Letter to Europe

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Alright now. Let's keep this a fair fight.

 

Exactly. Fair fight means not trying repeatedly to twist words around.

 

If you are going to quote, quote. Don't fabricate and especially don't do it with me.

[wardmd2]

Just so everyone knows how YOU attempt to end debate:

 

You have been banned for the following reason:

You are simply full of shit. State your opinions, but don't try to twist words asshole.

 

Date the ban will be lifted: 01-17-2006

 

Oh whaaw....crybaby. You are not prevented from posting or stating your opinions. The debate is not ended; just enhanced slightly. Suck it up tough guy. Welcome to GF.

[wardmd2]

Alright now. Let's keep this a fair fight.

I agree... Just a pitty that SOME PEOPLE can't accept when they are PROVEN WRONG.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

...Again, let's state the FACTS, shall we? Would you like to cite EVEN ONE of the paid articles which was factually inaccurate? (I'll give you a hint, they were ALL factually correct)...

 

Well, seeing as how the articles were in Arabic newspapers and printed in Arabic and as I do not read Arabic nor have access to Arabic newspapers, I can neither confirm nor deny your statements.

 

Obviously though, Rush Limbaugh has told you that they were "factual", and by god, you believe it.

 

Would you like to cite your source as to the fact that they were factual stories?

 

What I cannot understand is why would the US government need to pay to print the "truth"? Afterall, accourding to you, the Iraqi's love us! Surely they want to hear all of the good news!

[wardmd2]

Exactly. Fair fight means not trying repeatedly to twist words around.

 

If you are going to quote, quote. Don't fabricate and especially don't do it with me.

I fabricated NOTHING... It was YOU who made a statement which I PROVED was incorrect.

 

YOU are, simply, unwilling to admit your error.

 

So, back to the original topic... How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? Answer: No one knows - they've never done it!

[ToriAllen]

Exactly. Fair fight means not trying repeatedly to twist words around.

 

If you are going to quote, quote. Don't fabricate and especially don't do it with me.

My dear, you know I love you, but I have seen you do this same thing. You just do it in a much more poetic manor. If it is done to you, then it becomes your job to point it out effectively.

 

Nice to have the real CES back.

 

Just so everyone knows how YOU attempt to end debate:

 

You have been banned for the following reason:

You are simply full of shit. State your opinions, but don't try to twist words asshole.

 

Date the ban will be lifted: 01-17-2006

Don't let it bother you. He likes to pick on the newbies.

He has a bit of a temper, but he is fun to debate and chat with. He just forgets sometimes what it felt like to be on the receiving end of the box. Boy was he pissed when he got boxed during a debate with me. I didn

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I agree... Just a pitty that SOME PEOPLE can't accept when they are PROVEN WRONG.

 

Oh my...SOME PEOPLE....Ha! You couldn't prove anything I say is wrong you crybaby.

 

[attach=full]724[/attach]

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

...Don't let it bother you. He likes to pick on the newbies.

He has a bit of a temper, but he is fun to debate and chat with. He just forgets sometimes what it felt like to be on the receiving end of the box. Boy was he pissed when he got boxed during a debate with me. I didn

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I fabricated NOTHING... It was YOU who made a statement which I PROVED was incorrect.

 

YOU are, simply, unwilling to admit your error.

 

So, back to the original topic... How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? Answer: No one knows - they've never done it!

 

You didn't PROVE jack shit...Are you smoking crack again?

 

I have made no error other than to try and educate your worthless mind.

 

Yes, back to the topic. How many wardmd's does it take to make a valid argument? Answer: No one knows - he's never done it!

[ToriAllen]

Oh miracle of miracles...I see the Busy Bee has released wardmd from the dreaded YELLOW name. Oh.

 

Mean old CES.

Don't look at me. I'd never release a captive of another Mod. I might try to persuade the Mod to release him, though.

[wardmd2]

You didn't PROVE jack shit...Are you smoking crack again?

 

I have made no error other than to try and educate your worthless mind.

 

Yes, back to the topic. How many wardmd's does it take to make a valid argument? Answer: No one knows - he's never done it!

I

[wardmd]

Oh whaaw....crybaby. You are not prevented from posting or stating your opinions. The debate is not ended; just enhanced slightly. Suck it up tough guy. Welcome to GF.

Okay, let's see if I get this...

 

You DIDN'T say "only sanctions", is THAT what you're saying NOW?

 

I DIDN'T show you a quote from the U.N. Secretary-General in which HE discusses the need for the U.N. "peace-keeping" forces to be prepared for "FULL COMBAT"?

 

That's what YOU mean by ME twisting your words?

