23 reasons

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 12:55 pm

Merv Farmer, of Appleton, Wisconsin, offers a dozen reasons for the invasion of Iraq:

I should have written this letter two years ago, but I didn’t. It seems that Cindy Sheehan, and 90 percent of the citizens in this Valley, are unable to decide for themselves any reason why we have invaded Iraq. Here are a few of mine …

Read on. In the interest of balance, here are David Swanson’s Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military (including “You May Kill Others” and “You May Be Injured”).

Posted by Tim B. on 06/04/2006 at 11:27 AM
    1. Cheers to Mr. Farmer, who is IMO a smart, sane, sensible person.

      The back of my hand to that insufferably smug little twit Swanson, an admitted parasite on his parents (“My whole life, whenever I’ve had a boss who’s annoyed me I’ve quit my job. I’ve had the good fortune to always find another and to have strong support from family.”)

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 04 at 11:43 AM • permalink


    1. Re: David Swanson—Short Form:

      We support the troops who hate their mothers and have no other options in life but to enlist and are completely incapable of implementing their moral and religious beliefs into their daily lives you atrocity committing BASTARDS!

      Did I miss anything?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 04 at 11:45 AM • permalink


    1. But…but…. leftist shitheads are always telling us they support the troops and the military…. could that mean they are all lying scum like Swanson?

      Posted by Tiberius Alatheus on 2006 06 04 at 11:49 AM • permalink


    1. Conceptually, Swanson’s eleven reasons (or ten, by my count) apply to everyone in practically every walk of life. Anybody might find himself in a life-threatening situation. Anybody may have to carry out orders he disagrees with. And so forth. Does Mr. Swanson live in a bubble, carefully tended by an indulgent mother? Is he prohibited from going outside and playing with the other children? Does he nonetheless consider himself “free”?

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 04 at 12:02 PM • permalink


    1. Actually, strike #10 from Swanson’s list, and you get “Nine Reasons Not To Be Born In The Third World.”

      These people seem to group humanity into two groups:  Intellectuals like themselves, and everyone else.

      Posted by Secundus on 2006 06 04 at 12:22 PM • permalink


    1. Luckily for Mr. Swanson there are people like my dad, served in three wars, now 80, probably out weed whacking out in his acreage somewhere, and my son, E-4 in the Army (who loves it incidently, go figure for a kid who got a 1300 on his SATs), so Mr. Swanson can go along in his self-absorbed little world, free from Nazis, Commies, and whack job Islamists.  What a selfish little prick. And, oh yeah, he don’t really don’t know fuck about the service.

      Posted by CliffC on 2006 06 04 at 01:00 PM • permalink


    1. Swanson virtually accuses Casey Sheehan of joining up because he hated his mother.  Hmm.

      Also, I loved how he smeared Christians by writing that the apocryphal “Terminator” soldier prayed to his Christian God while killing non-Christians.

      This clown is the Leftists’ Leftist.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 06 04 at 01:11 PM • permalink


    1. Also, I dunno, but do Humvees really have thin plastic doors that children could stab a knife through?  That seems…peculiar…to me.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 06 04 at 01:12 PM • permalink


    1. It’s one of Swanson’s youthful writings.

      You don’t see “Eleven reasons not to torch cars.’’

      Posted by rhhardin on 2006 06 04 at 01:15 PM • permalink


    1. One of the major problems with our action in Iraq is a serious lack of ruthlessness. The use of more and bigger bombs and explosives during the initial invasion, and their continued use, would have gone a long way in demonstrating our resolve and intent to not compromise on principles. A bit more freedom of discression in the bullet dispensing department would not hurt my feelings either. There seems to be entirely too much restraint for a war zone. With all of those dead “soldiers” there would be less danger to our soldiers. A crushing defeat of the enemy has a certain quieting affect on future resistance.

