It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You think about that. Erase the American Eagle of Freedom from your head and all the symbols that you believe in for this minute.
Originally posted by grover
I am not attacking you muaddib....I really could care less one way or the other.....but don't go claiming that you don't insult or belittle people who disagree with you without expecting to be called on it because scarasm or not....you do. If you can't take it....too bad.
Originally posted by grover
.............
I can support your love of country (I love it too)...can you support my convictions?
Originally posted by grover
you provoked me...what can I say I was deeply annoyed. Yes you do attack. You have questioned my intelligence and you have questioned whether I have read any of the things that I say that I have or whether they even said what I asserted that they did. If that is not attacking I do not know what is. Be that as it may...can you at least contemplate what I wrote above and respond civilly?
but semper by what right do we impose that democracy on Iraq? Also...simple historical fact...democracy is not easily transplanted, it has to be developed and grown through trial and error, seldom if ever from invasion.
(he's really a closet moderate don't let him fool ya :lol but just because we disagree does not mean that we cannot be civil. There is the old adage that is sorely missing in these terribly polarized days..." I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I can support your love of country (I love it too)...can you support my convictions?
Originally posted by grover
ahh the rub is that "you claimed to be very intelligent"....so who gives you the right to question anyone on here's intelligence. YOU have said some pretty dumb things...has anyone questioned your intelligence? Face it Muaddib...you are a bully. Anyone disagrees with you and you browbeat them to death.
Originally quoted by Muaddib
No ceci, there is a difference between you and me, i am not trying to insult you or anyone else, but as i have already pointed out, and proved so many times, some people exagerate and make generalizations just to make a point, to bring forth a political agenda.
I prove my points with facts without exagerating. If there is anything which could be wrong about my statements i say it clearly and even acknowledge it when i am proven wrong.
BTW, it has never been about politics, even when the president said that there were no stockpiles of wmd, what did i say and what evidence did i bring forth?... i am not presenting the party line, I am presenting the facts.
Take as an example you bringing out once again the claim that the president has been changing the reasons for going to iraq. i have presented, in these same forums, several times now the speech that the president made before the war in Iraq to the UN and to the world, and in that speech there are several reasons given for going after Saddam's regime, yet you and others like yourself keep trying to claim that the only reason given at first was wmd, and then the reasons changed....well, that is not true at all.
It has been presented in these forums several times already that there were declarations even made by the Clinton administration to change the regime of Iraq. That is nothing new and it does not corroborate your other claims.
Now that's "speculation" on your part, and taking comments out of context, but again, why don't you mention that Chinese officials wrote a book in 1999, with statements which are not taken out of context, which explains that in the future China needs an "unrestricvite warfare" using terrorists like Osama Bin Laden to attack places like the WTC??....
America ‘Pearl Harbored’
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”
“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.
The “new Pearl Harbor,” in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the “war on terrorism” shortly after 9-11.
A Pentagon spokesman told AFP that $17.5 billion of that initial allocation went to defense.The U.S. defense budget for 2002, including a $14.5 billion supplement, came to $345.7 billion, a nearly 12 percent increase over the 2001 defense budget.
and who is working with propaganda, exagerations and statements taken out of context?...