 

Oh, forgive me...

 

I'll try not to point out the fallacies of your statements in the future (not).

 

It's so much more intellectually stimulating when you just take your ball and go home (a.k.a. ban someone from pointing out YOUR errors) - wah wah yourself.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I

[wardmd]

Oh whaaw....crybaby. You are not prevented from posting or stating your opinions. The debate is not ended; just enhanced slightly. Suck it up tough guy. Welcome to GF.

Oh, and a big FYI...

 

I WAS prevented from logging back on, smart guy...

 

Also, you remember your FONT COLOR issue some time ago? That, too, WAS because YOU had set the font color, NOT because of any lack of knowledge on my part (which you also asserted).

 

You've GOT to stop this regrettable habit you have of asserting as FACT, something which you, obviously, do NOT KNOW (or at least stop crying about it, when the error is drawn to your [and everyone else's] attention).

[wardmd]

Ha! I have NO loyal minions. In fact, I'm one of the most controversial individuals here.

 

Just so everybody knows...the Idiot Box function is screwed up, and it inadvertently locked wardmd out so he created wardmd2.

 

It was never our intention to lock anybody out and I apologize for the error.

 

Nevertheless, you warmongering, fact misrepresenting, word twisting bucket of scum. You keep fighting. Afterall, it's in your warlike nature!

Oh my GOD! Stop the presses!

 

You and I AGREE on something... I WAS locked out... Other than that, we don't seem to agree on much of anything...

 

Keep trying, though!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Okay, let's see if I get this...

 

You DIDN'T say "only sanctions", is THAT what you're saying NOW?

 

I DIDN'T show you a quote from the U.N. Secretary-General in which HE discusses the need for the U.N. "peace-keeping" forces to be prepared for "FULL COMBAT"?

 

That's what YOU mean by ME twisting your words?

 

Oh, forgive me...

 

I'll try not to point out the fallacies of your statements in the future (not).

 

It's so much more intellectually stimulating when you just take your ball and go home (a.k.a. ban someone from pointing out YOUR errors) - wah wah yourself.

 

Hey Chicken Little...The sky is not falling. You can keep yelling it, but alas, it's not falling.

 

I state this one last time for you. I'll type slow because I know you cannot read fast.

 

1. The UN is a peaceful means organization.

 

2. The ramifications of failure to comply with UN resolutions is sanctions.

 

3. At times, to preserve the peace or to instill it, the UN utilizes ground troops to forcibly secure the peace. These ground troops are for DEFENSIVE purposes only. They do not carry out ACTIVE agressive manuvers. It is not their function.

 

4. In the past, UN troops have been armed solely with rifles and pistols. This was usually sufficient. However, this is not the case anymore.

 

5. If you go back to the quote of the Under Secretary in his quote of the Secretary General, you will find this quote which clearly explains the need for better troop weaponry and equipment than just rifles and pistols. "But perhaps, the most important lesson being learned by the United Nations from the recent debacle in Sierra Leone and the difficulties of deployment of peace-keepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is for the Organisation to match "robust" mandates or rules of engagement with equally robust means of accomplishing them."

 

In other words, they have discovered the wisdom of "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight". They need to be as well armed as their adversary.

 

There is no inconsistency nor fallicy here. You have tried to twist the words and have failed.

 

Indeed, it is much more intellectually stimulating when you remove your head from up your ass. Please try harder.

 

As to being banned, I have already apologized twice for the mistake. Both Tori and I tested the function and it is not working correctly.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Oh my GOD! Stop the presses!

 

You and I AGREE on something... I WAS locked out... Other than that, we don't seem to agree on much of anything...

 

Keep trying, though!

 

I agree that you are an idiot. Don't you?

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

…As for people who believe, as I do...

 

 

We shall go on lying to the end, we shall fabricate on the Radio and GF, we shall misstate and misrepresent in the blogs and posts, we shall blindly charge forward with arrogance and hubris attempting to grow strength in the airwaves, we shall defend our position of false righteousness and religious indignation whatever the cost may be including lying, stealing, cheating, circumventing, and most of all, trampling the Constitutional liberties of American both home and abroad, we shall try to poison the minds of the youth on the colleges, we shall fight ridiculous self-defeating lawsuits on why we cannot post our phony baloney religious icons on the public courthouse grounds nor hide our religious dogma under the cloak of pseudo science and pump it into the young minds of science students, we shall screw the working man who struggles in the fields and in the streets and in the factories and allow our allies, the corporations, to swindle him out of his retirement, health benefits, and any other well deserved and earned benefit, we shall confiscate private property in the name of redevelopment in the hills; we shall never surrender because we are blood sucking maggots who want to tell everybody else in the world how things are going to be and if they don't agree, we'll kidnap you and have you tortured in a foreign cesspool or incarcerate you forever because by our God Jesus Christ, we don't believe in Habeas Corpus, just your dead corpse!

