mr mahs Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by frenchbread i'm sorry but that's really retarded...how wrong is that?...lollisten chris, the best way for france to get that money back is to take saddam down, have his assets seized and get reimbursed...either through reconstruction or from saddam's assets...always looking out for themselves????...are you insane?...let's talk about the states here for a second...the states are not ALWAYS looking out for themselves?...i don't even know what to begin with...you better believe it man...if any country is the king of shady deals, it's our good old u.s. of a.... You are crazy!!! How come you can defend a foreign country which supplies the Iraqis with all of it's banned products,sticks up for a dictator because he owes the french money but denounces the U.S.A. because we are shady where is your logic??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by mr mahs The answer to your post is in his bio... He was in college when they were drafting 18 year olds to vietnam... I will not say anything else because I don't beleive your claim and you are so convinced that I feel U would kill over it .. The places you are deriving these so called facts are from independent loons looking to blame america FIRST... Vietnam was a bad situation for everyone but why harp on it? How come you can't answer how critcizing the govt right now helps... yea...and i posted an answer to your fantasy biography post...go have a look...it's so sad that i have to spell it out for you...i mean seriously...you don't know what the point of keeping the gov't in check is?...you think patriotism means following the gov't...whatever they say..."if they say god bless america" in there it's gotta be right..that's not patriotism...that's stupidity...the point of keeping the gov't in check, and in this case critize them and expose their lies is to show that they do lie, and that their motives are not what they say they are...don't you know you always need to keep an eye on your gov't...especially when the president illegally enters the white house... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by frenchbread it's funny how none of your pro-war people will recognize bush's history (all the facts stated before)...but what's funnier, is that you can't deny it, because the facts are there and they are irrefutable...you can't admit it because that would make that whole sand castle crumble down down to the ground...yet you can't deny it... Show me who put those facts together and I show you a liberal wanna be revolutionary. Your facts are not irrefutable because they stir up no interest in me or the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by mr mahs You are crazy!!! How come you can defend a foreign country which supplies the Iraqis with all of it's banned products,sticks up for a dictator because he owes the french money but denounces the U.S.A. because we are shady where is your logic??? please man...donald rumsfeld, colin powell, etc..supplied:hussein, bin laden and so many morewith either money, weapons or training...so don't even try...france doesn't even have the gnp to engage in anything on the scale of u.s. deals...and in any case, my point here is not to tell you that the french gov't is perfect...all gov't are corrupted and compromised to some extent...but there are times where they must be stopped...and this is one of them...and what do you think man...if chirac had been for the war, he would have been faced with the same unanimous dissent and opposition as the spanish gov't after they tried to pledge help to the u.s....and why won't you admit that bush was AWOL?...the facts are there...and in your bio thread too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by mr mahs Show me who put those facts together and I show you a liberal wanna be revolutionary. Your facts are not irrefutable because they stir up no interest in me or the public. how bad is this...do you realize what you are saying?...it doesn't matter who put the evidence together...who did the work to come out with the truth...what matters is where this facts come from (their authenticity):they are military records...and do you even know what the word irrefutable means????...because they don't stir up interest in the public doesn't me they aren't irrefutable...and that's yet another point...you're basically saying: "it might be true, but who cares since the public doesn't"...do you realize how wrong that is?...this might be the truth, but since nobody knows about it, as long as we keep it down, nobody knows so nobody cares...that's scary... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible: Peope have brought this argument up before and it has created nothing except from people who think it's ALL a conspiracy..People don't question because they don't beleive, that should prove how far fetched it sounds.. To convince the country he dodged would have been the ammunition for the democratic party to win by a land slide when he ran for pres but we all know the outcome of that election.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by mr mahs Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible: Peope have brought this argument up before and it has created nothing except from people who think it's ALL a conspiracy..People don't question because they don't beleive, that should prove how far fetched it sounds.. To convince the country he dodged would have been the ammunition for the democratic party to win by a land slide when he ran for pres but we all know the outcome of that election.. what a joke...saddly, yes we do: gore got 539,898 more votes than bush yet you think that this is something to smile about in the land of "democracy"...and i'm happy i got you to look up a dictionary, now you understand why that sentence doesn't make any sense:"Your facts are not irrefutable because they stir up no interest in me or the public."lol... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Iam arguing with you and answering phomne calls in a center at the same time.. If we are arguing what sounds coherent..-450K soldiers are severly disabled from first gulf war def not a example..show the proof of this jack...I will never admit he dodged the draft because he didn't and if he did what does that solve french? why bitch about something you can't change.. From what you are saying nothing positive will come out of this war because you think Bush dodged Vietnam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pookie23 Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by frenchbread what a joke...saddly, yes we do: gore got 539,898 more votes than bush yet you think that this is something to smile about in the land of "democracy"...and i'm happy i got you to look up a dictionary, now you understand why that sentence doesn't make any sense:"Your facts are not irrefutable because they stir up no interest in me or the public."lol... God help us if Gore was president. I would've moved out of the country. I can just see him now after 9/11:"Let's lob 2 missles over Afghanistan...that'll teach em' not to bomb us!