# U.S. soldiers kidnapped



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Man, this is just getting worse and worse:

https://apnews.excite.com/article/20070127/D8MT9O980.html

The actual story references events from last week, but the truth of the matter is being reported today.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Bertie, I watched your post and am reiticent to respond, a feeling perhaps universal. People are in a malaise over Iraq regardless of politics. War is a series of horrors, always has been ,always will be.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Right, and it feels even worse to me knowing this war was elective, engineered by people who, seemingly, never bothered to crack a history book about the Middle East. Lot of disappointing leadership out there, executive branch first and foremost, but certainly Congress facilitated, though they at least can claim the intelligence was misleading or warped to suit the White House agenda.

Now we live with this for...how long?

Good thing I loaded my before-tax savings this year. Hopefully I've lowered by gross earnings sufficiently to avoid throwing any more money at this bloodbath come April.



Kav said:


> Bertie, I watched your post and am reiticent to respond, a feeling perhaps universal. People are in a malaise over Iraq regardless of politics. War is a series of horrors, always has been ,always will be.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Some people put their beliefs on the line such as the Plowshares group who hammer on misslie silos and B52 bombers. Others, like you and me try to make economic decisions to lesson our economic culpability. I'm sure you do, but anyone who consciously practices passive and financial resistance must practice equal active, financial assistance to a group of your personal patronage.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Speaking for myself (and I would hope some others) I was biting my tongue after the 1st post, but I can't anymore.

Bertie, those gleefully stupid comments about the intelligence giving some in congress an excuse and the callousness of making the deaths of U.S. Soldiers FEEL WORSE TO YOU .......

In all seriousness ... if you knew one of those soldiers and you read your comment what would you think about BertieW crying about sending HIS MONEY to the bloodbath?

Your response after reading about the deaths of U.S. Soldiers fighting in the War on Terror perhaps because of faulty intelligence is crying about your taxes?! Maybe if you paid more taxes we could fix the intelligence agencies in this country and never make a mistake like that again! How about that? Afterall wasn't it Bill Clinton who gutted the Intelligence agencies and took credit for having balanced the budget?

You really should be ashamed of yourself!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> Some people put their beliefs on the line such as the Plowshares group who hammer on misslie silos and B52 bombers. Others, like you and me try to make economic decisions to lesson our economic culpability. I'm sure you do, but anyone who consciously practices passive and financial resistance must practice equal active, financial assistance to a group of your personal patronage.


So, some people put their lives on the line and some people "make economic decisions to lesson our economic culpability"? You gonna send your tax money to Al Qaeda?

I think Cindy Sheehan is a nut. I think she's wrong as day. However, I give her this ... she's doing a hell of a lot more with her moral conscience than practicing _financial resistance to economic culpability._

What a crock of manure! I guess as long as it makes everyone FEEL BETTER, it's ok


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

KSINC, We've had some interesting exchanges. But your comment about my supporting Al Queda in any way or form is utterly unacceptable. If you made such a remark in my physical presence you would be near death about now.


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

<sigh>



BertieW said:


> Man, this is just getting worse and worse:
> 
> https://apnews.excite.com/article/20070127/D8MT9O980.html
> 
> The actual story references events from last week, but the truth of the matter is being reported today.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> KSINC, We've had some interesting exchanges. But your comment about my supporting Al Queda in any way or form is utterly unacceptable. If you made such a remark in my physical presence you would be near death about now.


No, it's not unacceptable. If the REALITY of your "resistance" to supporting our military "financially" bothers you when you hear it? THAT'S TOUGH! There are no "neutrals" in the War on Terror. Supporting our troops financially is really the absolute least any of us can do and it's a privilege to live and pay taxes in this country with them fighting for us. The fact that you have some mental block that doesn't permit you to see that's exactly what they are doing doesn't matter. What if every $100 of your "conscious financial resistance" is the $100 that doesn't buy some armor or ammo that gets another Soldier killed? Ever think of that? I have a personal aquaintance that I know was killed because they got separated and ran out of ammo. Is that in some way your fault? How do you know if it is or isn't, since you have admitted to purposely and consciously practised financial resistance?

Financial support is an important part of war as you know or you wouldn't be "resisting". Finance is also a large front in the War on Terror. It was also a large part in the intelligence apparatus' failure. If you can't accept the consequences of actions with a clear conscience perhaps you should choose other actions. For example, if you really want to fight so bad, head to Iraq. We could sure use some more help over there.

Lastly, if I said this in your presence you wouldn't do anything to me. If you tried a lot of things might happen, but spending a long time in prison would be the most fun you'd get to have. So, good luck to you with that.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No, it's not unacceptable. If the REALITY of your "resistance" to supporting our military "financially" bothers you when you hear it? THAT'S TOUGH! There are no "neutrals" in the War on Terror. Supporting our troops financially is really the absolute least any of us can do and it's a privilege to live and pay taxes in this country with them fighting for us. The fact that you have some mental block that doesn't permit you to see that's exactly what they are doing doesn't matter. *What if every $100 of your "conscious financial resistance" is the $100 that doesn't buy some armor or ammo that gets another Soldier killed? *Ever think of that? I have a personal aquaintance that I know was killed because they got separated and ran out of ammo. Is that in some way your fault? How do you know if it is or isn't, since you have admitted to purposely and consciously practised financial resistance?
> 
> Financial support is an important part of war as you know or you wouldn't be "resisting". Finance is also a large front in the War on Terror. It was also a large part in the intelligence apparatus' failure. If you can't accept the consequences of actions with a clear conscience perhaps you should choose other actions. For example, if you really want to fight so bad, head to Iraq. We could sure use some more help over there.
> 
> Lastly, if I said this in your presence you wouldn't do anything to me. If you tried a lot of things might happen, but spending a long time in prison would be the most fun you'd get to have. So, good luck to you with that.


This is really a silly statement. I mean, why don't you just give your entire salary to the cause? Just think of all the soldiers you could save.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> This is really a silly statement. I mean, why don't you just give your entire salary to the cause? Just think of all the soldiers you could save.


No, it's not. First it was a question meant to clarify intent, actions, and consequences; it was not a statement. Is what you are saying that it's silly to consider the ramifications of one's actions?

Second, it's discussing the difference between an overt, conscious, and purposeful action to avoid supporting the war and our troops vs. simply paying your share of taxes as a privileged citizen and then exercising your rights to speak your mind and/or protest a policy. It's a line of both intent and consequences that is crossed IMHO.

What you are suggesting is that I also cross that line into an individual, overt, conscious, and purposeful act for which I bear moral culpability. Well I have; and in many ways in support of the War and Troops. I simply choose not to discuss some of them here.

However, I will say that as far as matters of public policy go, and our collective efforts and that discussion: I agree with the Conservative Democrats that support the War, but are against continuing to lower taxes while we are at war and it's only one of the things I disagree with W about. I also disagree with diverting our 'War Chest' to widen social progams. In a time of peace and prosperity I would support some of them, but not now. I also would not raise taxes because our economy is a powerful asset and even a weapon which our enemies know far too well. It's why they make it a target. If I had the power I would cut all "discretionary" spending and WIN the War. Yet, while I may disagee with some policies, strategies, and tactics I would never consciously seek to undermine the efforts of our country in any conscious and tangible way that would or could affect our troops. Financial support is certainly one of those areas, but again paying your taxes is a very small thing to ask in the greater scheme of sacrifices being made for the privilege of living in this great Country with such wonderful people as our Soldiers.

I'm too old to join the military, and I don't speak any arab languages or have other skills that have tactical value to military effort (although, I am rather handy with a sniper rifle  ). However, I do own a business. Everyday I create economic activity and revenue. This revenue I assure you is taxed HEAVILY. I am proud of my meager contribution to the U.S. economy. I consider it a privilege to be an American and have the opportunity to contribute to the society to which I owe my freedom. I pay my taxes without conscious manipulation regardless of whether it goes to support the war or the troops or to say buy condoms for people in prison or needles for drug addicts. All I ask is that others do the same.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Listen, save your outrage. I've elsewhere on this forum clearly and repeatedly expressed my opposition to this elective war that has made the U.S. less safe, not more, while placing our troops in harm's way. My /first/ reaction to this lunatic enterprise is revulsion at the incompetence and callousness of our putative leaders and how this is resulting in needless deaths among our military and, let's not forget, Iraqi civilians. Since they don't listen to anyone but their own g/d echo (cf. the millions of people worldwide, including me, who, from day one, took to the streets to protest this adventure), there doesn't seem a hell of a lot to do on a personal level but prevent as much of my tax money as possible from flowing to this madness, while continuing to support representatives in Congress who will oppose this president's escalation.

And let's not forget that Bush himself seemed quite willing to reduce, not increase, the tax burden of Americans, particularly the most affluent, while pursuing a war in the Middle East, one he /claims/ is a battle for civilisation. Right. That's why now we're forced to shift troops from key areas in Afghanistan where the resurgent Taliban is once more becoming embolden. Bloody brilliant, but mostly bloody.

More broadly, my fiscal position is the same as those conservatives (the real ones) clamoring for less taxes in general.

Direct your outrage to the administration that sent too few forces, too poorly armed, with a poorly conceived military plan into a war many of us knew was doomed from the start.



ksinc said:


> Speaking for myself (and I would hope some others) I was biting my tongue after the 1st post, but I can't anymore.
> 
> Bertie, those gleefully stupid comments about the intelligence giving some in congress an excuse and the callousness of making the deaths of U.S. Soldiers FEEL WORSE TO YOU .......
> 
> ...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Listen, save your outrage. I've elsewhere on this forum clearly and repeatedly expressed my opposition to this elective war that has made the U.S. less safe, not more, while placing our troops in harm's way. My /first/ reaction to this lunatic enterprise is revulsion at the incompetence and callousness of our putative leaders and how this is resulting in needless deaths among our military and, let's not forget, Iraqi civilians. Since they don't listen to anyone but their own g/d echo (cf. the millions of people worldwide, including me, who, from day one, took to the streets to protest this adventure), there doesn't seem a hell of a lot to do on a personal level but prevent as much of my tax money as possible from flowing to this madness, while continuing to support representatives in Congress who will oppose this president's escalation.
> 
> And let's not forget that Bush himself seemed quite willing to reduce, not increase, the tax burden of Americans, particularly the most affluent, while pursuing a war in the Middle East, one he /claims/ is a battle for civilisation. Right. That's why now we're forced to shift troops from key areas in Afghanistan where the resurgent Taliban is once more becoming embolden. Bloody brilliant, but mostly bloody.
> 
> ...


Bertie, anyone who's read this forum knows where I stand on Mr. Bush and his invasion of Iraq. However you appear to misunderstand the purpose and intent of the invasion. If you haven't already, read the 911 Commission Report, which goes into great detail about the history and background that led to this invasion.