      This being compassionate gambit is just so much bullshit. Many civilians would have been killed, and would continue to be killed… well, yes. Soldiers and civilians both die in war, especially when the enemies uniform of the day is standard civilian clothing and they hide amoung the civilians, and the civilians do not expose the soldiers amoung them. Duh.

      This is supposed to be a war, not some kind of peace mission. The disasterous years of Jimmy Carter are supposed to be behind us.

      (A UN peace mission is where hundreds or thousands die due to political manipulation, sex crimes, and/or military incompentance. This is followed, of course, by placing the blame on the USA and its friends.)

      Okay… rant off

      Posted by Franklin on 2006 06 04 at 01:18 PM • permalink


    1. Rant back on:

      And another thing… you do not ask a defeated enemy what they would like to do next or what kind of government they would like to have.


      Posted by Franklin on 2006 06 04 at 01:23 PM • permalink


    1. Franklin:

      “Shoot! Shoot! You’ve never shot enough!” — The Big Boss, The Shape of Things to Come

      The Iraqi army and Republican Guard disintegrated faster than we could chase them.  Who would we have dropped those extra bombs on?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 04 at 01:25 PM • permalink


    1. When you have a hangover, you bomb anybody that speaks above a whisper… after you shot them. Actually the order of action is optional.

      Posted by Franklin on 2006 06 04 at 01:35 PM • permalink


    1. David Swanson only needs one reason why he’d never join the military.
      #1 He’s a PUSSY!!!!!

      And now David, a quote for you:
      “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,
      go home from us in peace.  We ask not your counsels or your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
      May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
      —Samuel Adams (1776)

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 04 at 01:58 PM • permalink


    1. Anderson said, “At traffic stops, we kill innocent people all the time. If you are fired on from the street, you are supposed to fire on everybody that is there. If I am in a market, I shoot people who are buying groceries.”

      I smell Winter Soldiers.

      Swanson swallows these atrocity stories quite credulously, never questioning the credibility of his sources. My first question to Anderson would have been, “Why did you shoot innocent people? Why did you not simply refuse to pull the trigger?”

      Is it really believable that a person who willingly kills civilians would tell someone about it to expose it? Color me skeptical that the sort of person who would blithely shoot innocents would later “realize” how bad that was and just as blithely talk about it.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 04 at 02:09 PM • permalink


    1. Swanson is pretty clearly trying to rationalize his own selfishness.

      Being so public about it isn’t very attractive, but he’d never understand that.

      Posted by steveH on 2006 06 04 at 02:21 PM • permalink


    1. #15, If by Winter Soldiers you mean fake Jesse MacBeth-type soldiers, you’re right.  That’s just the kind of juvenile boasting some pimply-faced faker would indulge in.  And Swanson shows his colors (and his lack of intelligence) by swallowing it wholesale.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 04 at 03:09 PM • permalink


    1. Reason #2 “Here Paul Rockwell recounts the stories of Iraq War veterans, including Jimmy Massey. . .”

      here’s an article: Former Marine’s claims false
      “Former Marine’s claims false”, Ron Harris, St Louis Post-Dispatch, 11.10.05

      This was just the first in the list. A shame that this asshat professional reporter can’t read, or research.

      Posted by bhmildy on 2006 06 04 at 03:52 PM • permalink


    1. Personally I was never attracted to the military because I could never stand having anyone tell me what to do

      David Swanson’s parents raised a fine son, didn’t they? I wonder what happens to David and his parents if, by some chance the men and women that help give him, and totally DEFEND his right to be a smug prickLOSE this WAR , pitting the civilized world against an uncivilized cult, that preaches DEATH to people like sweet little David and his loving parents, first?

      Oh David, their first order will be, Get On Your Knees. Easier to slice the head off, that way.