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by mr mahs Iam arguing with you and answering phomne calls in a center at the same time.. If we are arguing what sounds coherent..-450K soldiers are severly disabled from first gulf war def not a example..show the proof of this jack...I will never admit he dodged the draft because he didn't and if he did what does that solve french? why bitch about something you can't change.. From what you are saying nothing positive will come out of this war because you think Bush dodged Vietnam. you're right, i can't give you "official" proof of the number of disabled and sick from the gilf war...and you know why?...because the gov't won't release an official number...they only release an official number of casualties...yea i wonder why...but fine...i'll concede, it's not 450,000 disabled...fine...so let's say it's 4000...ok?you like that better?...how does that change the fact that bush is allowing the use of depleated uranium when they perfectly know that it will fuck up the troops?...how is that patriotic?...please answer...and you will never admit that he dodged...even when presented with official u.s. gov't proof?...well man that again prooves my point...that's crazy...man how dense are you?...i'm not bitching about the fact that he dodged...i'm stating that it is wrong for him to send troops to get killed when he dodged...especially when it is not necessary and the casualties could be shared if we had gone in with the u.n....but we didn't go with the u.n....and why is that?...because "we're going regardless whether you approve or not" was the extent of the great g.w.bush's diplomacy...and why is that?...because just like they said...they wanted to go no matter what...it is immoral for him to send young kids to get killed when he weasled his way out...even more wrong when it's to fulfill multi-nationals' agenda...even more wrong when he shows no respect to the troops: exposes them to depleated uranium...cuts the veteran's funding...sure he makes all these "patriotic" speeches..."support our troops"...talk is cheap...actions speak louder than words...you want to support our troops?...make sure they don't fight alone...don't expose them to depleated uranium...don't cut their veteran's funding...don't use them to make money...BRING THEM HOME Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by spragga25 God help us if Gore was president. I would've moved out of the country. I can just see him now after 9/11:"Let's lob 2 missles over Afghanistan...that'll teach em' not to bomb us!" however dumb gore is doesn't justify bush illegally becoming president of our country...that's not what i stand for...and that's not what this country stands for...this country is a democracy, and as such, its leader must be elected by the people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by mr mahs I will never admit he dodged the draft because he didn't and if he did what does that solve french? man do you realize how dumb that sounds????...you're saying: "i will never admit the truth, even if you have undeniable proof"...talk about brainwashed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pookie23 Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by frenchbread however dumb gore is doesn't justify bush illegally becoming president of our country...that's not what i stand for...and that's not what this country stands for...this country is a democracy, and as such, its leader must be elected by the people... Actually, i thought the US was a REPUBLIC, hence the electorial system? Checks and balances my friend...If Gore was in this position, would he do a better job? I highly doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by spragga25 God help us if Gore was president. I would've moved out of the country. I can just see him now after 9/11:"Let's lob 2 missles over Afghanistan...that'll teach em' not to bomb us!" lolanyway...you think that was a dumb thing to say, do you?...how is that different from what bush did and is still doing (see shock and awe)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by spragga25 Actually, i thought the US was a REPUBLIC, hence the electorial system? Checks and balances my friend... yea and a republic is still supposed to have its leader elected by the people...Originally posted by spragga25 If Gore was in this position, would he do a better job? I highly doubt it. oh...so that justifies illegality...mhmmm...very interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by frenchbread you're right, i can't give you "official" proof of the number of disabled and sick from the gilf war...and you know why?...because the gov't won't release an official number...they only release an official number of casualties...yea i wonder why...but fine...i'll concede, it's not 450,000 disabled...fine...so let's say it's 4000...ok?you like that better?...how does that change the fact that bush is allowing the use of depleated uranium when they perfectly know that it will fuck up the troops?...how is that patriotic?...please answer...and you will never admit that he dodged...even when presented with official u.s. gov't proof?...well man that again prooves my point...that's crazy...man how dense are you?...i'm not bitching about the fact that he dodged...i'm stating that it is wrong for him to send troops to get killed when he dodged...especially when it is not necessary and the casualties could be shared if we had gone in with the u.n....but we didn't go with the u.n....and why is that?...because "we're going regardless whether you approve or not" was the extent of the great g.w.bush's diplomacy...and why is that?...because just like they said...they wanted to go no matter what...it is immoral for him to send young kids to get killed when he weasled his way out...even more wrong when it's to fulfill multi-nationals' agenda...even more wrong when he shows no respect to the troops: exposes them to depleated uranium...cuts the veteran's funding...sure he makes all these "patriotic" speeches..."support our troops"...talk is cheap...actions speak louder than words...you want to support our troops?...make sure they don't fight alone...don't expose them to depleated uranium...don't cut their veteran's funding...don't use them to make money...BRING THEM HOME I will not admit because I don't beleive the proof you put infront of me.. Listen you can preach that the pres is this bad and aweful person but I don't care.. it's for the good of the country that I care about and up until now I agree he is doing