To make a long story slightly shorter, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda issued a list of grievances against the U.S. Top and foremost on this list was the presence of our armed forces in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden used Islam as a smokescreen, claiming we were "defiling Islam" etc, but in actuality he wanted our forces out of Saudi Arabia to further his own goal of overthrowing the horribly corrupt and brutal Saudi government. Bin Laden had been (and apparently still is) waging his own little insurgency for years prior, setting off car bombs, trying to rally popular support for an uprising etc.

It was necessary to depose Saddam Hussein in order for us to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, since our troops were there to enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq, to continue defending Kuwait and other western-friendly ME countries against further aggression from Hussein etc. So the invasion did accomplish its goal. Just six weeks after Bush invaded Iraq, he pulled all U.S. armed forces out of Saudi Arabia -- a rather newsworthy story that went virtually unreported in the U.S. mass media:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud30.xml

Ever since, the "heat" from bin Laden and al Qaeda has been off of the U.S. But Bush, Cheney et al, being the supreme opportunists they are, have continued to make political careers out of relentless terror and fear mongering. Read any Bush or Cheney speech of the last five years -- regardless of topic -- and see if they have spoken more than two paragraphs in a row without this mongering. It's what got them reelected in 2004.

The bottom line is, any claim that Bush had (or has) a plan for an exit strategy, or even a plan to implement a democratic government in Iraq is pure delusion. He didn't, still doesn't, nor does he care about adopting one.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> It was necessary to depose Saddam Hussein in order for us to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, since our troops were there to enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq, to continue defending Kuwait and other western-friendly ME countries against further aggression from Hussein etc. So the invasion did accomplish its goal. Just six weeks after Bush invaded Iraq, he pulled all U.S. armed forces out of Saudi Arabia -- a rather newsworthy story that went virtually unreported in the U.S. mass media


Ok, I've got about a dozen retorts...but first I'd just like to check and be sure this isn't a troll.

You're just joking right?

-spence


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

What specifically are you referring to? I'm not claiming this was the only reason Bush wanted to depose Hussein, but it was certainly the main reason. Otherwise, Bush could (and would) have allowed UN inspections to run their course. But Bush couldn't allow that to happen, because the inspections would have shown no WMD or WMD development in Iraq, thereby destroying any justification for an invasion.

None of this is even debatable, if you simply read what our own government has published.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

No, I don't believe getting our troops out of Saudia Arabia was not the prime reason for deposing Saddam. Perhaps it was in the top five...

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> What specifically are you referring to? I'm not claiming this was the only reason Bush wanted to depose Hussein, but it was certainly the main reason. Otherwise, Bush could (and would) have allowed UN inspections to run their course. But Bush couldn't allow that to happen, because the inspections would have shown no WMD or WMD development in Iraq, thereby destroying any justification for an invasion.
> 
> None of this is even debatable, if you simply read what our own government has published.


The reason is entirely debatable: "Ever since the 1991 Gulf war, the US has had about 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia - a figure that rose to 10,000 during the recent conflict in Iraq. US troops there have been part of Operation Southern Watch, which has enforced the no-fly zone over southern Iraq set up after 1991."

Clearly troops sent to SA to enforce the no-fly zone in Iraq are no longer needed. To derive that the "main reason" for the Iraq war was to remove the troops in SA supporting the no-fly zone is ludicrous.

You really can't figure out whether the chicken or the egg came first can you?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No, it's not. First it was a question meant to clarify intent, actions, and consequences; it was not a statement.* Is what you are saying that it's silly to consider the ramifications of one's actions?*


If carried to this extreme, yes. I also try to pay as little as possible in taxes each year, not because I don't want the government using it for war, but because _I _worked for that money. I am not going to sit around and consider what may or may not occur when the government receives less of my money this year. If paying more in taxes makes you feel good, by all means, go right ahead.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The reason is entirely debatable: "Ever since the 1991 Gulf war, the US has had about 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia - a figure that rose to 10,000 during the recent conflict in Iraq. US troops there have been part of Operation Southern Watch, which has enforced the no-fly zone over southern Iraq set up after 1991."
> 
> Clearly troops sent to SA to enforce the no-fly zone in Iraq are no longer needed. To derive that the "main reason" for the Iraq war was to remove the troops in SA supporting the no-fly zone is ludicrous.
> 
> You really can't figure out whether the chicken or the egg came first can you?


No figuring is necessary. Our military presence in Saudi Arabia had been a major problem for the Saudi government ever since it was established in 1991, long before bin Laden and al Qaeda issued their demands in 1996 and 1998. In just ten years our presence in Saudi Arabia had been used as the primary justification for all of al Qaeda's attacks -- two U.S. embassies, the USS Cole, the WTC in 1993, 9/11, as well as others.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> No figuring is necessary. Our military presence in Saudi Arabia had been a major problem for the Saudi government ever since it was established in 1991, long before bin Laden and al Qaeda issued their demands in 1996 and 1998. In just ten years our presence in Saudi Arabia had been used as the primary justification for all of al Qaeda's attacks -- two U.S. embassies, the USS Cole, the WTC in 1993, 9/11, as well as others.


and yet the capture of bin laden is seen as a non issue !

things that make you go hmmm !

he 'aparently' ordered the attacks on your homeland that killed over 2000 people and the bush admin is not bothered about catching him but scapegoated saddam instead .

i'd rather listen to the 'conspiracy theorists' than your admin. they make much more sense .


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> If carried to this extreme, yes. I also try to pay as little as possible in taxes each year, not because I don't want the government using it for war, but because _I _worked for that money. I am not going to sit around and consider what may or may not occur when the government receives less of my money this year. If paying more in taxes makes you feel good, by all means, go right ahead.


I think what you do is fine. Big distinction though, I wouldn't characterize what you do as KAV did what he does - conscious financial resistance to the war. To confuse the two would be extreme. Did you read the whole thread?


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

How about we just stop for a moment and say a prayer for the safe return of these soldiers and the safety for all the soldiers serving around the world.

Irregardless of your political beliefs and or whether or not you agree with this war, these soldiers are putting their lives on the line and we need to keep that in the forefront of our minds.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think what you do is fine. Big distinction though, I wouldn't characterize what you do as KAV did what he does - *conscious financial resistance to the war.* To confuse the two would be extreme. Did you read the whole thread?


I went back and re-read your post. I see now that you did make this distinction. My apologies. It was the question about the armor and ammo that stuck out to me and prompted my post.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't recall stating I practise financial resistance to the war. I merely stated some people such as Bertie may( and he merely stated his tax burden was less) , and that other people engage in direct civil disobedience. For the record, my tax assessment for 2006 was a whopping $ 437.28 cents and I am receiving a hoped for return of $252.03. I'm torn between a forum tie or two and another pair of AE's. I also paid my gasoline taxes, telephone tax( for the spanish -american war, look it up) sales taxes, import duties, and taxes on firearms and ammunition to support wildlife programs( Ksinc, my sniper rifles include a dedicated SMLE in the box and Winchester model 70 in 300 Holland and Holland. " I'm your huckleberry") Would anyone care to discover the tax returns of the executive overseeing HUMMER production? How about Bush and Cheney? I'm weary of sunshine patriot garritroopers who use red,white and blue litmus paper to judge others while wearing condoms of excuse; I'm to old, I have a trick knee, I defended the skies of Alabama blah,blah,blah. I did my 6 years, and I'll match my DD214 against anybody.Rigged or not,floating chads or not, I never voted you people judge and jury. You can collectively eat a certain waste product, chase garbage trucks and go bark at the moon.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> *I don't recall stating I practise financial resistance to the war. *I merely stated some people such as Bertie may( and he merely stated his tax burden was less) , and that other people engage in direct civil disobedience. For the record, my tax assessment for 2006 was a whopping $ 437.28 cents and I am receiving a hoped for return of $252.03. I'm torn between a forum tie or two and another pair of AE's. I also paid my gasoline taxes, telephone tax( for the spanish -american war, look it up) sales taxes, import duties, and taxes on firearms and ammunition to support wildlife programs( Ksinc, my sniper rifles include a dedicated SMLE in the box and Winchester model 70 in 300 Holland and Holland. " I'm your huckleberry") Would anyone care to discover the tax returns of the executive overseeing HUMMER production? How about Bush and Cheney? I'm weary of sunshine patriot garritroopers who use red,white and blue litmus paper to judge others while wearing condoms of excuse; I'm to old, I have a trick knee, I defended the skies of Alabama blah,blah,blah. I did my 6 years, and I'll match my DD214 against anybody.Rigged or not,floating chads or not, I never voted you people judge and jury. You can collectively eat a certain waste product, chase garbage trucks and go bark at the moon.


Kav,

First, for the record, I have the utmost gratitude for the service of anyone to this country. Thank You for your service. Of course, you are not the only one to have served this country and I believe since you are typing here you have not given your life for this country yet. I choose not to engage in that argument because it would require me to share something private I wish not to in a public anonymous discussion. If you are bored enough and ever fly to Orlando, Florida and I'd be happy to meet you and shake your hand. 
I'll even buy you a beer and discuss candidly my view and the reasons while looking you in the eye. If you're not that bored and prefer to take just my word as a gentleman for it, fine. Either way, I can assure you I will do so with equal respect, no intimidation, and no danger to me.

I believe you certainly have the right to express any political view you want. On the other hand so do I. Yours has no higher value or right than mine. IMHO those that act to marginalize others based on their service show disrespect for themselves and their own service that I never would (for very good reasons).

Now, to the point in question, I responded directly after this post by you: 
Some people put their beliefs on the line such as the Plowshares group who hammer on misslie silos and B52 bombers. * Others, like you and me try to make economic decisions to lesson our economic culpability. I'm sure you do, but anyone who consciously practices passive and financial resistance must practice equal active, financial assistance to a group of your personal patronage.*

As you noted this was after Bertie explained what he was doing to avoid supporting the war with dollars. I read "like you and me" with the straight forward reading that you were joined with Bertie in "consciously practice[ing] ... financial resistance." That is what it says and my comments clearly were in response to that. If you were hypothesizing or that was an incorrectly written by you or incorrectly read by me, you should have clarified and corrected that instead of taking the tact you did. If it was my error, I would apologize.

If that is the correct reading, then you have my response. A dollar saved is the same as a dollar earned. Any dollar consciously denied the war effort for moral culpability reasons is the same as a dollar sent to Al-Q.

As I discussed with Laxplayer, simply managing your money wisely with no conscious, practiced intent is an entirely different matter and I do much the same. I take my mortgage interest deduction just like everyone else, but I pay the taxes I owe knowing it's a privilege to do so even though I may not support some of the policies of the government. As I said, like condoms and needles even the public endowment for the arts and the education department. Our tax money supports democracy, not individual policies and actions. It's not an a la carte menu where we choose that which we will and will not support.

This is a long post, requiring much effort. I hope it is self-evidently done so in the spirit of the board and a sincere appreciation of the community and friendship. Otherwise, why would I go to the effort?