      Oh and OZ…whatever Foundation Day is…Have a happy one. Kiwi’s…Happy Birthday to the Queen

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 04 at 04:57 PM • permalink


    1. Unfortunately, Farmer doesn’t give some of the best—and ironic—non-WMD reasons for the war: Saddam constantly violated the cease-fire agreement he made with the U.N. after the first Persian Gulf war; he constantly violated subsequent U.N. resolutions against him; and he failed to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441, which gave him a final thirty days to comply.  1441, by the way, was passed by all members of the U.N. Security Council.

      Why is this ironic?  Because it was the U.N.‘s response to Saddam that helped bring about the war, not Bush’s putative dreams of oil fields and world conquest.  If any country defied the U.N. vis-a-vis the war, it was France and Germany for not taking 1441 and preceding resolutions seriously enough.

      Posted by Bill Ramey on 2006 06 04 at 05:39 PM • permalink


    1. Check out the twat’s credentials at the bottom of the page.

      We, in the US, have one of our two major political parties that’s so sold out to the traitors and seditionists that we are truly a “house divided against itself”

      The official DNC platform: “We must delegitimize this war in order to regain power.”
      Assist the enemy in order to regain political power.

      There’s no way through this but for a full on bloody and very uncivil war.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 06 04 at 05:48 PM • permalink


    1. I’d rather face a tough situation with one Texas Bob by my side than with a garage full of Swansons. What a pusillanimous twit. And I’m not just saying that because I like to say “pusillanimous”; I think he’s truly lily-livered.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 04 at 06:08 PM • permalink


    1. David, dear.

      Torture Killings Reported in Iran

      Garadaghli also said that Iranian low enforcement bodies are using torture on the detained Azerbaijani demonstrators making them say that the US and other Western states are behind these protests. Four protesters died of severe torture in the past two days.

      This one is called Abu GaRave.



      Pajamas Media

      Dear David…these DEAD people didn’t like being told what to do, either….that’s why they died.

      But you see Dear David, these people at least LIVED BEFORE they died…unlike you who seems to be dead, while living, from date of birth, no less.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 04 at 06:23 PM • permalink


    1. Re #8, ushie:

      Also, I dunno, but do Humvees really have thin plastic doors that children could stab a knife through?  That seems…peculiar…to me.

      When we first rolled into Iraq, none of the wheeled vehicles (except for the Stryker) were armored.  That changed after terrorists started using IEDs.

      Now all hummers that move outside secure areas in Iraq and Afghanistan are armored.  In non-combat areas, hummers have plastic fabric or fiberglass sides.  As the hummers are modular in design, this is not a major problem, technically, although the logistics can be complicated.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 04 at 06:49 PM • permalink


    1. BTW…..I did check out David’s credentials at the bottom.  “Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign”…..wow, that really ought to be worth a high paying job somewhere.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 04 at 06:55 PM • permalink


    1. No man is a failure who is enjoying life.
      – William Feather

      See David dear…this is your problem…and after what The_Real_JeffS mentioned…“Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign”…you are a failure.

      Said another way…Your Life Sucks.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 04 at 07:01 PM • permalink


    1. DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master’s degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.

      He’s what the DNC has become. Nothing left to the left that is rational, legitimate, honorable or based in any sort of functional reality.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 06 04 at 07:08 PM • permalink


    1. Events at Haditha don’t change need for victory

      Here’s mud in your eye David Swanson, or should I say…Dennis Kucinich’s lap dog?
      Mark Steyn

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 04 at 07:58 PM • permalink


    1. In the military, I think it is more likely that you are wounded. Injured is when you fall out of a tree.

      Posted by ZombieXXXXking on 2006 06 04 at 09:16 PM • permalink


    1. “Personally I was never attracted to the military because I could never stand having anyone tell me what to do …”

      Funny, because he also doesn’t seem very attracted to doing what other people do when they dislike having others tell them what to do, namely starting a personal business. Methinks David just makes it up as he goes along – or more likely #5 has it right, and he sees himself as a breed apart from basically everybody else.