 

It is indeed unfortunate that we are a dying breed on our lasts gasps of air, comparable only to the Dodo bird... World, hear my swan song!

 

 

I think that this version fits you better. Don't you?

[wardmd]

I think that this version fits you better. Don't you?

Who's twisting WHOSE words (just as you did with Mr. Hanson's - Ha, full circle, back to topic!)?

 

Hey Font for Brains... In the words of President Reagan, "there you go again..."

 

I'm sure all the pretty colors just fascinate the hell out of you, but your choice of COLOR=black really screws it up for the rest of us (read, NORMAL people) with default colors...

 

Perhaps, if you were to spend less time on FONT COLORS, and more time on FACTS, you might be more likely to convince people of your position (but, alas, apparently not...).

 

And, back to YOUR original comment... YOU SAID "ONLY SANCTIONS"... THAT, Sir, is the assertion that was WRONG, and THAT is the assertion which I flamed!

 

You can TRY to re-state what you MEANT to say, but, like the Constitution, this is NOT a "living, breathing" document (words MEAN THINGS), and YOU CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY stated "ONLY SANCTIONS" (am I typing slowly enough for you?)...

 

Restating YOUR WORDS (exactly) is NOT "twisting" your words (though you, like most Democrats in Congress, seem to take people quoting their own words as a "personal attack", "twisting their words", or "taking them out of context"...

 

For the record, I agree (yet again) that the INTENTION of the United Nations IS peace-keeping (I'll go a step further: NON-VIOLENT)... That being said, however, the quote YOU, now, reference does NOT support that lofty goal ("full combat").

 

But, DAMN, now you're twisting your OWN words, "they have discovered the wisdom of 'Don't bring a knife to a gunfight'. They need to be as well armed as their adversary."

 

No SHIT, Sherlock!

 

Again, how the F$%^ do YOU get from "ONLY SANCTIONS" to "They need to be as well armed as their adversary." (and say, with a straight face, that I'M twisting YOUR words)?

 

And, NO, we DON'T agree that I'M an idiot... I think we ALL leaning more towards the obvious fact that YOU are...

 

No, wait, how about the GREAT line from "Witness for the Prosecution"...

 

"Were you lying then, or are you lying now, or are you not, in fact, a chronic and habitual LIAR?" - Yep, THAT suites you!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Who's twisting WHOSE words (just as you did with Mr. Hanson's - Ha, full circle, back to topic!)?

 

Hey Font for Brains... In the words of President Reagan, "there you go again..."

 

I'm sure all the pretty colors just fascinate the hell out of you, but your choice of COLOR=black really screws it up for the rest of us (read, NORMAL people) with default colors...

 

Perhaps, if you were to spend less time on FONT COLORS, and more time on FACTS, you might be more likely to convince people of your position (but, alas, apparently not...).

 

And, back to YOUR original comment... YOU SAID "ONLY SANCTIONS"... THAT, Sir, is the assertion that was WRONG, and THAT is the assertion which I flamed!

 

You can TRY to re-state what you MEANT to say, but, like the Constitution, this is NOT a "living, breathing" document (words MEAN THINGS), and YOU CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY stated "ONLY SANCTIONS" (am I typing slowly enough for you?)...

 

Restating YOUR WORDS (exactly) is NOT "twisting" your words (though you, like most Democrats in Congress, seem to take people quoting their own words as a "personal attack", "twisting their words", or "taking them out of context"...

 

For the record, I agree (yet again) that the INTENTION of the United Nations IS peace-keeping (I'll go a step further: NON-VIOLENT)... That being said, however, the quote YOU, now, reference does NOT support that lofty goal ("full combat").

 

But, DAMN, now you're twisting your OWN words, "they have discovered the wisdom of 'Don't bring a knife to a gunfight'. They need to be as well armed as their adversary."

 

No SHIT, Sherlock!

 

Again, how the F$%^ do YOU get from "ONLY SANCTIONS" to "They need to be as well armed as their adversary." (and say, with a straight face, that I'M twisting YOUR words)?

 

And, NO, we DON'T agree that I'M an idiot... I think we ALL leaning more towards the obvious fact that YOU are...

 

No, wait, how about the GREAT line from "Witness for the Prosecution"...