Regards.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

> Any dollar consciously denied the war effort for moral culpability reasons is the same as a dollar sent to Al-Q.

This is just more of Bush's "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" nonsense. First time in human history that 5.8 billion people simultaneously rolled their eyes in disgust.

Americans (at this point anyway) are allowed to have different opinions on the Iraq invasion. We're allowed to follow our own consciences. If one believes e.g. Pope John Paul II's declaration that that invasion is "not legally or morally justified", no other logical conclusion is possible: every dollar spent for the invasion is spent for crime and immorality.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Why surge? We can end this war easily with nuclear weapons, and they are already paid for. As for Iran, I say let's give them some of our nukes - detonated. The oilfiields are outside of the major population centers and military sites, so we won't even have to worry about radioactive half-life, etc. for the subsequent plunder. Might even drop gas prices to 19 cents per barrel. Good deal, eh?

Seems easy to me. Whadda y'all think?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Why surge? We can end this war easily with nuclear weapons, and they are already paid for. As for Iran, I say let's give them some of our nukes - detonated. The oilfiields are outside of the major population centers and military sites, so we won't even have to worry about radioactive half-life, etc. for the subsequent plunder. Might even drop gas prices to 19 cents per barrel. Good deal, eh?
> 
> Seems easy to me. Whadda y'all think?


I think I have stated several times in other threads that I would have certainly preferred that to invasion, but then we would be declared "barbaric". Still, we should have simply bombed Saddam and killed him (with nukes if necessary) not invaded for his failure to abide by international law and the UN Resolutions. If we were worried about the vacuum being filled by Iran a few thrown in their direction would certainly occupy their time while Iraq fought it out amongst themselves and a new strongman took charge.


----------



## Foghorn (Feb 2, 2005)

To be simplistic, nuclear war is just bad for business.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

To be absolutely clear for the umpteenth time, the disclosure Hussein made to the U.N. has been shown to be correct: he didn't have the weapons Bush, Rice, Powell, et al. claimed he had, and the Bush administration knew it.

On the focus of this post, does it bother anyone even a little bit that the administration lied about what happened, then eventually, after the State of the Union message was over, let the information out after it started to leak out?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Foghorn said:


> To be simplistic, nuclear war is just bad for business.


You've got that right. One would think that this would deter the bloodthirsty, even if the thought of colossal mass-murder would not. Of course, one would be wrong.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Kav,
> 
> As you noted this was after Bertie explained what he was doing to avoid supporting the war with dollars. I read "like you and me" with the straight forward reading that you were joined with Bertie in "consciously practice[ing] ... financial resistance." That is what it says and my comments clearly were in response to that. If you were hypothesizing or that was an incorrectly written by you or incorrectly read by me, you should have clarified and corrected that instead of taking the tact you did. If it was my error, I would apologize.
> 
> ...


Let me make sure I understand you: every dollar withheld from the US war effort is a dollar "earned" by Al Qaida. Thus, if one consicously reduces one's tax liability out of a desire to reduce one's contribution to the US war machine, one is in league with Bin Laden. However, if one merely reduces one's tax liability to line one's pockets, "with no conscious, practiced intent" to reduce one's contribution to the war machine, but with the same practical effect, one is off the hook. Are you joking? By your own silly logic this is absurd.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

the opinions put out by the grazing sheep americans in this thread is laughable outside of your borders.

saddam had no WMD's , everyone knew it and saw your invasion of iraq for what it was .... an imbocile president being manipulated by neo-cons into kicking s'hit out of a broken arab nation .

iraq has probably been the most observed country on this earth by military satelites since gulf 'paintball derby' one ... your intelligence could tell you how many cornflakes saddam had in his bowl for his breakfast each morning .... but once idiot son bush got swindled into office the agenda could be put forward and played out. saddam had diddly squat ... your admin knew it and cooked a propestrous scare story about saddam bombing you in 15 minutes to scare the sheep and manufacture consent.

hitler did that with poland just before he invaded em. i mean , DAMN , our 'chosen' leaders arn't even creative with their strategys to rile up the unthinking mob and send your family to march to their deaths. they just use the same old excrement time n time again.

now iran is DEVELOPING WMD'S !! :icon_smile_big: well PUHLEASE !

gonna fall for it again huh?

and if you hold UN resolution compliance and human rights violation so paramount as to justify an invasion and regime change... better invade israel first .. their 'protected' status from international sanction and intervention for their nuclear program and human rights atrocitys is the main reason for anger and uprising in the middle east.

but they're your friends huh? well thats all right then!

go back to sleep ... the thing that p'isses me off the most is bush dont send his kids to fight for his nefarious schemes .. its us on the ground who do all the dieing ! and we swallow all their naked and preposterous lies so we can do it .

our leaders dont respect us .. they hold us in contempt. would you respect someone who believed all your BS and sacrificed themselves for it ?

you're welcome ... EG .


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

KSINC, If I returned undeserved offense in kind my apologies,PAX? Trying to define lines of thought on this war is as elusive as the lines of battle. There are protests underway in L.A. with the 'usual suspects.' I will not join them. Cindy Sheehan's use of her dead son is about as sad as a local lady who brings a lifesized carboard photo of her marine son to local events, as if he earned the CMH for serving in Okinawa. Sheehan actually surrendered custody of her son at age 7, and is repeating that action in a current divorce. Young Sheehan lies in an unmarked grave still, a free government marker or memorial unclaimed by either parent. Who failed to stir the social pot and let such scum rise to the surface? Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum emcees for the same dog and pony show. We don't need a surge in Bagdhad so much as one here at home from the great depth of that social pot to balance our original menu and burn the throats of anybody who wants to mess with us once and for all.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Let me make sure I understand you: every dollar withheld from the US war effort is a dollar "earned" by Al Qaida. Thus, if one consicously reduces one's tax liability out of a desire to reduce one's contribution to the US war machine, one is in league with Bin Laden. However, if one merely reduces one's tax liability to line one's pockets, "with no conscious, practiced intent" to reduce one's contribution to the war machine, but with the same practical effect, one is off the hook. Are you joking? By your own silly logic this is absurd.


The question was of moral culpability. Silly logic? I think not. Throughout issues of law and tax, intent and conscious deliberation are the distinctions between good-faith error, negligence, and fraud.

If you don't understand the $1:$1 war we are in then I cannot convince you, but a dollar we don't have is a dollar our opponents get for free. Financing is an important front in the war on terror. Perhaps you should listen more to the administration than just bashing it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

english_gent said:


> the opinions put out by the grazing sheep americans in this thread is laughable outside of your borders.
> 
> saddam had no WMD's , everyone knew it and saw your invasion of iraq for what it was .... an imbocile president being manipulated by neo-cons into kicking s'hit out of a broken arab nation .


That's absolutely not true. Nice revision of history, however.

And; it's grazing sheep Americans you English pig.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> KSINC, If I returned undeserved offense in kind my apologies,PAX? Trying to define lines of thought on this war is as elusive as the lines of battle. There are protests underway in L.A. with the 'usual suspects.' I will not join them. Cindy Sheehan's use of her dead son is about as sad as a local lady who brings a lifesized carboard photo of her marine son to local events, as if he earned the CMH for serving in Okinawa. Sheehan actually surrendered custody of her son at age 7, and is repeating that action in a current divorce. Young Sheehan lies in an unmarked grave still, a free government marker or memorial unclaimed by either parent. Who failed to stir the social pot and let such scum rise to the surface? Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum emcees for the same dog and pony show. We don't need a surge in Bagdhad so much as one here at home from the great depth of that social pot to balance our original menu and burn the throats of anybody who wants to mess with us once and for all.


I agree with that post 100%. Cheers!


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's absolutely not true. Nice revision of history, however.
> 
> And; it's grazing sheep Americans you English pig.


how's it not true ??

c'mon enlighten me !


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

english_gent said:


> the opinions put out by the grazing sheep americans in this thread is laughable outside of your borders.
> 
> saddam had no WMD's , everyone knew it and saw your invasion of iraq for what it was .... an imbocile president being manipulated by neo-cons into kicking s'hit out of a broken arab nation .
> 
> ...


Unless you are in the military, you are not on the ground, and are not doing any of the dieing [sic]. 
Also, you seem incapable of putting together an argument that does not include the words neo-con, imbocile [sic], sheep, atrocitys [sic], propestrous [sic] etc.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

english_gent said:


> how's it not true ??
> 
> c'mon enlighten me !


What you said is a lie. That's how it's untrue.

Facts: Saddam had WMDs. Everyone knows he did. Everyone stated in the UN resolutions that they agreed he did. This was not based solely on US intelligence or even US/UK intelligence.

True the facts remain, when the US got in there, certainly they were not there, but no one in the world knew that before hand as you are suggesting. Our President is not an imbecile. And the rest of you would all be dead by now if not for the US and this President and other Presidents going on the offensive and kicking some hiney.

Yes, the administration screwed the pooch on Iraq, but it was by being bullied by the Colin Powell, the domestic press and 'loyal opposition' into trying diplomacy one more time. Powell failed to deliver France in a timely manner and Turkey's airspace for the invasion - thus not securing the Northern borders of Iraq. While Bush and Rumsfeld take the blame for Iraq, it's been the State Dept. that has made most of the blunders from Powell to Bremer. Although Bremer reported to Rumsfeld he was State's guy. Bush made a huge mistake appointing him and his book and others are full of crap/nonsense between State and Defense turf and policy battles. Have you read Bremer's book?

Anyway, the logical question is, while the US was piddling around at the UN practicing diplomacy with the French where did they get to? Where could they be? hmm? I wonder ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Pope John Paul II's declaration that that invasion is "not legally or morally justified", no other logical conclusion is possible: every dollar spent for the invasion is spent for crime and immorality.


That's funny. I think Saddam once said the same thing about the Catholic church molesting little boys.

Now do you really want to bring the Pope and Catholic church into a discussion on moral culpability or leave them on the sidelines?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's funny. I think Saddam once said the same thing about the Catholic church molesting little boys.
> 
> Now do you really want to bring the Pope and Catholic church into a discussion on moral culpability or leave them on the sidelines?


There you go again. No one except you said anything about "the Catholic Church". The Pope's opinion about Bush's invasion was exactly that: an opinion. Not the Church's or anyone else's.

Don't you ever tire of non sequiturs? Over and over again, like an emotionally disturbed six year-old.

Oh wait, you're the guy who believes a nuclear holocaust in Iraq would have been "preferable" to an invasion. My mistake, you've already admitted being an emotionally disturbed six year-old.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> What you said is a lie. That's how it's untrue.
> 
> Facts: Saddam had WMDs. Everyone knows he did. Everyone stated in the UN resolutions that they agreed he did. This was not based solely on US intelligence or even US/UK intelligence.


Very persuasive. Very compelling. Funny, neither the Iraq Survey Group, nor the Congressional Report on the Intelligence Community's Pre-War Intelligence Assessment on Iraq supports this contention. But I'm sure you have some rock-solid evidence that you'd be happy to share. The "Iraqi WMDs were moved to Syria, Jordan, and places unknown" fantasy is the right-wing equivalent of the "Bush did it" madness on the left.



