The War in Iraq is "Over"

[jimnyc]

Come back with some reason and facts and we'll talk. admit your wrong once in a while as I have, when a fact to 2 has corrected me. Even from you. But if you just got nothing but the whinny talk about misquotes of you, than look ...
were finished professional

Just yesterday, in a thread about the group "anonymous" I erroneously posted that they would try and hack the Iowa caucus. You came back and stated that the article only mentioned them having disruptions on site at the voting and cops outside the door could protect from the problem. I followed up on your post and admitted I was incorrect about my original take.

Looks like you're even wrong about this crap too!

[jimnyc]

You know what, Rev, my bad. I'll take the upper road and apologize if you feel I'm trying to run your off the board. That was hardly my intent, but I'm sorry. Anyone who wants to track my posts from the past week will see that I asked a bunch of tough questions, demanded proof and corrected false assertions. Other than some sarcasm, the name calling didn't start till this evening when YOU started it, I just hit back harder. But in the interest of fairness, and the community, I won't push the issue. Consider yourself ignore, just please don't use me as a point of reference anymore in your future debating.

[ConHog]

Rev, you can't seriously think that Jim wants you to leave the board do you?

You do realize that if that were the case. He'd simply hit the ban button and be done with it, don't you?

I've been on boards where the owners simply ban people they don't like for no real reason (and frankly they have that right if they own the board) and THIS board is NOT one of those.

[pegwinn]

Rev, you can't seriously think that Jim wants you to leave the board do you?

You do realize that if that were the case. He'd simply hit the ban button and be done with it, don't you?

I've been on boards where the owners simply ban people they don't like for no real reason (and frankly they have that right if they own the board) and THIS board is NOT one of those.

Gotta go along with that.

I seek out left leaning boards to see if they can rattle my cage. I have been banned by DailyKos and Democratic Underground for simply going against the current train of thought.

DK is different though. After you been there long enough and gotten along you become a trusted user. Each line a person writes has a + or - next to it. Anyone can tip up (the plus sign) and TU's can do the minus. Enough minus on a post and it disappears (hidden from all but TU's). Enough hidden comments and your posting is suspended. All I did was mention that Obama blew off visiting troops in a hospital overseas when he was running for pres. In about two hours the feeding frenzy was over.

At least here you get to slug it out.

[Gaffer]

So all those were asked of me and I'm suppose to reply with links and utubes. You will be disappointed.


Why should we attack Iran, when we can end up with the SAME situation?
No one says we have to invade. Just take out the main targets such as nuke facilities, AA sites and launch pads, then let them stew. Take out there ONE oil refinery and they're limited in retaliation abilities.

Politically who will we try to put in place IF we can win a ground war there? Like I said a ground war is not necessary. There are plenty in iran that would love to overthrow the govt there. They just need some backing.

They already have a some democracy, are we to kill all the devout Shia for the Saudis or what? They don't have a democracy. They have a theocracy. The voting is all for show, the president is selected by the ayatollah.


Any Airstrike will alone will be an Act of war on our part and Iran would be justified in ANY type of retaliation on U.S. troops close by in Iraq or Afghanistan on it boarders or a Strike Here on the US mainland in the form of terrorist or Assassinations. (added) Any way to gauartee limited response from Iran? It would definitely be an act of war. And they would be justified in striking back. They are not likely to strike in neutral countries however. They have already sent assassins to this country and probably have a lot more here or in Mexico. Taking out the above listed facilities would do a lot to limit their response. Take out their offensive capability and there's not much they can do. Not to mention that Russia and China may not take kindly to the U.S. attacking there old Buddy. I'm sure Russia and China would have a lot to say about it. How far they would go depends on their treaties with iran and whether they are concerned about iran having nukes.
What GOOD would a U.S. strike on A so called Iranian Nuke base do? There are 12. Taking out the facilities would prevent them from having and developing nuclear weapons. They now have a fuel rod of their own which means they can produce their own plutonium for bombs. Russia no longer controls the fuel rods.

And are you folks SERIOUSLY afraid that if Iran gets 1 nuke that they will instigate an Attack on the U.S. or Israel?
In the light of the hellish devastation ConHog describes we've wrought in IRAQ and Afghanistan that Iran can see clearly from their boarders?

They won't do anything with one nuke, they will wait until they have at least a dozen. They will then attack Israel and any US target they can get close enough too. These fanatics don't care about repercussions. Do you know that it's reported every year that the ayatollah goes up into the sky for four hours to commune with the mahdi about strategy and how to bring about the world cataclysm. This is the mind set of these nut jobs.
Won't we be Worse off if we attack? Why would we be worse off?
and the ME in a bigger mess cause by US? The ME is a big mess because of islam not the US.

But if it's as bad as you say couldn't "Striking 1st" Set WW3 off. and we'd be the cuase?! No, iran would be the cause. striking them first would limit it to iran. Letting them strike first would escalate things into a world war. Cause they are going to try to drag everyone they can into it.

Is it so hard to be like switzerland for one World War? This is one of the silliest things you have ever asked. Bury your head in the sand and hope all the bad guys just go away.

I think I found and answered all the 20 questions you had buried in that post.