 

"Were you lying then, or are you lying now, or are you not, in fact, a chronic and habitual LIAR?" - Yep, THAT suites you!

 

Hanson's words were restated, paragraph for paragraph. Yours here, admittedly are ad lib'd a great deal but highly accurate in regards to your views I would suspect. Tongue in cheek as it were yet still based in the grains of your truth nevertheless.

 

Perhaps you believe that if you tell a lie over and over again it will become truth. It won't.

 

For the record, I have never used a font color=black. Ever. I utilize the blue screen, because I just cannot stomach the thought of black and white screens. It's so 1982.

 

Once again, if you are going to quote me, quote me.

 

The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions. Nice try. The UN does not wage war, it intervenes to stop it or prevent it.

 

However, this statement of yours below, is a complete fabrication. I never stated the words ONLY and SANCTIONS anywhere together. Care to find a quote on that? You won't because it only exists in your mind.

 

And, back to YOUR original comment... YOU SAID "ONLY SANCTIONS"... THAT, Sir, is the assertion that was WRONG, and THAT is the assertion which I flamed!

 

FYI - the Secretary General and Under Secretary General's quotes I have used have been presented by you. I simply researched them and quoted them in their entirety, at least from a paragraphical standpoint to keep them in context. The truth hurts you, I'm sorry. Pain is good for you.

 

For the last time, in the referenced quote, you equate the words "full combat" as having been used as a verb, when in fact they were used as an adjective. I cannot make it any simpler than that.

 

I await your next diatribe with utter fascination.

[wardmd]

2. The ramifications of failure to comply with UN resolutions is sanctions.

Oh, forgive me...

 

I guess President Bush and I are the ONLY two people in the entire world who mis-interpreted "serious consequences" (as stated in United Nations Resolution 1441) - oh, NOW I get it... "Serious Consequences" meant MORE sanctions - how silly of me!

 

Oh.... Wait, Sanctions were ALREADY IN PLACE, weren't they?

 

How do you double-talk your way out of that one, Sherlock?

 

Kinda like Animal House's "Double-Secret Probation".... Kofi Annan was going to impose "Double-Secret Sanctions" on Iraq... Oh, NOW I get it...

 

How could ANYONE think ANYTHING else? (you picking up on the sarcasm, here?)...

 

Talk about SPIN - Whew, I'm dizzy just thinking of how you can go from Sanctions to Sanctions ("Serious Consquences")...

 

Let us not loose sight of the FACT that the ENTIRE United Nations Security Council (including Germany, France, Russian, China, and Syria) voted UNANIMOUSLY that Iraq WAS in material breech of the terms of the Cease-Fire agreement, ALL previous U.N. Resolutions, and 1441 (with those "Serious Consequences")...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, oh sage of wisdom... If they REALLY WANTED TO, could not France, China and/or Russia have VETOED 1441? And what, prey tell, was Syria's motivation in THEIR vote (are THEY just a puppet of George W. Bush, too)?

 

Hey, give me your address, and I'll send you a WHOLE BOX of straws (you seem to be grasping at them)...

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Oh, forgive me...

 

I guess President Bush and I are the ONLY two people in the entire world who mis-interpreted "serious consequences" (as stated in United Nations Resolution 1441) - oh, NOW I get it... "Serious Consequences" meant MORE sanctions - how silly of me!

 

Oh.... Wait, Sanctions were ALREADY IN PLACE, weren't they?

 

How do you double-talk your way out of that one, Sherlock?

 

Kinda like Animal House's "Double-Secret Probation".... Kofi Annan was going to impose "Double-Secret Sanctions" on Iraq... Oh, NOW I get it...

 

How could ANYONE think ANYTHING else? (you picking up on the sarcasm, here?)...

 

Talk about SPIN - Whew, I'm dizzy just thinking of how you can go from Sanctions to Sanctions ("Serious Consquences")...

 

Let us not loose sight of the FACT that the ENTIRE United Nations Security Council (including Germany, France, Russian, China, and Syria) voted UNANIMOUSLY that Iraq WAS in material breech of the terms of the Cease-Fire agreement, ALL previous U.N. Resolutions, and 1441 (with those "Serious Consequences")...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, oh sage of wisdom... If they REALLY WANTED TO, could not France, China and/or Russia have VETOED 1441? And what, prey tell, was Syria's motivation in THEIR vote (are THEY just a puppet of George W. Bush, too)?

 

Hey, give me your address, and I'll send you a WHOLE BOX of straws (you seem to be grasping at them)...

 

If it is your intention to ask for forgiveness for misquoting me, to that I gladly state, GRANTED. I'm glad to see that you a can admit when you are making a complete ass of yourself by insisting you are right when in fact you are clearly wrong. Good show.