> Yes, the administration screwed the pooch on Iraq, but it was by being bullied by the Colin Powell, the domestic press and 'loyal opposition' into trying diplomacy one more time. Powell failed to deliver France in a timely manner and Turkey's airspace for the invasion - thus not securing the Northern borders of Iraq. While Bush and Rumsfeld take the blame for Iraq, it's been the State Dept. that has made most of the blunders from Powell to Bremer. Although Bremer reported to Rumsfeld he was State's guy. Bush made a huge mistake appointing him and his book and others are full of crap/nonsense between State and Defense turf and policy battles. Have you read Bremer's book?
> 
> Anyway, the logical question is, while the US was piddling around at the UN practicing diplomacy with the French where did they get to? Where could they be? hmm? I wonder ...


 Yes, where and what? Powell couldn't "deliver" Turkish airspace? Gee, maybe Turkish airspace couldn't be delivered because more the 90 percent of Turks didn't want it delivered. Democracy in action, right? That's why we went to Iraq, to establish democracy in the Middle East, isn't it? We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives just so Iraqis could dip their fingers in blue ink, or so the story goes. What a load of rubbish.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The question was of moral culpability. Silly logic? I think not. Throughout issues of law and tax, intent and conscious deliberation are the distinctions between good-faith error, negligence, and fraud.
> 
> If you don't understand the $1:$1 war we are in then I cannot convince you, but a dollar we don't have is a dollar our opponents get for free. Financing is an important front in the war on terror. Perhaps you should listen more to the administration than just bashing it.


You cannot be serious. You cannot _possibly_ be serious. This is the most specious, self-serving crap imaginable.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> There you go again. No one except you said anything about "the Catholic Church". The Pope's opinion about Bush's invasion was exactly that: an opinion. Not the Church's or anyone else's.
> 
> Don't you ever tire of non sequiturs? Over and over again, like an emotionally disturbed six year-old.
> 
> Oh wait, you're the guy who believes a nuclear holocaust in Iraq would have been "preferable" to an invasion. My mistake, you've already admitted being an emotionally disturbed six year-old.


All you've you got is your tired ole non sequitur line? LMAO

You really are a patheticly poor sport when you lose.

A few minutes ago it was *"Pope John Paul II's declaration"* which was the basis for your follow up that "no other logical conclusion is possible: every dollar spent for the invasion is spent for crime and immorality."

Now when you're sucking eggs on the church's abysmal record on child molestion of little boys it's just one man's anonymous opinion without the weight of his position and the moral conviction of the church? If that was true you would have said, "my buddy Karol Józef Wojtyla thinks it was wrong to invade Iraq."

nice try tho


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> You cannot be serious. You cannot _possibly_ be serious. This the most specious, self-serving crap imaginable.


Wow, it's really funny to watch you Libs spin out of control. When you lose it you really lose all of it! LMAO

How do you think we felt sending our tax dollars to pay for some reprobate to make weird perverted art? Now your tax dollars are paying for a war.

Viva the Federal Tax Coffers! We should grow the Federal Government a bit more don't you think?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Wow, it's really funny to watch you Libs spin out of control. When you lose it you really lose all of it! LMAO
> 
> How do you think we felt sending our tax dollars to pay for some reprobate to make weird perverted art? Now your tax dollars are paying for a war.
> 
> Viva the Federal Tax Coffers! We should grow the Federal Government a bit more don't you think?


You miss my point entirely. Your self-serving crap is mind-boggling, and you can't even own up to the product of your own deranged calculus. Let me walk you through this:

A. You contend that every potential tax dollar designated for the "War on Terror" [sic] that doesn't end up in the "WOT's" coffers is a dollar earned by Al Qaida.

B. Thus, if some tax-paying opponent of the "WOT" intentionally reduces his tax burden so that he contributes less to the "WOT" than he would otherwise he is is morally culpable of (1) contributing money to Al Qaida; and (2) jeopardizing the lives of American soldiers currently serving in the "WOT" [sic, again];

C. However, if some greedy MoFo reduces his tax liability simply out the desire to satisfy his own avarice, and thereby does not contribute tax dollars to the WOT that he would otherwise . . . that's fine. That's cool. That's smart.

You don't see the disconnect here? I ask again: are you joking? You're talking about _moral _culpability, right? Good god almighty. It seems Milo Minderbinder was right after all. Where's Joseph Heller when you need him?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> You miss my point entirely. Your self-serving crap is mind-boggling, and you can't even own up to the product of your own deranged calculus. Let me walk you through this:
> 
> A. You contend that every potential tax dollar designated for the "War on Terror" [sic] that doesn't end up in the "WOT's" coffers is a dollar earned by Al Qaida.
> 
> ...


No, you don't understand it and many other things. I never said C. In fact, if you read you will see I brushed against that very subject in tying myself to the Conservative Democrats.

Yet you still feel empowered by your lack of understanding to go ahead and criticize it and me. Fine. You're just showing your true colors. They aren't pretty. You will notice I never have to sink to the levels of you and Frank to explain and defend my point. While you have not shown one flaw in my logic you call it ludicrous. And only find disconnects where you make claims I did not in my name. That's not a debate; that's not even an argument; that's not even a point. You're just being hysterical.

FTR Bertie and Kav are the ones that brought up avoiding moral culpability this way. NOT ME. I just pointed out there are two sides of the coin. Which you seem to agree with based on your point C. KAV very right pointed out to Bertie that if he was going to consciously and passively resist by cutting off funds to one he should certainly actively support other causes.

So, if there is a disconnect then you should explain that to them. 

Anyway, just to humor myself ...

How do you think we won the cold war? largely economics.

Why do you think business people read "the Art of War"?

Competition and strategy, whether for business or in war is often boiled down to economics for intelligence and technology. Every dollar you spend is a dollar your opponent spends just keeping even without gaining any advantage.

Why do you think we are working to choke off funding/financing of Al-Q? Why do you think they bomb the WTC?

The oxygen of terror is money. Look at the PLO. Look at Hezbollah and Iran.

While you all think our President and his team are dopes; they are the ones that get it. Again, try listening to them actively and thinking instead of shrieking that everyone except you is ludicrous and insane.

Then, please go read something. You certainly need it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> All you've you got is your tired ole non sequitur line? LMAO
> 
> You really are a patheticly poor sport when you lose.
> 
> ...


It's usual protocol, as with all Popes. Still doesn't change the status of your response as a ridiculous non sequitur. Blaming PJPII for child molestation in his church is like blaming our dear president for mass murders committed by his army. Heh.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> It's usual protocol, as with all Popes. Still doesn't change the status of your response as a ridiculous non sequitur. Blaming PJPII for child molestation in his church is like blaming our dear president for mass murders committed by his army. Heh.


Frank, you do that all the time.

You are the one that built your argument upon the quicksand of the Pope's moral authority. If it's a ridiculous non sequitur it's your own.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No, you don't understand it and many other things. Yet you criticize it and me. Fine. You're just showing your true colors.
> 
> How do you think we won the cold war? Economics.
> 
> ...


Well done, you clueless clown. You can't even defend your idiotic "moral" calculus. If you are talking about a simple matter of economics, which you now apparently are, then the avaricious fellow in paragraph C of my example is _precisely_ as "culpable" as the antiwar tax resister in paragraph B, and your entire argument falls apart. You are a demonstrated idiot; congratulations. Oh, by the way, where are those phantom WMDs that "everyone" knows about? Syria? Jordan? Kurdistan? Perhaps they're in France? Please, some detail. The world is hanging on your every word. Do not disappoint, please.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Well done, you clueless clown. You can't even defend your idiotic "moral" calculus. If you are talking about a simple matter of economics, which you now apparently are, then the avaricious fellow in paragraph C of my example is _precisely_ as "culpable" as the antiwar tax resister in paragraph B, and your entire argument falls apart. You are a demonstrated idiot; congratulations. Oh, by the way, where are those phantom WMDs that "everyone" knows about? Syria? Jordan? Kurdistan? Perhaps they're in France? Please, some detail. The world is hanging on your every word. Do not disappoint, please.


You can't read very well. Point C exists in your mind and Berties not mine. I divorced myself from that on Page 1.

Clueless clown? LMAO you really are sad 

Don't worry tho Lushington I probably pay $3 in taxes for every $1 you pay!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Argument? Try reading for comprehension. I said, IF you believe PJPII.

I'm done with you. My parting shot is, the tiny political box you and Bush find yourselves in will be getting a whole lot smaller during the next two years. If y'all want to extend your catastrophic and mindless "preventive invasion" policy to Iran and elsewhere you better start holding frickin' bake sales, because you certainly won't be getting any more money from Congress.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Somebody is going to get hurt if you boys don't play nice.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

> FTR Bertie and Kav are the ones that brought up avoiding moral culpability this way. NOT ME.


And you adopted their view:



> What you are suggesting is that I also cross that line into an individual, overt, conscious, and purposeful act for which I bear moral culpability. Well I have; and in many ways in support of the War and Troops. I simply choose not to discuss some of them here.


Moving along:



ksinc said:


> You can't read very well. Point C exists in your mind and Berties not mine. I divorced myself from that on Page 1.


Did you? Here is the excerpt I quoted from your last post on Page 1



> A dollar saved is the same as a dollar earned. Any dollar consciously denied the war effort for moral culpability reasons is the same as a dollar sent to Al-Q.
> 
> As I discussed with Laxplayer, *[C]* simply managing your money wisely with no conscious, practiced intent is an entirely different matter and I do much the same.


In this passage you draw a distinction, a moral distinction, between those who would "consciously" deny tax dollars to the WOT and those who withhold the same dollars by "simply managing [their] money wisely." You do the same in an early reply to Laxplayer, also on the first page:



> I think what you do [reduce one's tax burden in order to profit oneself] is fine. Big distinction though, I wouldn't characterize what you do as KAV did what he does - conscious financial resistance to the war. To confuse the two would be extreme.


If each dollar withheld from the WOT is a dollar in Bin Laden's pocket, pray explain the greater opproprium attached to the "conscious" resister. Is not the wise money manager also putting money in Bin Laden's pocket? If there is an economic imperative to contribute all one can to the WOT, any reduction in that sum, for any reason, is subject to equal censure, is it not? Why is apolitical money management "an entirely different matter" in this context from politically motivated money management if both achieve the undesirable end - putting money in Bin Laden's pocket? After all, isn't one supposed to consider the "ramifications" of one's actions? If so, why does self-enrichment sanitize putting money in Bin Laden's pocket?



> Anyway, just to humor myself ...
> 
> How do you think we won the cold war? largely economics.
> 
> ...