the right thing for the country!!!The exageration of the samount of people sick proves that the assumption all the weapons used in 91 contained the contrversial spent uraniumShow me the proof that we are using depleted uranium in the ordinance today not in 1991... If the armed forces train with live ammunition here it the states how come everyone doesn't come back from boot camp sick??? I will tell you one thing sadam was ready to spray our guys with with some nasty shit but where is the outcry aginst that??? They found weapons today in bahgdad..Did you beleive he had WMD before we went in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pookie23 Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by frenchbread yea and a republic is still supposed to have its leader elected by the people...oh...so that justifies illegality...mhmmm...very interesting... Dude...how is it illegal? Bush had more electorial votes in the one state that counts - FL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by frenchbread it is immoral for him to send young kids to get killed when he weasled his way out...even more wrong when it's to fulfill multi-nationals' agenda...even more wrong when he shows no respect to the troops: exposes them to depleated uranium...cuts the veteran's funding...sure he makes all these "patriotic" speeches..."support our troops"...talk is cheap...actions speak louder than words...you want to support our troops?...make sure they don't fight alone...don't expose them to depleated uranium...don't cut their veteran's funding...don't use them to make money...BRING THEM HOME just so you don't mention this goddamn stupidity about depleted uranium anymore...the A-10's GAU8/A cannon fires these "depleted uranium" shells you so frantically address. There isn't a connection between this or ANY health risk associated with our soldiers.the uranium oxide that is associated with the danger of uranium, does NOT exist around depleted uranium. Uranium Oxide is a highly toxic and corrosive gas, most often seen in scientific labs and centrifuges, NOT in a weapons stockpile.These shells are NOT radioactive, nor are do they pose a health hazard any greater than any other cannon shell. they DO kill tanks nice and quickly, though.as for the rest, our military is trained to fight alone. we don't need anyone to hold our hands.and as with most of your comments, the rest is speculation and opinon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying_high Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by mr mahs I will tell you one thing sadam was ready to spray our guys with with some nasty shit but where is the outcry aginst that??? They found weapons today in bahgdad.. And they also found out that those were pesticides today... http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155728 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by flying_high And they also found out that those were pesticides today... http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155728 and that too, is speculation...http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QJZ31C12TWSKKCRBAEZSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=2523443Major Michael Hamlet of the U.S. 101st Airborne Division told Reuters that initial investigations of 14 barrels found at a military training camp on Sunday revealed levels of nerve agents sarin and tabun and the blister agent lewisite."This could be either some kind of pesticide," Freakly told CNN. "On the other hand it could be a chemical agent -- not weaponized, a liquid agent that is in drums." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by cintron These shells are NOT radioactive, nor are do they pose a health hazard any greater than any other cannon shell. wtf are you talking about...of course they are radioactive...it's d.u.!....it is radioactive...difference with regular uranium is that half life is much longer (something like billion year)...so don't tell me about stupidity...d.u. isn't radioactive seriously...damn...oh and by the way, a lot of the gulf war veterans that were exposed to it have traces of it in their urine to this day...not radioactive...seriously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by cintron as for the rest, our military is trained to fight alone. we don't need anyone to hold our hands. do you have anybody oversea's?...it's not about holding hand...it's about spreading the casualties over several countries (including the french) so that we are not the only one to pay the price...why don't you go btw...go ahead join man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Here is a interesting article...Frenchiehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/story/0,7369,451400,00.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/story/0,7369,495028,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by mr mahs I will not admit because I don't beleive the proof you put infront of me.. it's not my proof...it's official military records...but that reply is great testimony to how brainwashed you are...you won't believe it even from the man himself...Originally posted by mr mahs The exageration of the samount of people sick proves that the assumption all the weapons used in 91 contained the contrversial spent uraniumShow me the proof that we are using depleted uranium in the ordinance today not in 1991... If the armed forces train with live ammunition here it the states how come everyone doesn't come back from boot camp sick??? it's not an assumption it's admitted by the u.s. gov't...300 tons in the gulf war...and it's admitted now too:http://www.cursor.org/stories/uranium.htminfo straight from dod...and another one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/337855.stmso please speculation my ass... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 7 Report Share Posted April 7 Originally posted by frenchbread wtf are you talking about...of course they are radioactive...it's d.u.!....it is radioactive...difference with regular uranium is that half life is much longer (something like billion year)...so don't tell me about stupidity...d.u. isn't radioactive seriously...damn...oh and by the way, a lot of the gulf war veterans that were exposed to it have traces of it in their urine to this day...not radioactive...seriously... depleted uranium emits alpha particles, which is about the same as what your office copier emits. you can curl up with a shell in bed for a lifetime and not have any adverse effects. I doubt gulf war veterans have it in their urine to this day. show me facts, not bullshit. and as to your other comment. weak. I will be joining the military upon graduation.you however, will still be trying to win your little petty internet arguments.small victories for small people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.