 

But, as expected, now once again, swinging 90 degrees in another direction, you wish to offer your supporting evidence for an as unyet argued topic. I see. Do the voices speak often to you?

 

I'd be happy to give you an opinion if I could deduce what you are trying to discuss now.

 

Thank you for the offer of the straws, they shall be usefull in the consumption of rum and coke whilst enjoying your written hodgepodge, but please, be sure to include your return address on the box so I can send you sent some Lithium and Thorazine.

 

Apparantely, your schizophrenic episodes are running amok and getting the better of you.

[wardmd]

Hanson's words were restated, paragraph for paragraph. Yours here, admittedly are ad lib'd a great deal but highly accurate in regards to your views I would suspect. Tongue in cheek as it were yet still based in the grains of your truth nevertheless.

 

Perhaps you believe that if you tell a lie over and over again it will become truth. It won't.

 

For the record, I have never used a font color=black. Ever. I utilize the blue screen, because I just cannot stomach the thought of black and white screens. It's so 1982.

 

Once again, if you are going to quote me, quote me.

 

 

 

However, this statement of yours below, is a complete fabrication. I never stated the words ONLY and SANCTIONS anywhere together. Care to find a quote on that? You won't because it only exists in your mind.

 

 

 

FYI - the qotes I have used have been presented by you. I simply researched them and quoted them in their entirety, at least from a paragraphical standpoint to keep them in context. The truth hurts you, I'm sorry. Pain is good for you.

 

For the last time, you equate the words "full combat" in their usage as a verb, when in fact they were used as an adjective. I cannot make it any simpler than that.

 

I await your next diatribe with utter fascination.

I stand corrected... You did NOT use the word "only". Glad to see you know when to admit you are wrong. - C.E.S.

 

However, you DID state, "The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions". That is your exact quote, is it not?

 

The assertion, then (or rather, still), is "never war, but rather sanctions"... Yes Virginia, he can be taught.- C.E.S.

 

For the umteenth time, then, you cannot assert that the U.N. NEVER engages in war (a.k.a. military action), but only ("rather", to use YOUR words) sanctions, when they, themselves (and, finally, YOU) admit that they DO, indeed, engage in armed conflicts ("full combat"). eI can and I do. The UN does not declare war, they do not attack. This is a fact. They defend and protect.- C.E.S.

 

Even a first grader understands that "sanctions [rather or only]" does NOT equal "full combat". You can dance around the wording of your assertion all you like, but you cannot escape this glaring contradiction! There you are misusing that "full combat" word again. It's an adjective, not a noun or verb. - C.E.S.

 

Face it (everyone else already knows I'm right Yeah Right, just like the other point you were so "right" on and have now apologized for. LMAO. - C.E.S.) - "full combat" is NOT the same as "sanctions". PERIOD.

 

Even if the United Nations brings a "knife to a gun fight" - a KNIFE is not sanctions, either...

 

You have now apologized, don't ruin it with dimwitted jibberish! - C.E.S.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Just in case you like to remove things...

 

I stand corrected... You did NOT use the word "only". Glad to see you know when to admit you are wrong. - C.E.S.

 

However, you DID state, "The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions". That is your exact quote, is it not?

 

The assertion, then (or rather, still), is "never war, but rather sanctions"... Yes Virginia, he can be taught.- C.E.S.

 

For the umteenth time, then, you cannot assert that the U.N. NEVER engages in war (a.k.a. military action), but only ("rather", to use YOUR words) sanctions, when they, themselves (and, finally, YOU) admit that they DO, indeed, engage in armed conflicts ("full combat"). eI can and I do. The UN does not declare war, they do not attack. This is a fact. They defend and protect.- C.E.S.

 

Even a first grader understands that "sanctions [rather or only]" does NOT equal "full combat". You can dance around the wording of your assertion all you like, but you cannot escape this glaring contradiction! There you are misusing that "full combat" word again. It's an adjective, not a noun or verb. - C.E.S.

 

Face it (everyone else already knows I'm right Yeah Right, just like the other point you were so "right" on and have now apologized for. LMAO. - C.E.S.) - "full combat" is NOT the same as "sanctions". PERIOD.

 

Even if the United Nations brings a "knife to a gun fight" - a KNIFE is not sanctions, either...

 

You have now apologized, don't ruin it with dimwitted jibberish! - C.E.S.

[wardmd]

Just in case you like to remove things...

Sure, I'm not some conceded ideologue - if I'm wrong, I'll admit it (too bad the same can not be said of you)...

 

I