This litany of lame rhetoric has no relevance whatsoever to our exchange. Neither I, nor anyone else, has questioned the importance of cold hard cash in the WOT [sic, ad nauseum, ad infinitum]. So, while you may amuse youself with it, be advised that it further reveals your incoherence.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> What you said is a lie. That's how it's untrue.
> 
> Facts: Saddam had WMDs. Everyone knows he did. Everyone stated in the UN resolutions that they agreed he did. This was not based solely on US intelligence or even US/UK intelligence.
> 
> ...


pardon my 'french' here ... BUT WHAT UTTER ******* ******** !"

no weapons were found , no weapons were photographed from military sattelites that was combing iraq and could account for every grain of sand and yet you say he still had some bwhahahahahaha FART ''oops' mwhahaha < cough cough > ''argh , argh '' hahahahahaha .

even rumsfeld admitted there were none and knew beforehand there were none after sexing up the war effort by saying there was.

its all lies to invade and control the second largest oil reserve in the world .. its plain theft .. nothing else. and its the likes of you who have to die !

bush is an oil man ... go figure !


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

english_gent said:


> pardon my 'french' here ... BUT WHAT UTTER ******* ******** !"
> 
> no weapons were found , no weapons were photographed from military sattelites that was combing iraq and could account for every grain of sand and yet you say he still had some bwhahahahahaha FART ''oops' mwhahaha < cough cough > ''argh , argh '' hahahahahaha .
> 
> ...


Need my address?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> And you adopted their view:
> 
> Moving along:
> 
> ...


Lushington,

Because taxes and budgets are not a zero sum game. The war is going to be funded in spite of Bertie or "C". Bertie however is not interested in the practical discussion he's just saying he is removing his own "moral culpability". "C" is not. Which means Bertie is picking sides with conscious intent. I simply demonstrated that he has moral culpability either way for his conscious actions and intent. I did so by just extrapolating that in a war on terror with no neutrals if it was a zero sum game, the practical applications that would have. These can be transferred to the false paradigm Bertie has where he can escape moral culpability by denying some amount of his taxes he believes are 'earmarked' for the war. Such as I extrapolated to $1 for ammo or armor and the moral culpability he chooses. He's choosing one either way by his paradigm. Can he really have or not have moral culpability by his theory? Bertie created a false paradigm, when we extrapolate effect in that paradigm, the answers are ugly. Again, don't blame me for it, blame him. The whole idea that he can escape moral culpability via his tax deductions is the ludicrous logic. All I did was accept Bertie and his proposition at face value and try to make reality fit that paradigm. You are right, it doesn't. While you feel that is a brilliant deduction on your part, it's really a given. I've told you this two or three times, when I directed you to go read the part about where I agreed with "Conservative Democrats".

If you would read the entire stream with active thought, as I suggested, instead of parsing every sentence for the purpose of yanking some "gotcha" out of context you might even understand what I'm saying and doing. Your problem which is one of many Libs is you assume anything you don't undertand is either said by a stupid person or a crazy person. I assure you that's a strategic mistake that makes you look inexperienced. The name calling and characterizations just further diminish your relevance. It's one reason why the "Liberal" tag is now considered a slur. You are proving the stereotype right down the line.

Free your mind, comrade.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Lushington,
> 
> Because taxes and budgets are not a zero sum game. The war is going to be funded in spite of Bertie or "C". Bertie however is just saying he is removing his own "moral culpability". "C" is not. Which means he's picking sides with conscious intent. I simply demonstrated that he has moral culpability either way for his conscious actions and intent. He's picking sides and making an overt action. I'm just demonstrating that in a war on terror with no neutrals that is like a zero sum game and the practical applications that would have. These can be transferred to the make believe world Bertie is in where he can escape moral culpability by denying some amount of his taxes he believes are 'earmarked' for the war. Such as I extended to $1 for ammo or armor.


Not close. If there exists a moral obligation to fund the WOT through tax revenue, there is no meaningful moral distinction between those that reduce that revenue through conscious choice, and those that do so to profit themselves. Indeed, the latter is akin to a war profiteer, one of the most intensely despised creatures on the face of the planet.



> Speaking of incoherent, go look in the mirror. If I act like a disturbed six year old, you act like a hysterical little girl.


You confuse me Frank, as he accused you behaving like six-year old. I insulted you with other terms.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> You confuse me [with] Frank, as he accused you behaving like six-year old. I insulted you with other terms.


Yes, I did. I was still typing and you can see I took that out.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Not close. *If there exists *a moral obligation to fund the WOT through tax revenue, there is no meaningful moral distinction between those that reduce that revenue through conscious choice, and those that do so to profit themselves. Indeed, the latter is akin to a war profiteer, one of the most universally despised creatures on the face of the planet.


Well that's a start, but you have to use that critical thinking on the original proposition. How do you get beyond "If a person could escape moral culpability by tax deductions as financial resisitance"? You can't unless you extrapolate as I did.

When one does so, you are accepting that Berties is denying a $1 for ammo and armor. And you have to answer the first questions I posed in this thread.

Then you can certainly ask the same of "C". It's intellectual integrity. As I already said repeatedly I do not support Bertie or "C".


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Need my address?


huh?

explain?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

english_gent said:


> huh?
> 
> explain?


Explain? You told him he needs to die. I think his response was much more measured than mine would have been to a similar statement.

Cheers


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

misquoting me here ....

im pointing out its the little guys on the street who do all the dieing !

would you like me to walk you through it all again?

the leaders do all the lying and its us who do all the dieing .

you're welcome..


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

So where is *bulla* on all this? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

english_gent said:


> its all lies to invade and control the second largest oil reserve in the world .. its plain theft .. nothing else. *and its the likes of you who have to die ! *


No need to get supercilious old boy. You made an assinine statement and were called on it. No misquote, it is quite simple. To read this as a statement telling the person you are addressing (ksinc in this case) that it is "the likes of you who have to die" is pretty solid stuff. Maybe you meant different and if so, no need to further come off a buffoon or ITG. You asked for an explanation and I was able to provide it, showing ksinc is not alone in his reading of your statement.

Sometimes, my dear chap, it *is* you and *not* the rest of the world. This would appear to be one of those cases.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> No need to get supercilious old boy. You made an assinine statement and were called on it. No misquote, it is quite simple. To read this as a statement telling the person you are addressing (ksinc in this case) that it is "the likes of you who have to die" is pretty solid stuff. Maybe you meant different and if so, no need to further come off a buffoon or ITG. You asked for an explanation and I was able to provide it, showing ksinc is not alone in his reading of your statement.
> 
> Sometimes, my dear chap, it *is* you and *not* the rest of the world. This would appear to be one of those cases.


yawn ....

go sign up and fight in bush's oil venture ... and please spare me the 'buffoon' statements.. this a forum not a dicken's novel .

oh the pretentiousness !


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

english_gent said:


> yawn ....
> 
> *go sign up and fight in bush's oil venture* ... and please spare me the 'buffoon' statements.. this a forum not a dicken's novel .
> 
> oh the pretentiousness !


Typical. You pay no attention to the position of other posters (why would I sign up for a war I constantly state I was always against?) and try to make out I am the buffoon in this scenario. Laddy buck, you asked for an explanation, I gave it in good faith. My apologies reality is not agreeing with your personal construct. This is one measure of an adult: when he/she asks a question about themselves, deal with the reality of the answer rationally. Again, you asked for an explanation from ksinc. The fact I could provide it *should* (but obviously is not) show you that it is you looking foolish here.

Cheers

Edit: Sorry, I had meant to give you the way out here too and became distracted from a phone call. Merely tell ksinc you did not wish him to die and it was a misunderstanding.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Typical. You pay no attention to the position of other posters (why would I sign up for a war I constantly state I was always against?) and try to make out I am the buffoon in this scenario. Laddy buck, you asked for an explanation, I gave it in good faith. My apologies reality is not agreeing with your personal construct. This is one measure of an adult: when he/she asks a question about themselves, deal with the reality of the answer rationally. Again, you asked for an explanation from ksinc. The fact I could provide it *should* (but obviously is not) show you that it is you looking foolish here.
> 
> Cheers


looking foolish ?? oh puhlease !

i point out perfectly correctly that you mis-intepreted my argument ,probably blinded by a wounded ego and subsequent aggressive intepretation of my post , then you all back pedal by playing a game of semantics heh.

im impressed ... YOU IMPRESS ME ! 

c'mon yanks .. get the flags out and wave em .. EG is posting.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

english_gent said:


> looking foolish ?? oh puhlease !
> 
> i point out perfectly correctly that you mis-intepreted my argument ,probably blinded by a wounded ego and subsequent aggressive intepretation of my post , then you all back peddle by playing a game of semantics heh.
> 
> ...


I am also not a Yank. You really are demonstrating a perfect record so far today. Please carry on now.

Cheers

P.S. Did they stop teaching punctuation in your schools?


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I am also not a Yank. You really are demonstrating a perfect record so far today. Please carry on now.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> P.S. Did they stop teaching punctuation in your schools?


arguing the toss now ! heh

i think you've dug yourself into a deep enough hole ... i'd quit while you are merely ten miles behind.

and if you are gonna read my post as if marking an essay i think you are over-stretching yourself. its the dan quale in me ... the internet is a crude beast and as such my text is expressed anyway i want .

anything else you 'wanna' moan about ?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

english_gent said:


> arguing the toss now ! heh
> 
> i think you've dug yourself into a deep enough hole ... i'd quit while you are merely ten miles behind.
> 
> ...


Thank you for once again demonstrating to me why I should refrain from being polite to some people. I answer a question you posed and this is what has happened. Again, I do so apologize you did not like the answer. I have even provided you with the civil response, which would be to merely clarify to ksinc you do not wish him dead. However, I do now know I can spare myself from dealing with you politely or rationally in the future so I thank you for that.

Regards


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Thank you for once again demonstrating to me why I should refrain from being polite to some people. I answer a question you posed and this is what has happened. Again, I do so apologize you did not like the answer. I have even provided you with the civil response, which would be to merely clarify to ksinc you do not wish him dead. However, I do now know I can spare myself from dealing with you politely or rationally in the future so I thank you for that.
> 
> Regards


i dont wish ksinc dead .. AS I POINTED OUT ... i merely drew his attention to the fact his admin probably do for their ambitions.

would you like me to spell it out again??

oh and the gloves are off .. im quaking ! :icon_smile_big:

you're mentor and life counsellor ... EG .:icon_smile:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

EG, don't take it personally. Simply read the other threads in this forum and you'll see the same pattern repeated in Wayfarer's (and ksinc's) responses, over and over again: misconstruing, misquoting, straw man arguments, non sequiturs, anything and everything to avoid answering the points made and their own consciences.