[revelarts]

So all those were asked of me and I'm suppose to reply with links and utubes. You will be disappointed.


Why should we attack Iran, when we can end up with the SAME situation?
No one says we have to invade. Just take out the main targets such as nuke facilities, AA sites and launch pads, then let them stew. Take out there ONE oil refinery and they're limited in retaliation abilities.

Politically who will we try to put in place IF we can win a ground war there? Like I said a ground war is not necessary. There are plenty in iran that would love to overthrow the govt there. They just need some backing.

They already have a some democracy, are we to kill all the devout Shia for the Saudis or what? They don't have a democracy. They have a theocracy. The voting is all for show, the president is selected by the ayatollah.


Any Airstrike will alone will be an Act of war on our part and Iran would be justified in ANY type of retaliation on U.S. troops close by in Iraq or Afghanistan on it boarders or a Strike Here on the US mainland in the form of terrorist or Assassinations. (added) Any way to gauartee limited response from Iran? It would definitely be an act of war. And they would be justified in striking back. They are not likely to strike in neutral countries however. They have already sent assassins to this country and probably have a lot more here or in Mexico. Taking out the above listed facilities would do a lot to limit their response. Take out their offensive capability and there's not much they can do. Not to mention that Russia and China may not take kindly to the U.S. attacking there old Buddy. I'm sure Russia and China would have a lot to say about it. How far they would go depends on their treaties with iran and whether they are concerned about iran having nukes.
What GOOD would a U.S. strike on A so called Iranian Nuke base do? There are 12. Taking out the facilities would prevent them from having and developing nuclear weapons. They now have a fuel rod of their own which means they can produce their own plutonium for bombs. Russia no longer controls the fuel rods.

And are you folks SERIOUSLY afraid that if Iran gets 1 nuke that they will instigate an Attack on the U.S. or Israel?
In the light of the hellish devastation ConHog describes we've wrought in IRAQ and Afghanistan that Iran can see clearly from their boarders?

They won't do anything with one nuke, they will wait until they have at least a dozen. They will then attack Israel and any US target they can get close enough too. These fanatics don't care about repercussions. Do you know that it's reported every year that the ayatollah goes up into the sky for four hours to commune with the mahdi about strategy and how to bring about the world cataclysm. This is the mind set of these nut jobs.
Won't we be Worse off if we attack? Why would we be worse off?
and the ME in a bigger mess cause by US? The ME is a big mess because of islam not the US.

But if it's as bad as you say couldn't "Striking 1st" Set WW3 off. and we'd be the cuase?! No, iran would be the cause. striking them first would limit it to iran. Letting them strike first would escalate things into a world war. Cause they are going to try to drag everyone they can into it.

Is it so hard to be like switzerland for one World War? This is one of the silliest things you have ever asked. Bury your head in the sand and hope all the bad guys just go away.

I think I found and answered all the 20 questions you had buried in that post.

We disagree but , hey we knew that .
And usually i don't press people if they don't answer, i, like others, have whole threads with no response. no biggie. I let myself get get drawn it to an internet a bit of an internet drama thing, sorry, anyway, I appreciate the response.

[ConHog]

Rev, stop being a whiny little girl. I asked you a question. Answer it.

[revelarts]

Rev, you can't seriously think that Jim wants you to leave the board do you?

You do realize that if that were the case. He'd simply hit the ban button and be done with it, don't you?

I've been on boards where the owners simply ban people they don't like for no real reason (and frankly they have that right if they own the board) and THIS board is NOT one of those.

true, i just wondered where we were going with all that.

[ConHog]

true, i just wondered where we were going with all that.

Well, you DID make an accusation that simply isn't true. Jim isn't trying to ban you. He wouldn't have to try. It isn't like he'd have to justify his actions if he did so. Just click the button and poof no more Rev.

[revelarts]

Rev, stop being a whiny little girl. I asked you a question. Answer it.

everyones gotta get in on the act now, sheesh..

[ConHog]

everyones gotta get in on the act now, sheesh..

I had hoped that would amuse you.

[revelarts]

Well, you DID make an accusation that simply isn't true. Jim isn't trying to ban you. He wouldn't have to try. It isn't like he'd have to justify his actions if he did so. Just click the button and poof no more Rev.

just wondering a loud where it was going, a slap fight with a site owner ain't one you can win really.

I had hoped that would amuse you.

that was wasn't bad.

[ConHog]

just wondering a loud where it was going, a slap fight with a site owner ain't one you can win really.


that was wasn't bad.

Eh, it takes a lot for Jim to slap someone off the board, he actually told me what the last one did to get that, and it was far worse than what yall just had.

[Kathianne]

Eh, it takes a lot for Jim to slap someone off the board, he actually told me what the last one did to get that, and it was far worse than what yall just had.

We are all so more educated to this site, now that we know Jim's confidant. Thank you! Some of us might have been mistaken that he was open minded, but you've set us straight. At least, according to CH

[ConHog]

We are all so more educated to this site, now that we know Jim's confidant. Thank you! Some of us might have been mistaken that he was open minded, but you've set us straight. At least, according to CH

More flaming from you?

PS - It wasn't in confidence it was on the open board in a thread where I offered to bet Jim on a football game with wages of unbanning PB and he declined.