PM

RochesterFalcon Wrote:I have nothing to apologize for.
Thats one excluded then :laugh:

- RochesterFalcon - 05-11-2003 10:42 PM

Quote:Yep, that's the typical liberal attitude. When faced with facts that counter their lies, they have nothing to say.

What facts? What lies?

I have nothing to apologize for. The outcome of the invasion of Iraq does not change in the least my reasons for opposing it.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 11 2003, 10:49 PM-->

- just say no roy - 05-11-2003 11:00 PM

RochesterFalcon Wrote:
Quote:Yep, that's the typical liberal attitude. When faced with facts that counter their lies, they have nothing to say.

What facts? What lies?

I have nothing to apologize for. The outcome of the invasion of Iraq does not change in the least my reasons for opposing it.
The point of the article was to expose the idiots of the left in hollywood and elswhere who predicted doom and gloom.Some of these sentements have been expressed here.I don't expect an apoligy from libs i know thats not in their nature. :(

- Herdon - 05-17-2003 09:00 AM

Yes, RF would rather Saddam still be in power murdering his people then GW getting all of the credit for liberating a repressed population. Liberals really are something else, the only way they can get anything accomplished is through activist judges writing law from the bench. They could never get their ideas passed through congress. Abortion,gun control, countering the death penalty, all done with judges not laws debated and passed through congress. Speaking of Liberals, what a bunch of cowards done in Texas, if Republicans had done that, all hell would have broken lose from the national media. I can't wait until the senate uses the procedural tactics to bring the two stalled circuit court judges up for a vote needing only a simple majority[ like the constitution states]. Lets see what the libs think of that.

- RochesterFalcon - 05-17-2003 09:45 AM

Quote:Yes, RF would rather Saddam still be in power murdering his people then GW getting all of the credit for liberating a repressed population.

I'd rather GW had some respect for international law and the principles of consensus -- not to mention the truth.

With each passing day, his original pretext for invading Iraq -- the presence of weapons of mass destruction -- looks more dubious. Hell, the unit in charge of the hunt, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, may be going home soon.

Where are the weapons?

- rickheel - 05-17-2003 11:10 AM

RF, GW had permission from the UN to invade. He (we) broke no laws, not one. As far as consensus, Germany and France, and Russia were the ones making the most noise. Knowing their financial ties to Iraq, their intentions were obvious.

- RochesterFalcon - 05-17-2003 11:48 AM

Quote:RF, GW had permission from the UN to invade.

We've been through this.

<a href='http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C16FF3F5A0C728DDDAA0894DB404482' target='_blank'>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAA0894DB404482</a>

- T-Monay820 - 05-17-2003 12:20 PM

RochesterFalcon Wrote:
Quote:RF, GW had permission from the UN to invade.

We've been through this.

<a href='http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C16FF3F5A0C728DDDAA0894DB404482' target='_blank'>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAA0894DB404482</a>
So whats the UN going to do about it? Invade us?

- Rebel - 05-17-2003 02:45 PM

Since when do we need the UN's permission to protect ourselves? Sorry, when we EVER get to that point, we are no longer a sovereign nation. I would rather not rely on the likes of Camaroon, France, Germany, etc. for my protection. The UN marginalized itself by voting in Cuba, Syria, and Libya on the Human Right's Commission and Iran and Iraq on the disarmament committee. Get out of your "Star Trek" utopian attitude. It's make believe. We can't come together in THIS country, what makes you think that all nations on Earth can come together? If you can't see the animosity and jeolousy shown to us by the world, then you are blind. They don't like is because we are fairly young, yet have the strongest military and are the richest country on Earth. This isn't by accident, it's by our economical model and social structure, which, has never been used in conjunction by anyone besides us.


...and don't EVER give me this bull**** about Liberal caring about human rights again. That's a BIG damn lie.



<!--EDIT|RebelKev|May 17 2003, 03:52 PM-->

- rickheel - 05-17-2003 05:05 PM

RochesterFalcon Wrote:
Quote:RF, GW had permission from the UN to invade.

We've been through this.

<a href='http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C16FF3F5A0C728DDDAA0894DB404482' target='_blank'>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAA0894DB404482</a>
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/</a>

- Herdon - 05-17-2003 06:03 PM

Reb, the libs would love to get to that point. They want to turn over our defense to the hands of the un. You know the line, lets play nice, no need to be a super power. They want people to like us, they care more about what the frenchies think about us then what the majority of the US public thinks. See they know better then us little people.

RF, give it a rest, you have fooled your self, any relations to Hal Raines. WMD's were one of the reasons we went in. If Clinton can go into somilia and bosinia to save the people from slaughter, why can't GW save the Iraqis. The Iraqis admitted to the UN that they had WMD's, they gassed their own people. They sent the un a bogus report stating that they destroyed them. Do you still beleive in Santa Clause, I hope yoou do because he is the only one who can save the Dems. :laugh:

- RochesterFalcon - 05-17-2003 06:20 PM

Quote:Since when do we need the UN's permission to protect ourselves?

America doesn't need the UN's permission to protect itself. The UN charter, which America signed, explicitly gives nations to right to defend themselves in case of an attack. Most interpret the charter to also give nations the right to defend themselves from an imminent threat of attack.

This is self-defense. And people like you pervert its meaning.

If someone comes into your home, aims a gun at you and says: "I'm going to kill you," you can shoot him dead and then claim self-defense.

But if you were to stride into your neighbors home and shoot him dead on the pretext that:

-- he beats his kids
-- maybe he has a gun
-- you sort of heard one of his 12 sons was hanging out with gangsters

you'd be going to prison, whether or not your neighbors gun ever turned up.

Why? That's not self-defense. That's vigilante justice.

And that's what America's war on Iraq was. International vigilante justice.

Sure, we all get a certain satisfaction out of seeing Saddam fall. Back in 1865, the good people in and around Waterville, N.Y. were thrilled after they burned down the home of the notorious Loomis Gang and hung a couple members of that family.

But they broke the law. And so has America.

And we are already seeing the repercussions.

- RochesterFalcon - 05-17-2003 06:21 PM

rickheel Wrote:
RochesterFalcon Wrote:
Quote:RF, GW had permission from the UN to invade.

We've been through this.

<a href='http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C16FF3F5A0C728DDDAA0894DB404482' target='_blank'>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAA0894DB404482</a>
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/</a>
So are you calling Kofi Annan a liar?

- rickheel - 05-18-2003 10:21 AM

The first resolution gave us all the permission we needed. The second attempt at a resolution was just an attempt to get everyone on board.

- RochesterFalcon - 05-18-2003 11:43 AM

Quote:The first resolution gave us all the permission we needed.

How so?