Bottom line is, as Paul Simon once wrote, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. There's no getting through to these people. So sit back and watch Mr. Darwin work his magic. The last election for an unqualified disaster for the Republicans, and the likes of Wayfarer and ksinc serve a definite purpose: they're helping to ensure this spanking carries over to next year's elections as well.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> EG, don't take it personally. Simply read the other threads in this forum and you'll see the same pattern repeated in Wayfarer's (and ksinc's) responses, over and over again: misconstruing, misquoting, straw man arguments, non sequiturs, anything and everything to avoid answering the points made and their own consciences.
> 
> Bottom line is, as Paul Simon once wrote, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. There's no getting through to these people. So sit back and watch Mr. Darwin work his magic. The last election for an unqualified disaster for the Republicans, and the likes of Wayfarer and ksinc serve a definite purpose: they're helping to ensure this spanking carries over to next year's elections as well.


aww i'm having a ball sparring with the intellectual bantam weights and mental midgets.

it gets my post count up! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well that's a start, but you have to use that critical thinking on the original proposition. How do you get beyond "If a person could escape moral culpability by tax deductions as financial resisitance"? You can't unless you extrapolate as I did.
> 
> When one does so, you are accepting that Berties is denying a $1 for ammo and armor. And you have to answer the first questions I posed in this thread.
> 
> Then you can certainly ask the same of "C". It's intellectual integrity. As I already said repeatedly I do not support Bertie or "C".


Apparently, ksinc, you remain rooted at one point in this exchange, while I am rooted on a later point. I quite understand your initial question; I find it irrelevant. As your serial posts on the first page indicate, you have satisfied yourself that there is a moral element to the payment of one's taxes as it relates to the WOT. I paraphrase your position: one should pay one's full share of tax liability because each dollar by which this liability is reduced is added to the ledger of Al Qaida. If one reduces one's liablity for the purpose of reducing one's contribution to the WOT, out of moral qualms as to its legitimacy, one is actually contributing money to Al Qaida; thus one is deluding oneself as to virtue of one's conduct. *However*_, _you also recognize an exception to this calculus: if one reduces one's tax liablity out of a desire to increase one's after-tax earnings, one escapes complicity with Al Qaida because one's motives are pure, notwithstanding that one's actions have the same effect as a politically-motivated resistor.

Very good. I reject your initial premises in reality, but I accept them for the purposes of the present discussion. *My* point is that your exception is meaningless, self-serving, and wrong. You contend that motive matters in this instance; I dispute this. It is important to note that all have assumed in this thread that both the politically-motivated and the apolitical taxpayer, B and C in my example, are using legitimate and legal means to reduce their respective tax burdens - it is not a matter of cheating. In such case, it matters not one whit *why *a taxpayer reduces his liability if the end result is money in Al Qaida's account. Any and all are morally culpable; if moral culpability exists for one, it exists for all. I will further note in passing that your 1:1 calculus seems terribly simplistic. Far more important is the allocation of resources in the WOT, not the simple accumulation of resources. A prime example of this is the one you have mentioned: an American soldier being killed in action because he and his comrades run out of ammunition. The US spends such vast sums on armaments and war that adequate supplies of an essential item such as ammunition for small arms should never even be contemplated. It should be unthinkable, at least from a supply standpoint. If such is not the case now, additional tax revenue will change nothing. If adequate ammunition is not available to combat soliders in Iraq it is not for lack of money. It is because the vast sums already collected have been pissed away on boondoggles, fraud, and colossally expensive weapon systems that serve no purpose in the WOT, even notionally. For instance, the construction and maintenance of aircraft carriers has little relevance in the WOT; yet these activities cost many billions of dollars per annum. Should not this waste also be added to Al Qaida's ledger, so long as we're tallying such things?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> There's no getting through to these people. So sit back and watch Mr. Darwin work his magic. The last election for an unqualified disaster for the Republicans, and the likes of Wayfarer and ksinc serve a definite purpose: they're helping to ensure this spanking carries over to next year's elections as well.


Frank, you really must stop speaking out of where you sit. I mean, you have managed to disagree with me when I agree with you, namely the US should never have gotten into the War. When one can fight with someone agreeing with them, a certain inability to process things does manifest itself. I fail to see how my disagreeing with the War created "an unqualified disaster for Republicans." Can you please elucidate how my disagreeing with the Repubs on this issue reflects on them? Either that or just continue to speak out of your rump.

And English Gent (a great misnomer), if you think you are verbally "sparring" with me, I do hope you do not slip on the pool of blood streaming from your rhetorical nose. It has been bloodied quite badly.

Thank you both lads for the chuckles.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank, you really must stop speaking out of where you sit. I mean, you have managed to disagree with me when I agree with you, namely the US should never have gotten into the War. When one can fight with someone agreeing with them, a certain inability to process things does manifest itself. I fail to see how my disagreeing with the War created "an unqualified disaster for Republicans." Can you please elucidate how my disagreeing with the Repubs on this issue reflects on them? Either that or just continue to speak out of your rump.
> 
> And English Gent (a great misnomer), if you think you are verbally "sparring" with me, I do hope you do not slip on the pool of blood streaming from your rhetorical nose. It has been bloodied quite badly.
> 
> Thank you both lads for the chuckles.


you've been owned , dear

hope you had a great weekend .

EG


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

english_gent said:


> *i dont wish ksinc dead* .. AS I POINTED OUT ... i merely drew his attention to the fact his admin probably do for their ambitions.
> 
> would you like me to spell it out again??
> 
> ...


Well, it only took five posts to get there. See that wasn't so bad!
Alright tough guy, back to your boxing.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> EG, don't take it personally. Simply read the other threads in this forum and you'll see the same pattern repeated in Wayfarer's (and ksinc's) responses, over and over again: misconstruing, misquoting, straw man arguments, non sequiturs, anything and everything to avoid answering the points made and their own consciences.
> 
> Bottom line is, *as Paul Simon once wrote, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.* There's no getting through to these people. So sit back and watch Mr. Darwin work his magic. The last election for an unqualified disaster for the Republicans, and the likes of Wayfarer and ksinc serve a definite purpose: they're helping to ensure this spanking carries over to next year's elections as well.


Off topic: Was this from Senator Paul Simon or the singer? Just wondering, as I always admired Sen. Paul Simon. He did alot for the people of Illinois. They recently put up a road sign in his honor just across the river from St. Louis. It even has a large bowtie on it. I met him in college once, and he complimented me on my own bowtie.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Off topic: Was this from Senator Paul Simon or the singer? Just wondering, as I always admired Sen. Paul Simon. He did alot for the people of Illinois. They recently put up a road sign in his honor just across the river from St. Louis. It even has a large bowtie on it. I met him in college once, and he complimented me on my own bowtie.


The singer, it's from 'The Boxer' goes something like this:

"I am just a poor boy, though my story's seldom told.
I have squandered my resistance,
For a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises.
All lies and jest.
Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> The singer, it's from 'The Boxer' goes something like this:
> 
> "I am just a poor boy, though my story's seldom told.
> I have squandered my resistance,
> ...


Thanks mpcsb. Now I remember the line.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I thnk we should now take a "Manifest Destiny" approach to Iraq. This worked wonderfully with half of Mexico, as opposed to the half we left behind (but that are now joining us). A good Homestead Act and a strong Second Amendment would work just fine.

What do y'all think?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> I thnk we should now take a "Manifest Destiny" approach to Iraq. This worked wonderfully with half of Mexico, as opposed to the half we left behind (but that are now joining us). A good Homestead Act and a strong Second Amendment would work just fine.
> 
> What do y'all think?


Empires are expensive. Also I don't think the US has the stomach for what it would take to maintain an Imperial presence in Iraq. ( we're insufficiently ruthless)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Very good. I reject your initial premises in reality, but I accept them for the purposes of the present discussion. *My* point is that your exception is meaningless, self-serving, and wrong. You contend that motive matters in this instance; I dispute this. It is important to note that all have assumed in this thread that both the politically-motivated and the apolitical taxpayer, B and C in my example, are using legitimate and legal means to reduce their respective tax burdens - it is not a matter of cheating. In such case, it matters not one whit *why *a taxpayer reduces his liability if the end result is money in Al Qaida's account. Any and all are morally culpable; if moral culpability exists for one, it exists for all. I will further note in passing that your 1:1 calculus seems terribly simplistic. Far more important is the allocation of resources in the WOT, not the simple accumulation of resources. A prime example of this is the one you have mentioned: an American soldier being killed in action because he and his comrades run out of ammunition. The US spends such vast sums on armaments and war that adequate supplies of an essential item such as ammunition for small arms should never even be contemplated. It should be unthinkable, at least from a supply standpoint. If such is not the case now, additional tax revenue will change nothing. If adequate ammunition is not available to combat soliders in Iraq it is not for lack of money. It is because the vast sums already collected have been pissed away on boondoggles, fraud, and colossally expensive weapon systems that serve no purpose in the WOT, even notionally. For instance, the construction and maintenance of aircraft carriers has little relevance in the WOT; yet these activities cost many billions of dollars per annum. Should not this waste also be added to Al Qaida's ledger, so long as we're tallying such things?


Lushington, We do strongly disagree. I reject your view and you reject mine. No harm in that. To me, Motive/Intent matters. FWIW, I am studying for the CPA and have an MBA Acct&Finance. There is a huge distinction between avoidance and evasion, negligence, intent, and good-faith error in particularly tax law. I freely admit, my perspective is highly biased by this viewpoint and I am not a lawyer. I wouldn't accept self-serving because this does not serve me at all, but if you want to say I'm self-righteous about the moral culpability of the war, I will wear that star. I am, for good reasons we need not explore here. But, I will not dodge the bullet on that or your disdain. Guilty as charged.

Still, perhaps we can move beyond that this way: if Bertie is at null, then I am at 1 and you are 2 on the scale I would describe as to the moral culpability sensitivity. my only point was to prove the scale was beyond null and debunk Bertie's position. As I have said several times and you seem to ignore. I have no real issue with you being at 2 or your case "C" and I am much more aligned with Cons-Dems on this issue that W-admin. I think it is wrong to continue to cut taxes while the War is on. I belive that is a conscious, overt act. However, taking ones CORRECT deductions in good-faith is not. Your case C introduces GREED which is a sin. Perhaps you are even more aligned with your values than I. But, I draw a distinction between my obligation to be a good steward and GREED. However, even if you are *more correct* than me that does not make my point that 1 > null wrong, self-serving, ludicrous or anything else. I'm operating for this discussion in a false paradigm not of my making. That is why I appear rooted in your view. I am on the OP to which my responses were branched. You cannot take my comment out of that context.

FWIW, your own statements are also proving Bertie's thesis wrong. Both statements 1>null and 2>null are true. If you are viewing yourself at 2 then fine 2>1 too. Again, I have no defense for "C". And I'm quite sure if you met me you would consider me a "Greedy Business Owner" as well. This is where motives and intent play ball - particularly STATED INTENT.

Maybe that helps you, maybe not.

Cheers!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> I thnk we should now take a "Manifest Destiny" approach to Iraq. This worked wonderfully with half of Mexico, as opposed to the half we left behind (but that are now joining us). A good Homestead Act and a strong Second Amendment would work just fine.
> 
> What do y'all think?


