Jump to content
TSM Forums

Spicy McHaggis

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1261

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Spicy McHaggis

  3. Posted · Report reply

    I also don't get the "Safe haven in Iraq" reasoning. I mean, lets be blunt here, some of the 9/11 hijackers lived in America for over a year or more before 9/11 and even LEARNED HOW TO FLY PLANES in AMERICA. Does that mean America was a nation giving safe harbor to terrorists, and training them? Terrorist taking up residence in your country does not mean you are protecting them or keeping them safe. It just may happen that terrorists are keeping a low profile and happen to live within your borders. Also, it has never been elaborated on ever, where exactly these "Al Qaeda training camps" were located, or if they even existed in the first place. We have terrorist training camps here in America right? I mean militias live in the backwoods and train their members how to use assault rifles, military weapons and other various weapons that are illegal for civilian use. I don't see a huge effort to bring them down, but I certainly wouldn't say that means our government is giving them "safe haven" or "harboring" them. I mean, how exactly do you classify a "terrorist training camp" a bunch of guys with machine guns, running on an obstacle course out in the middle of the desert? Something tells me maybe the Iraqi government technology was not sophisticated enough to monitor every inch of their country.

    This argument MIGHT be credible except for the fact that you are putting Iraq on the same level as the U.S. Relativism doesn't cut it. Iraq allowed terrorists in, I'm not going to give Hussein the benefit of the doubt that "the Iraqi government technology was not sophisticated enough to monitor every inch of their country". I actually can't believe you wrote that. Like Iraq was some lawful, responsible place. The U.S. obviously was not consciously allowing terrorists to train here, unless you've got some conspiracy theory.

     

    Uh-huh and under what basis did George Bush even have in the first place to use the "mushroom cloud" reference? What DO YOU think he was implying?

    Apparently faulty intelligence from the U.S., UN, and foreign countries that was solid at the time. I inferred that the risk of Iraq possibly acquiring a nuke and passing it off to terrorists was too great to allow a brutal dictator, who already had a multitude of reasons to be removed, to stay in power. Remember, 17 UN Resolutions put the burden of proof on Hussein to open up his country completely and show us he had no WMDs. Yet he continued to pose as if he had something to hide.

     

    My research exposed the bs that WMDs were the only reason given to go to war.

  4. Posted · Report reply

    A George Tenet letter used in this OMGNEOCONFUNDYBIASED! article:

     

    "Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom [in Afghanistan], we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that al Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

     

     

    The actual "imminent threat" line, immediately followed by "the poor Iraqis and their torture chambers":

     

    "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

     

    The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

     

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030128-19.html

     

     

    The actual "mushroom cloud" line:

     

    "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

     

    http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_repor...p-6932886c.html

     

     

    Don't let the truth stop you, though. Also, we need to clear up a little English usage re: Imply vs. Infer. IMPLY is what a speaker does to his listener. Only the speaker KNOWS what he's implying. A listener INFERS what he thinks the speaker is saying. You, NCM, inferred that Bush was saying Iraq would launch nukes at us.

     

    In addition, It seems that you ignored the whole logical argument for why Iraq fit into the war on terror.

  5. Posted · Report reply

    It's interesting that the anti-war claim that WMD's are what SOLD people on the war. That may have been true of the doubtful.

     

    But most people who were supportive recognize that the other factors were of EQUAL importance:

     

    -Iraq in breach of a 17th UN resolution

    -The demonstrated connection of Iraq & Al Qaeda

    -Fighting tyranny

    -Fighting terrorism

     

    And Bush can't stop Americans from being stupid... he never said Iraq participated in 9/11, he never implied it. He never said WMD's were found, he never implied. The fact "imminent threat" has been taken out of context is interesting. And the humanitarian justification was listed ALONGSIDE the others (b/c it is crucial in fighting terrorism), the anti-war just CHOSE to see it as secondary.

     

     

    JOTW, perhaps you forgot how confused the press was on election night when their trusty, objective exit polls predicted a big Kerry victory, and the result was quite different. And I'll find you a daily example of liberal bias in the AP if you like.

  7. Posted · Report reply

    I pretty much agree with him on all counts. I don't see how anything he said could be controversial, except to neocon fundy types.

    You must be off your fucking rocker. A person has to be a neocon fundy type in order to think sex is something meaningful?

     

    Oh and Brian, you can write "come"... it doesn't have to be written "c-u-m".