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 04 at 09:33 PM • permalink


    1. Why Mr. Swanson is the perfect product, the end goal of all the indoctrination, the permissive parenting theories, and the teacher college educators who engineered little David’s views on everything by keeping him concrete bound.  This is why you see no ability to abstract in anything he wrote in that article.  It is no accident that he was a philosophy student, and it is to the philosophy departments in our universities that one must look for the ultimate culprits behind the degradation of the Enlightenment and the principles upon which the United States was founded.

      The essense of the first thing they tell you in any philosophy 101 class these days is that there is no such thing as philosophy.  You have entered the Disneyland of the humanities department: If Walt Disney could draw it, then it’s reality.  If somebody can think it, it just might be so.  Who knows?  Not you.  You have no way of knowing anything.  Your senses lie to you and you can’t trust them.  To paraphrase Ayn Rand, you can’t see because you have eyes and you can’t hear because you have ears.

      But, David hasn’t had to pay the consequences of all of this yet.  He has all that support.  But, hey, he knows it’s a luxury.  I mean, thank GAWD he’s not one of those Wal-Mart people!, for whom he has plenty of compassion, believe you me even if they are icky, Nascar types who are just itching to get back from the war so they can murder us all in our beds!!!.

      Texas Bob, you said it in a word.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 04 at 09:41 PM • permalink


    1. Saltydog,

      Your generalizations about philosophy departments are dead wrong.  I’ve taught philosophy for the last three years, and our department explicitly disabuses students of relativism and subjectivism in its introductory philosophy, logic, and ethics classes—and that’s par for the course for American philosophy departments.  Academic philosophy in the English-speaking world is simply not dominated by postmodernism and never was.  It is, in fact, dominated by analytic philosophy, a style of philosophy that, for all of its faults, emphasizes logic and science and eshews the notion that truth is whatever one thinks truth is.  Postmodernism and deconstruction did influence literature departments in the 80s and 90s, but that influence has since abated even in those departments.

      Does this mean that academia is off the hook vis-a-vis the Ward Churchills of the world?  Of course not; there are plenty of solid criticisms of modern academia.  But the alleged Disneyland character of academic philosophy is not one of them.

      Posted by Bill Ramey on 2006 06 04 at 10:13 PM • permalink


    1. This must be the only war in history where thee yers after the fact, supporters for the war are still deciding the reasons for the invasion.

      These 12 points are beyond rediculous and all but one have been long since and utterly debunked.

      Swanson’s points are hardly earth shattering.  Half those argument could be used to explain the drawbacks of standing in front of a fast moving train.

      Posted by Addamo on 2006 06 04 at 10:49 PM • permalink


    1. Actually Addamo, it’s the constant mindless rant-o-chantic moronisms of the intellectually inbred leftobots that’s constantly having to be refuted.

      I can see where you might have gotten confused tho, seeing as how actual independent thought is forbidden to those of your cult.

      Have you hugged your Thought Boss today?

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 06 04 at 11:03 PM • permalink


    1. BTW, I don’t see Stoop Davy jumping up and down in this thread to proudly claim this particular David as one of the Dave collective…how come? 🙂

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 04 at 11:11 PM • permalink


    1. I think I agree with Bill Ramey, incidentally…for all the grief that philosophy departments tend to get, many of today’s moonbats seem to be coming from areas like lit-crit and sociology that merely dabble in Philosophy Lite (which is probably part of the problem) and fill up the rest of the curriculum looking for “root causes”.

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 04 at 11:18 PM • permalink


    1. Just think what Iowahawk could do with that “X Reasons To … ” format.

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 06 05 at 12:10 AM • permalink


    1. #32, Bill Ramey,

      I cannot argue with your experience.  I will say that there are those who didn’t get the memo, however.  That was my experience.  I first took philosophy 101 in 1965.  The next philosphy class I took was in 1990, when I finally was able to indulge myself.  There were interesting differences.