You read "A Republic, Not An Empire" didn't you?


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Empires are expensive. Also I don't think the US has the stomach for what it would take to maintain an Imperial presence in Iraq. ( we're insufficiently ruthless)


not ruthlessness but intelligence/brains.

we ran india with two men and a bicycle , lol (actually less than 1000 civil servants) .. we devloped our trading relationship into a full scale take over that lasted over 300 years.

america is all about bombing and ground troops which doesnt work as your ground troops are dismall (vietnam for instance ).

at the same time you were getting your rear end handed to you in 'nam' we were fighting our own war in borneo.

borneo has a land mass , terrain and population similar to vietnam .. but we used stealth and the befriended the locals and we won !

we told you bombing everything into obliteration was the wrong tactic and you'd lose and so you did.

america is a mindlessly violent country with widespread gun ownership , gun deaths and a never ending output of violent films. you go into countrys hamfisted and it turns into a disaster.

start using your head instead of carpet bombing countrys from 2 miles up in the clouds and you might start getting somewhere.

but its beyond your realm and out of your league .


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

english_gent said:


> not ruthlessness but intelligence/brains.
> 
> we ran india with two men and a bicycle , lol (actually less than 1000 civil servants) .. we devloped our trading relationship into a full scale take over that lasted over 300 years.


Can't speak to Borneo, but the Raj required an inordinate military expendature on the part of the UK. You may want to investigate the history of the conquest of India- actually you held onto it for only about 100 years-even in part.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

english_gent said:


> not ruthlessness but intelligence/brains.
> 
> we ran india with two men and a bicycle , lol (actually less than 1000 civil servants) .. we devloped our trading relationship into a full scale take over that lasted over 300 years.
> 
> ...


Sounds like someone is still smarting from that little tiff in 1776.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Empires are expensive. Also I don't think the US has the stomach for what it would take to maintain an Imperial presence in Iraq. ( we're insufficiently ruthless)


You are correct we are insufficiently ruthless, at least our politicians are, and evidently our military too.

So let's do it like we did the Old West. Just send average American Joes over there with an economic incentive and the Right to Bear Arms, and problem solved. We could take up date farming, goat-herding, etc. Maybe even have a few range wars amongst ourselves.

There's lots of unexplored oil acreage there too. Personally I'd like to do like James Dean did in that movie "Big".

Can I get an "amen"?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

english_gent said:


> not ruthlessness but intelligence/brains.
> 
> we ran india with two men and a bicycle , lol (actually less than 1000 civil servants) .. we devloped our trading relationship into a full scale take over that lasted over 300 years.
> 
> ...


Hey *english_genital*, why don't you go study Robert Clive and his exploits before you go trashing us, eh?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

english_gent said:


> not ruthlessness but intelligence/brains.
> 
> *we ran india with two men and a bicycle , lol (actually less than 1000 civil servants) .. we devloped our trading relationship into a full scale take over that lasted over 300 years.*
> 
> ...


I am sure that the poor in India, are eternally grateful for the centuries of English rule.

_Many of the present conflicts in the world take place in the former colonial territories that Britain abandoned, exhausted and impoverished, in the years after the second world war...._
https://www.trinicenter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1445

I am now certain that JLP/Fogey has returned.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If we have an empire, can I be emporer??


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> If we have an empire, can I be emporer??


No, but you can be the Royal Pianist!


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Seems to me we are still cleaning up British and Continental colonial rule around the World. They left a mess almost everywhere they went. Let me count some of the MANY ways:

1. Iraq (UK)
2. Palestine (UK)
3. Afghanistan (UK)
4. Kashmir (UK)
5. Most of Sub-Saharan Africa (UK & France)
6. Lebanon (France)
7. Indochina - Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos (France)
8. North Africa - Algeria, Tunisia (France).
9. Egypt (UK)
10. Syria (France)
11. Iran (UK)

The list goes on and on. What say you now *english_genital*?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Oh shush [email protected]! The US is evil, the UK brought civilization to the masses. Please do not dissuade the poor lad or you too shall be "owned".

Where have you been btw?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh shush [email protected]! The US is evil, the UK brought civilization to the masses. Please do not dissuade the poor lad or you too shall be "owned".
> 
> Where have you been btw?


Been busy. Heading back out to the boonies in a couple of weeks. This time to one of those messes left behind by the Portuguese.

I got a new Rolex for Christmas. Way cool! :icon_smile:

Where did *english_genital* come from anyways? Those blokes don't get circumcised which is why American women can't stand them :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Seems to me we are still cleaning up British and Continental colonial rule around the World. They left a mess almost everywhere they went. Let me count some of the MANY ways:
> 
> 1. Iraq (UK)
> 2. Palestine (UK)
> ...


Northern Ireland (UK)

Don't expect a response M8. He didn't respond the last time I started a thread on this topic. Of course, that was when he was using a different name.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Of course let's not forget their horrible colonization of the US & Canada. Look what it created. Us! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

oh our poor old colonials ... like all changes of admin when there is a vacuum of power all hell breaks loose . sorry thats the dynamics of power.

considering how evil we were its amazing how well loved we still are with our colonials isnt it !

we even meet up for cordial games of cricket every year and if you are english and you travel to india (which i have ) its like beatle-mania all over again. 

oh and your 'war' of independence.lol your revolutionarys were so impotent and pathetic we enjoyed total military and naval supremacy for 5 years to the point old nutcase king george downgraded the 'threat' and redistributed resources elsewhere. we in fact went to sleep because of the pathetic resistance.

then the french , due to jealousy and historical rivalry snook in to help a losing side out. it amazes me how you americans can revile the french so much when they gave you your nationhood! 

and an englishman in the states is a minor celebrity .. face it YOU LOVE US ! :icon_smile: all you budding and aspirational 'cogniscienti' (sp*) try and be english gents. imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :icon_smile_big: 

and wayfarer , what an interesting species of man , i must admit after reading his posts i feel more compassionate towards him ... he's not all there !

love n lollipops .. EG !


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

*english_genitalia* you are really hilarious. Put any one on ships lately just so they can float out there? I bet there's some Jewish doctor who'd be more than willing to circumsize you at this late age, just to pay you back for _Exodus_.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

english_gent said:


> and wayfarer , what an interesting species of man , i must admit after reading his posts i feel more compassionate towards him ... he's not all there !


Ah, a personal insult in the diatribe just for me. Guess who has cut our poor English Buffoon to the quick?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Lushington, We do strongly disagree. I reject your view and you reject mine. No harm in that. To me, Motive/Intent matters. FWIW, I am studying for the CPA and have an MBA Acct&Finance. There is a huge distinction between avoidance and evasion, negligence, intent, and good-faith error in particularly tax law. I freely admit, my perspective is highly biased by this viewpoint and I am not a lawyer. I wouldn't accept self-serving because this does not serve me at all, but if you want to say I'm self-righteous about the moral culpability of the war, I will wear that star. I am, for good reasons we need not explore here. But, I will not dodge the bullet on that or your disdain. Guilty as charged.


Sure there is a huge distinction. Both B and C intend to lower their tax burden and thereby put money in Osama's pocket. Let us posit a another individual, D, who, through third-party error or oversight, under-reports his income and thereby pays less tax than he would otherwise. He has, according the 1:1 formula, contributed to Al Qaida's financial well-being. You would assign no culpability to D. I don't argue with that. My point is that if culpability is assigned to B, it must also be assigned to C: both have the same intent; but different motives. My position is the motive is irrelevant to the issue of "culpability" as you have framed it. Personally, I would assign no culpability to any taxpayer in this respect: you, me, Bertie, or anyone else. We are all legally compelled to pay our taxes according to formulae that we do not create nor necessarily approve; and, as you noted earlier, beyond the legal compulsion we each have a moral obligation to contribute to the general welfare in myriad ways, including prompt and honest payment of our taxes. It is those who are charged with allocating this tax revenue who are culpable for the allocation, not the taxpayers. The taxpayers are responsible for relieving the allocators of their duties if the revenue is allocated in morally offensive ways.



> Still, perhaps we can move beyond that this way: if Bertie is at null, then I am at 1 and you are 2 on the scale I would describe as to the moral culpability sensitivity. my only point was to prove the scale was beyond null and debunk Bertie's position. As I have said several times and you seem to ignore. I have no real issue with you being at 2 or your case "C" and I am much more aligned with Cons-Dems on this issue that W-admin. I think it is wrong to continue to cut taxes while the War is on. I belive that is a conscious, overt act. However, taking ones CORRECT deductions in good-faith is not. Your case C introduces GREED which is a sin. Perhaps you are even more aligned with your values than I. But, I draw a distinction between my obligation to be a good steward and GREED. However, even if you are *more correct* than me that does not make my point that 1 > null wrong, self-serving, ludicrous or anything else. I'm operating for this discussion in a false paradigm not of my making. That is why I appear rooted in your view. I am on the OP to which my responses were branched. You cannot take my comment out of that context.


I introduced "greed" into an example to highlight the special pleading; it was not directed at your person. I don't know you and cannot speak to your personal probity or avarice; and for the purposes of the discussion any participant's personal virtue, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Can't speak to Borneo, but the Raj required an inordinate military expendature on the part of the UK. You may want to investigate the history of the conquest of India- actually you held onto it for only about 100 years-even in part.


They got their asses kicked in Borneo and later in Malaya too. He's rewriting history. BTW go to Malaysia today and they will tell you that they don't really care for the British.

*english_genitalia* is living in a fantasy. He makes the "Ugly American" look pretty damned handsome. Maybe he can be my wingman next time I go cruising in bars. Always helps to have an uglier wingman :icon_smile_big:


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

martini8 .. references , dear , references .

vietnam .. the whole world laughed.. and a like a big fat bully beaten up in the schoolyard by the downtrodden geek the bully pityfully pleas a draw heh. please no more 'it was hell out there' war movies from hollywood.

ITS ONLY HELL WHEN YOU ARE LOSING ! :icon_smile_big: 

and wayfarer .. i'm having fun with you ... you are indeed a mental midget and havnt the sharp tools to inflict any injurys .. not even a broken nail , dear !

at the end of the day , we brits gave the world culture , sophistication and genius .. more than a hotdog ! (paraphrased from 'the long good friday' - harry shand)

have fun dears !


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

english_gent said:


> ...and wayfarer .. i'm having fun with you ... you are indeed a mental midget and havnt the sharp tools to inflict any injurys .. not even a broken nail , dear !


Well *Wayfarer*, I guess he told you. Don't just stand there and take it. Can't you ******-ized, Hawaii-inized Canadians defend yourselves? :icon_smile_big:

(uh, I think he's gone for a while)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

english_gent said:


> and wayfarer .. i'm having fun with you ... you are indeed a mental midget and havnt the sharp tools to inflict any injurys .. not even a broken nail , dear !


