Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-21-2006, 08:30 AM
SentToStud's Avatar
SentToStud SentToStud is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezrabrooks
If I remember correctly, the Israelis were requested to stay out of the Iraq affair..

Ez
lol, the conversation went like this:

Israel: we don't want to go into Iraq.

U.S: Well, will you stay away then?

Israel: Yes. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-21-2006, 08:36 AM
ezrabrooks
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SentToStud
lol, the conversation went like this:

Israel: we don't want to go into Iraq.

U.S: Well, will you stay away then?

Israel: Yes. Thank you.
I doubt that happened. At the time, Iraq was dropping Scuds into Israel, and they were ready to go... once again, to defend themselves.

Ez
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-21-2006, 08:45 AM
SentToStud's Avatar
SentToStud SentToStud is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezrabrooks
I doubt that happened. At the time, Iraq was dropping Scuds into Israel, and they were ready to go... once again, to defend themselves.

Ez
even more reasonable justification for the Izzys to want to participate in the Caolition. "Fight them where they are," and all that stuff. You may buy it, but I don't. Just a difference of opinion, I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-21-2006, 09:37 AM
GenuineRisk's Avatar
GenuineRisk GenuineRisk is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,986
Default

Good editorial on France's waffling; I don't think anyone who's posted so far will disagree (other than BB, because though he won't read it because it's in the NYTimes it won't stop him from criticizing what he imagined it said. )

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/op...=1&oref=slogin

I think the French are being a royal pain in the neck over this, but can we stop the moldy old "If not for us they'd be speaking German!" line of "cowardly French" bashing? Yes, and if not for the French, we'd be singing "God Save the Queen." So it's all relative, depending on how far back in history you're willing to go. And we didn't go in to WW2 to save the French; we went in because we were attacked ourselves and they didn't go into the colonies on our side because they believed in self-determination; they went in to f*ck over the British. Can we keep the argument focused on what they're screwing up now, and not what they screwed up 50 years ago, please? Because I appreciate reading everyone's points of view; this whole mess is so complicated I don't know what to think or believe anymore...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-21-2006, 12:39 PM
Bold Brooklynite
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
And we didn't go in to WW2 to save the French; we went in because we were attacked ourselves ...
But ... but ... but ... but ...

... what about the fashionable leftist canard that "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11"?

Yup ... and Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor ... so ... should we have not gone to war against Germany?

Huh? Huh? Huh?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-22-2006, 12:35 PM
GenuineRisk's Avatar
GenuineRisk GenuineRisk is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
But ... but ... but ... but ...

... what about the fashionable leftist canard that "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11"?

Yup ... and Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor ... so ... should we have not gone to war against Germany?

Huh? Huh? Huh?
BB, Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Even the object of your unbridled lust, Dubya, said as much in yesterday's press conference.

Jeez louise, is this the current state of conservative thought? When the truth is considered "fashionable leftist canard?" Oh right, I'm in the "reality-based" community. I keep forgetting.

Please indicate where in my post I said we should not have gone into WWII. I await your response with bated breath.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-22-2006, 12:55 PM
GenuineRisk's Avatar
GenuineRisk GenuineRisk is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,986
Default

In fact, BB, just for you, I just watched the video of the press conference (see what I'll do for you? I'll even spend precious minutes of my life that I'll never get back watching that gibbering idiot talk out of both sides of his mouth just so I can quote him exactly for you). Here you go:

( begins with Bush responding to an inaudible question from reporter)
Bush: "What did Iraq have to do with what?"
Reporter: "The attack on the World Trade Center."
Bush: "Nothing."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-22-2006, 10:32 PM
Bold Brooklynite
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
BB, Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Even the object of your unbridled lust, Dubya, said as much in yesterday's press conference.

Jeez louise, is this the current state of conservative thought? When the truth is considered "fashionable leftist canard?" Oh right, I'm in the "reality-based" community. I keep forgetting.

Please indicate where in my post I said we should not have gone into WWII. I await your response with bated breath.
Sorry, hon ... but ...

... once again you missed the point. Let me try it again ... in baby-er talk ...

Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor ... yet we immediately went to war with Germany ... with the enthusiastic support of leftists.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 ... yet our much-more-belated war with Iraq ... has been condemned by leftists ... because? ... because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11!

Now do you understand? The laughable hypocrisy of the leftists would shame anyone ... anyone that is ... who is capable of experiencing shame ... which leaves out nearly all leftists.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-21-2006, 12:43 PM
Bold Brooklynite
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
And we didn't go in to WW2 to save the French; we went in because we were attacked ourselves ...
And ... does the same logic apply to Israel going to war because it was attacked?

Huh? Huh? Huh?

Sheesh ... see the trouble you get into when you try to defend the indefensible frogs?

The New York Times and the French ...

... the reprehensible supporting the indefensible.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-21-2006, 03:37 PM
Downthestretch55 Downthestretch55 is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stamford, NY
Posts: 4,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
And ... does the same logic apply to Israel going to war because it was attacked?

Huh? Huh? Huh?

Sheesh ... see the trouble you get into when you try to defend the indefensible frogs?

The New York Times and the French ...

... the reprehensible supporting the indefensible.
The insane defending the delusional.
Only a true idiot would try to connect Pearl Harbor=Hitler with Saddam=9/11.
The blind leading the blind.
Take your meds, Boldfraud, your hallucinations are showing, not your "logic".

Huh? Huh? Huh?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-21-2006, 05:44 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
Good editorial on France's waffling; I don't think anyone who's posted so far will disagree (other than BB, because though he won't read it because it's in the NYTimes it won't stop him from criticizing what he imagined it said. )

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/op...=1&oref=slogin

I think the French are being a royal pain in the neck over this, but can we stop the moldy old "If not for us they'd be speaking German!" line of "cowardly French" bashing? Yes, and if not for the French, we'd be singing "God Save the Queen." So it's all relative, depending on how far back in history you're willing to go. And we didn't go in to WW2 to save the French; we went in because we were attacked ourselves and they didn't go into the colonies on our side because they believed in self-determination; they went in to f*ck over the British. Can we keep the argument focused on what they're screwing up now, and not what they screwed up 50 years ago, please? Because I appreciate reading everyone's points of view; this whole mess is so complicated I don't know what to think or believe anymore...
we saved frenchy butt in both world wars, and they were the ones who started all that mess known as vietnam....not that it has anything to do with NOW....but it's still fun to poke at them about it all.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-22-2006, 04:03 AM
SentToStud's Avatar
SentToStud SentToStud is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixie Porter
Not a "difference of opinion" at all your'e just an ignorant Arab a**hole. The Israeli Govt. took unbearable heat from the IDF and it's citizens for not knocking off Iraq. They stayed out of it at the request of the US so as not to destabilize the coalition (presumably the Arab states).
Well, great to see you've taken your daily dose of hatred medication today.

Kach Kahane and Chai must be terribly proud of you.

Leave it to the Israelis to let the Armenians and others do their heavy lifting.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.