      I apologize for the undeserved insult.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 05 at 12:21 AM • permalink


    1. This is a joke right?  I mean, you’ve seriously got to be kidding me.

      Repeat after me people, there were no Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq until after the US invasion.  Iraq has become the global rallying point for the entire organisation. This knocks out reasons 1-3 and 5.

      Reason 6: Ok point taken.  So when can we knock out the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan?  Oh that’s right, they’re on our side.  My bad.

      Reason 8: And the evidence we have of this is….?  With America controlling the skies of southern Iraq there’s no way he could have even considered an attack on Saudi Arabia even if it made strategic sense, which it doesn’t.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 05 at 12:37 AM • permalink


    1. Saltydog,

      Thanks for the apology—it’s much appreciated.


      You’re right; philosophy is often wrongly attacked for sins it neither commits nor condones.  Indeed, training in philosophy goes a long way in combatting moonbattery, whether it comes from the left or right.

      Posted by Bill Ramey on 2006 06 05 at 12:37 AM • permalink


    1. Hey, look, Hal’s not just a Gaia troll, he’s aspiring for full-fledged, all-topics-included moonbat status.

      Just remember, folks: Don’t ask any sharp and pointy (err, pointed) questions, or you might injure the moonbat before it even reaches maturity.

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 05 at 12:49 AM • permalink


    1. And don’t forget that we can’t be armchair [insert job title here].  Hal has a hammerlock on that gig, ‘cuz he’s a scientist or sumpin’ like that, doncha know?

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 05 at 01:03 AM • permalink


    1. Come on Jeff, you asked me so I told you.  Besides, at least I’m no Marky, right?

      Seriously though, if this is the best that conservatives can come up with for justifying Iraq tehy’re in trouble.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 05 at 01:07 AM • permalink


    1. It’s a peculiar part of the lefty Iraq Derangement Syndrome to blithely assume that conservatives “have to” justify invading Iraq at this point in time, as though that makes a lick of difference to anything other than lefty feelings of smug superiority. Iraq’s been invaded and it’s been three frickin’ years, ‘mkay? It’s done. Here in 2006, we’re mostly pointing out these justifications again for three reasons:

      1) To counter the pervasive “quagmire” and “Bush lied!!!11!!one!” bleating from the media and the other lefty sectors of society,

      2) to combat the selective amnesia by the same people regarding basically everything that happened between 1991 and 2001 (i.e., mostly under Clinton’s watch), and

      3) for the off-chance to actually penetrate a wobbling lefty’s cocoon, though it seems to me that those who haven’t managed to figure it out despite everything that has happened in the past 5 years are pretty much lost causes.

      HTH, Hal.

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 05 at 01:34 AM • permalink


    1. #33 Addamo,
      It’s so much easier to criticize the efforts of others, isn’t it?. What’s your plan, Addamo?. This is the second time I’ve asked you this. Your’e an endless font of critique, yet you offer no solutions. So what’s the plan, Adammo?. Oh, that’s right, you’ve got nothing but bile.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 05 at 02:02 AM • permalink


    1. Adam de Mo and Hal (you two know each other, right?)
      We are here because Saddam is a frickin liar and a lousy poker player.  He wanted us (and the world) to think he had WMD o’ plenty, and we bought it. By “we” I mean everybody, including Clinton, Blix and nearly all of Congress.  Saddam placed tankers normally associated with carrying persistent chem agents along side his forward deployed artillery units a week or so before day one of OIF.  He did his best to make us believe he’d slime the port in Kuwait as well as the front of our main advance.  Presumably he thought we’d buy it and back off. He was wrong.  So here we are.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 05 at 02:17 AM • permalink


    1. 2. You May Kill Others

      How the hell did David Swanson work this one out?  Might it be the guns and the other things that go bang gave it away?  So much for military secrets?

      If David was serious about not being told what to do he would join the military.  Unless of course he likes the idea of being blown up by terrorists until he does what he is told?