I do apologize Buffon, but I shall have to stop responding to you until you at least try and present an idea. While reading your immature insults is quaint fun for the two of us, it bores the others and does not comply with the concept of an Interchange. At least leaven your lame lambasts with a little logic or the conversation is finished for the time being.

Please do not tell me how you have been victorious in this rather lopsided battle of the wits, i.e. you have > zero < full deck


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

english_gent said:


> oh our poor old colonials ... like all changes of admin when there is a vacuum of power all hell breaks loose . sorry thats the dynamics of power.
> 
> *considering how evil we were its amazing how well loved we still are with our colonials isnt it !*
> 
> ...


How right you are!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Well *Wayfarer*, I guess he told you. Don't just stand there and take it. Can't you ******-ized, Hawaii-inized Canadians defend yourselves? :icon_smile_big:
> 
> (uh, I think he's gone for a while)


That's "haole-ized"  I just got a care package from the in-laws; wasabi iso peanuts could make me a fortune on the main land I think.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> That's "haole-ized"  I just got a care package from the in-laws; wasabi iso peanuts could make me a fortune on the main land I think.


We are going there for our 25th!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> We are going there for our 25th!


Which island? We are having our 10th this fall but thinking of doing a cruise Feb/08 in honour of it (best season). I want to cruise over, disembark for a week, the re-embark, I am just not sure if you can do that. We'll be on Oahu of course, as that's where the family is.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Which island? We are having our 10th this fall but thinking of doing a cruise Feb/08 in honour of it (best season). I want to cruise over, disembark for a week, the re-embark, I am just not sure if you can do that. We'll be on Oahu of course, as that's where the family is.


Still planning. Probably do Oahu just one day to catch Chinatown and the Arizona. Then we want a quiet beach resort area for about four nights.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Still planning. Probably do Oahu just one day to catch Chinatown and the Arizona. Then we want a quiet beach resort area for about four nights.


We will be staying at Chez In-Laws while there. The service is somewhat dicey but the price is certainly right.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Still planning. Probably do Oahu just one day to catch Chinatown and the Arizona.


Now _there_ is a bit of irony.

As you're standing over the watery graves of our servicemen, consider the fact Japan bombed Pearl Harbor under the exact same preemptive/preventive invasion policy our president used to justify his invasion of Iraq.

Do it for your own conscience.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Planning vacations now that you two have been owned? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

in response to a post in another thread trumpeting the ' go team america' schtick.... what has been your response to china shooting down one of your spy planes in 2001.

oh i forgot you did nothing as china has a staggeringly massive army and spends more on defence than yourselves and and an arsenal of nukes. terrible human rights record too.

being out-gunned and out massed never bothered us during the height of our empire but it seems to bother you .

go team america


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Planning vacations now that you two have been owned? :icon_smile_big:


Let's see, I'm Latino with a trace of Chinese and Portuguese, so that would make me owned by Spain, maybe? Huh? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

english_gent said:


> in response to a post in another thread trumpeting the ' go team america' schtick.... what has been your response to china shooting down one of your spy planes in 2001.
> 
> oh i forgot you did nothing as china has a staggeringly massive army and spends more on defence than yourselves and and an arsenal of nukes. terrible human rights record too.
> 
> ...


Order a take out pizza, fill up your belly, and then go to sleep. It's getting late over there. Oh, don't forget to brush before you go to bed. Gotta help the Brits with those teeth :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Now _there_ is a bit of irony.
> 
> As you're standing over the watery graves of our servicemen, consider the fact Japan bombed Pearl Harbor under the exact same preemptive/preventive invasion policy our president used to justify his invasion of Iraq.
> 
> Do it for your own conscience.


Oh, for God's sake. We have heard the WOT compared to the Roman empire, Vietnam and now WWII. 
You know, when Napoleon marched his troops into Russia it was kinda like....oh wait, I've got it. When Alexander invaded Persia...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Planning vacations now that you two have been owned? :icon_smile_big:


ic12337:

lol, wtfpwned!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Let's see, I'm Latino with a trace of Chinese and Portuguese, so that would make me owned by Spain, maybe? Huh? :icon_smile_big:


Sorry, I meant owned by EG. He told Wayfarer he had been owned. Carry on.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Speaking of Napoleon. He said, "never interfere with an enemy in the process of committing suicide."

That should be our strategy in Iraq. We can just pull into a redoubt, and let the Sunni and Shia go at it. When it's done, then we just finish off the victor.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

english_gent said:


> in response to a post in another thread trumpeting the ' go team america' schtick.... what has been your response to china shooting down one of your spy planes in 2001.
> 
> oh i forgot you did nothing as china has a staggeringly massive army and spends more on defence than yourselves and and an arsenal of nukes. terrible human rights record too.
> 
> ...


The U.S. spends nearly $400B/year on defense whilst China spend <$100B/year so I think your figures are a bit misinformed. Chinese nukes probably do not yet have the ability to reach us, they are regional at best while our can hit anywhere, at anytime.

Most importantly however is that that incident, as provocative as it was, was not a cause to go to war! Its not about being outgunned or not having the nerve. Its about using diplomacy and sound judgement, something I would think you would approve of. Now let China invade Taiwan and then lets see what happens. Incidentally, why do you think it is that China has not invaded the tiny island?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

english gent,

I think you are afflicted with, what we call in my part of this great country, "little man's disease".

The real tribute to England's capabilities is that they were forced, often by arms, to relinquish all of their "well-run" empire. Clearly, they treated and educated the natives very well, as evidenced by the current advanced state of affairs in each of the former colonies (ironically, the exception is the very one that you revile).

If not for America, you'd notice a nice big swastika inserted into each of your posts, attesting that it had been read and approved (which yours would have no problem attaining) by the Blockleiter. (if you were allowed access to the internet, at all. oh, dear!)

Of course, you may be correct that everyone loves the Brits. And why wouldn't they? Nations can do whatever they want, and what can the Brits alone do about it? Nothing. No one has any reason whatsoever to fear, really, that England may take a stand. You are nearly powerless, and other countries LOVE that. For all practical purposes, you are relegated to almost irrelevant status, militarily. Unless, of course, you have America to back you up, which, of course, we will always do.

So you go ahead and puff your chest up about your country's culture, class, or international respect. You have the luxury to do so because the United States always will be there to pull your chestnuts out of the fire, once again.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

In defense of Britain however I have to say of all European countries they do the best at assimilating their immigrant population (muslim radicals not withstanding). Witness the ghetto's in Paris that are populated by Africans and the hostility in Germany toward Turkish immigrants.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Michigan and Ohio almost went to war over Toledo once. Can we work this one in somehow?

Wayfarer, I'd really prefer the emporer gig. I think purple robes would look great with my fair complexion, and it would be good for the Royal Piano player to report to someone who understands him and can feel his pain.

Surely an AAAC member can understand this request!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Relayer:

Do not be so harsh. Iron Maggie just wtfpwned the Falklands!


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Relayer said:


> english gent,
> 
> I think you are afflicted with, what we call in my part of this great country, "little man's disease".
> 
> ...


oh please ... if no-one had taken a stand against hitler IN 1939 , you'd be carrying the swastika too. or waving the red flag. america was nothing untill it joined in opurtunistically well into the cake-fight and russian and american military were pouring into berlin after its fall to grab the goodys (mainly german scientists leading to the BOMB)

you didnt throw your hat in the ring out of a sense of moral duty (you were preparing to do business with hitler and sat out the beggining of that war) and as i stated previously we sacrificed our empire to do the right thing. while all other countrys were appeasing or forming alliances with the moustached one , we replaced chamberlaine and went to war when the german army poured into poland .

talk about being held back by self decency !

our place in history is assured .. the cradle of modern civilisation .. thats a lot to boast about .. you will be seen as an inconsequential blip!

and god help us if we have to rely on american intervention to 'save us' after your vietnam fiasco ... best do what you can handle and wait till all the fighting is done then come in amidst the ruin proclaiming you are the most important army on the field , lol.

and to think we're your ancestors too! jebus .. what was on the mayflower ? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> In defense of Britain however I have to say of all European countries they do the best at assimilating their immigrant population (muslim radicals not withstanding). Witness the ghetto's in Paris that are populated by Africans and the hostility in Germany toward Turkish immigrants.


This is true. Big problem in Spain with similar from sub-Sahara Africa.

To be serious for a moment (which this thread is not) I think most of us have a healthy respect for Britain and the British.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

english_gent said:


> oh please ... if no-one had taken a stand against hitler IN 1939 , you'd be carrying the swastika too. or waving the red flag. america was nothing untill it joined in opurtunistically well into the cake-fight and russian and american military were pouring into berlin after its fall to grab the goodys (mainly german scientists leading to the BOMB)
> 
> you didnt throw your hat in the ring out of a sense of moral duty (you were preparing to do business with hitler and sat out the beggining of that war) and as i stated previously we sacrificed our empire to do the right thing. while all other countrys were appeasing or forming alliances with the moustached one , we replaced chamberlaine and went to war when the german army poured into poland .
> 
> ...


I think that you have been smoking too much "fine moroccon hashish or opium from an antique chillum, as my adoring partner plumps up my turkish pillows and reads me flemming."
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=64431 (post #7)


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I think that you have been smoking too much "fine moroccon hashish or opium from an antique chillum, as my adoring partner plumps up my turkish pillows and reads me flemming."
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=64431 (post #7)


i'm off the booze and on the ball .. i have a message for us all !

your leader n totem .. EG .


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I dare say, considering the time zones, if one can be posting from England at this time, I would surmise that person is either unemployed or working the graveyard shift as a security guard.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I dare say, considering the time zones, if one can be posting from England at this time, I would surmise that person is either unemployed or working the graveyard shift as a security guard.


Or royalty. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Or royalty. :icon_smile_big:


/smacks forehead.

But of course that is the answer!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> It is those who are charged with allocating this tax revenue who are culpable for the allocation, not the taxpayers. The taxpayers are responsible for relieving the allocators of their duties if the revenue is allocated in morally offensive ways.


Thus Bertie's thesis goes flying out the window of Lush's aeroplane.

Cheers!


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I dare say, considering the time zones, if one can be posting from England at this time, I would surmise that person is either unemployed or working the graveyard shift as a security guard.


its 11.07 pm at this very moment in dear old blighty !

and i bump off old grannys for a living ! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

english_gent said:


> and i bump off old grannys for a living ! :icon_smile_big:


I hope you are well armed as I would fear for you in a physical altercation. Did that ban on blades go into effect in the UK? I know people getting _sgian duhbs_ tattoos in protest and mockery.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I hope you are well armed as I would fear for you in a physical altercation. Did that ban on blades go into effect in the UK? I know people getting _sgian duhbs_ tattoos in protest and mockery.


i am armed only with my wit and rakish charm.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

english_gent said:


> i am armed only with my wit and rakish charm.


You are mistaken again! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> You are mistaken again! :icon_smile_big:


its like casting pearl before swine !


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

english_gent said:


> its like casting pearl before swine !


Go puff on your hookah.


----------