  12. Posted · Report reply

    I'm just going to enter my thoughts here, without response to others...except to ask NoCal to prove (with sources) actual misleading statements Bush made.

     

    The media is liberally biased. With regard to commentators, the only relevant aspect is looking to the proportion of liberal vs. conservative commentators each outlet employs. The bias really occurs in reporting. Editorializing a non-editorial piece is a no-no. The problem arises in what constitutes editorializing. On ABC this morning, some journalist was on saying that no one in the country would doubt that George W. would not have won if his last name wasn't Bush. Saying there is bias doesn't mean I think all the journalists wake up each morning trying to find ways to stick it to conservatives. I think they earnestly believe their opinions to be reflective of the status quo, when clearly they aren't.

  13. Posted · Report reply

    Just an FYI... from what I know, Leinart needs 18 units to graduate. Now, a full load at SC is 16 per semester, but the NCAA only requires athletes to take 12. Leinart COULD HAVE graduated this spring, but now he can take his normal class load and still get his degree.

     

    I was in Heritage Hall today, it was an awesome feeling when the crowd went nuts with the news. I'm definitely glad he's staying.

  17. Posted · Report reply

    I'm going to venture to guess that the one-liners will make ND better with multiple viewings. Overall, I liked it, but I feel for the people that didn't. There were parts that were straight boring. That's bad. Those scenes where someone says something and then stares... fans defend silent stares as "dry humor", but they weren't funny. No plot isn't humorous, it's poor writing. If it's intentional, it's lazy writing. The movie was like an 11 track CD with 6 good songs, and you literally could skip the boring shit without missing the "plot".

     

    Also, Rushmore SUCKED. The word "handjob" isn't THAT funny.

     

    Finally, that article was an insult to Seinfeld, and it's writers. A show about nothing? Absolutely. Plot-less? No way. Remotely comparable to Napoleon Dynamite? Not a chance in hell.

  18. Posted · Report reply

    In case anyone's interested TVGuide.com provides this little nugget regarding the Abrams shows.

     

    No, Sydney isn't gonna get into a tussle with Locke. But on tonight's Alias, listen closely during scenes set at Weiss' birthday party: In the background, you'll hear the song "You All Everybody" — that's right, the hit by Driveshaft, the rock band that drove Lost boy Charlie to drugs! That J.J. Abrams — what will he think of next?!

    So, easter egg or proof that they're in the same universe?

    Well...the pilot on Lost was killed, so Alias's Agent Weiss is safe. However, the meeting of John Locke (Lost) and Director Kendall (Alias) would make the universe blow up.

     

    I'll say easter egg.

  19. Posted · Report reply

    Do you think that the reason Derevko wanted Sidney dead was because of the revelations in season four? Do you guys think it's all related to the Rimbaldi subplot? :huh:

    Yes.

     

    According to the Rambaldi prophecy, Sydney is the Chosen One and Nadia is the Passenger. Last season, Vaughn told Syd that he found out the Chosen One and the Passenger are destined to have a battle.

     

    I don't think Jack knows this, but when he contacted Irina online and mentioned the Passenger, Derevko immediately signed off and terminated her account. I think Irina knew at some point she would have to sacrifice Sydney to protect Nadia. That moment apparently had come. Jack obviously found out the hit had been arranged, so he had Irina killed, exacting the same kind of closure he encouraged Vaughn to get on Lauren.

     

    I figure that safety deposit box was just Jack's place to keep ultra-secret documents, as evidenced by the 1st document being about Project Christmas. Syd DID know that Jack programmed her. The execution documents were probably behind the first one.

  24. Posted · Report reply

    Funny how LA waited for so long for him to "develop," then he has a good year and leaves...

    New ownership, new gm, same ol' shit.

     

    With Beltre and Finley leaving, Penny, Green, and Brazoban being traded, and last season trading away Lo Duca, Mota, Encarnacion, and Roberts, management has neutered the Dodgers for Javier Vasquez and Hee-Seop Choi. Brilliant.

  25. Posted · Report reply

    Well, this is a great way to kill off Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (which only affects boys)... you can stop crazy fuckers like me from ever bothering you again.

     

    I guess this option is better than when they tell you to seek "genetic counseling" & "family planning" which means, "your baby may die later in life, so please be compassionate and let us crack open his skull and suck out his brain."

     

    I guess I need to lay off the caffeine. :P

×