      Posted by youngy on 2006 06 05 at 02:23 AM • permalink


    1. This was Mr. Freeman’s attempt to quality why he believes we are at war and ought to be at war.  In typical collectivist fashion, there are those who think that if one conservative says something, he speaks for the whole group.

      Mr. Freeman, like so many of us, probably just got sick and tired of hearing the same cant we’ve been listening to, seemingly forever.  He gave his reasons.  I agree with some of them, and I disagree that others are important enough to go to war over.  As someone pointed out earlier, Saddam broke the truce.  As far as I’m concerned we ought to have gone into Iraq as soon as he tossed out the inspectors.  But those are my reasons.  I’m sure that there are those who have others.

      At least we have more than one regurgitated meme based on half-truths and outright lies.
      P.S.  Texas Bob, you have been on a roll today.  I stand in awe of your marvelous economy of expression.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 05 at 03:27 AM • permalink


    1. This has to be satire. No? Yes?
      Not surprising Mr Apple Farmer (if real) would think like this. After all, the US have spent millions if not billions “edumakating” him and his countrymen about “nooklear terrurists”.

      Number 1 is particularly dumb of course…
      No body to attack even though we know that the majority of supposed hijackers were Saudi Arabians? Lets attack IRAQ. (Rhymes better)
      Actually they are almost all pretty sad reasons.

      #46 A country with the intelligence machinery of the US should have been able to establish that any claims to possession were just bluster and tactics. In fact they did just that. The intelligence agencies did their job, but were betrayed by the Bush Junta. The information was of course massaged and twisted into a different shape as it made its way into the WhiteHouse and back out to the populous via a compliant media.

      It was Chalabi (the honourable) and others, who pushed the claims Saddam had nuclear weapons and it was the US intelligence that knew initially that it was a crock of shit.

      The preeminent US expert on Centrifuges said quite clearly that the tubes were not for centrifuges. He was ignored.

      Wilson proved the Yellow Cake story was a fraud and Rove committed a felony.
      Colin Powell lied before the UN and admitted it later as the low point of his career (he should have fallen on his sword, after pushing George on his).
      It was the ruling junta that pushed the nonesense and “Fixed the Intelligence”  for its own prior agenda (PNAC and all that).
      The UN inspectors under Blix said that they had found no WMDs (since dismantled in 1991 or there abouts). (Rewriting history there?) They were ignored.
      Blair lied about 48 hours (or was it 24??) as fluently as Rice painted pictures of Mushroom shaped clouds.
      Bush, Blair and Little John all sang the same song of propaganda and all were wrong.
      Many thousands of “to be liberated” Iraqis have died horrible deaths, thousands of young idealistic americans too. For what?
      The country now is far more of a logistic and tactic disaster than when Saddam was in power. The US and its unwitted allies have walked into a dreadful trap. How can you continue to defend that??
      The invasion of Iraq was in plan long before the first planes took off for the WTC.
      To follow the logic you present and knowing that preemptive strikes are, in US eyes at least, legitimate, does that mean that anybody who feels threatend by anybody else, whether based on hard data or not, is free to invade, attack, cause massive “collateral damage”?
      So N Korea would be OK to plant little bombs in say, Washington or New York or (gods forbid) Seattle, if they felt threatened by US policies??

      TBob. Can you please answer a question?
      The Bush administration ignored a number of warnings given to them pre 9/11, by the intelligence powers of 3 or more European countries, re attacks on targets, in US, by CIVILIAN planes. Rice denied (on camera I think) any such idea was known or had occurred, to the administration.
      What does that tell you about “management” (shall we say?) of intelligence?

      Posted by drpoll on 2006 06 05 at 05:00 AM • permalink


    1. #49, drpoll,

      Was your first sentence meant to warn us about the rest of your post?  If it was, I would like to thank you for providing us with a perfect specimen of an anti-war, anti-Bush parrot puppet.  It has everything!  Brilliant!

      If it wasn’t, nevermind.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 05 at 05:38 AM • permalink


    1. The_Real_JeffS:  Thanks for clearing that up.  I’m pretty sure small children can’t stab a knife through car doors now.  I could go to the mall and check it out, of course…

      Drpoll, what are you a doctor of?  I just want to know what to avoid.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 06 05 at 06:55 AM • permalink


    1. #49 Drpoll,
      We’re ruled by a Junta?. I’m so happy that you pointed that out to me, cockpouch.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 05 at 07:26 AM • permalink


    1. DPoll Ignoring the rest of your Moore’ish post, I’ll address your intelligence question as best I can.  I saw the satellite imagery. There were tankers next to the artillery.  It tells me that the intel guys can successfully identify chemical munitions tankers sitting next to scud-b launchers. I’d say they managed it quite well. Anything else you’d like me to clear up for you?

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 05 at 07:48 AM • permalink


    1. SaltyDog.
      Your answers to my points is what?
      Do you deny the existance of PNAC?

      You have ignored the question and thrown in a diversion. That answers my question.

      Posted by drpoll on 2006 06 05 at 08:07 AM • permalink


    1. Dpoll. I answered your question with regards to my original post.  My post is a reference to tactical intelligence. Your question is about strategic (well, sort of, in a X-Files-Meets-Dr-Suess kind of way) intelligence.  Until you have a grasp on reality, I suggest you avoid strategic intelligence.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 05 at 08:28 AM • permalink


    1. 55 TBob.
      “I answered your question with regards to my original post”  But NOT in the context of my question.. You must be a fan of big games of chess.
      You are avoiding my question because you can not explain the contradiction.
      I can pose many more questions that you can not answer (tactical, shmactical or whatever) of course, courtesy of Cheyne, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al (“like a new Pearl Harbour.”)

      Posted by drpoll on 2006 06 05 at 08:45 AM • permalink


    1. Well DPoll, why would I answer a question posed outside of the context of my own statement?  Did I lead you to believe I work in the Pentagon (I don’t)?  I attempted to answer your question as logically as possible from my perspective. If you don’t like my answer, that is your problem.  I do not recall reading in Tim’s rule book that posters must answer all unsolicited question posed to them to the requestors utmost satifaction.

      Your original post is based in spectulation, distorted facts and/or outright lies. You ask for an answer to a question that is based on nonsense. Be honest, you don’t really want an answer.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 05 at 09:08 AM • permalink


    1. Hal:

      Besides, at least I’m no Marky, right?

      Marky, for all of his being an insensitive jerk, at least apologized for his grossly unjust joke.  It may have been insincere, but Marky did admit that he was wrong.

      So, yeah, you’re no Marky.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 05 at 09:45 AM • permalink


    1. Texas Bob, drputz is being deliberately obtuse.  The good drputz is pulling the same stunt on other threads.  Looks like we have a new troll.

      (PS: I’m sure that you realized drputz is being obtuse…..I just wanted a reason to say “drputz”, is all!!!)

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 05 at 09:48 AM • permalink


    1. Re #44, well said, PW!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 05 at 09:51 AM • permalink


    1. Yup TRJS, that’s what I was thinking too. I would just like to know what other name(s) he has gone by here prior to DrPoll (created 1 JUN 06)

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 05 at 11:41 AM • permalink


    1. Wilson proved the Yellow Cake story was a fraud

      Er, no, he didn’t. It’s his word against British and (I believe) French intelligence, who last I heard were standing by it.

      It was the ruling junta

      You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

      (PNAC and all that).

      Don’t forget the Illuminati.

      How about this, chum – the ‘91 cease-fire required Saddam to give access to weapons inspectors. He threw them out. Cease-fire over. Simple, yes?

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 05 at 11:54 AM • permalink


    1. #52:We’re ruled by a Junta?. I’m so happy that you pointed that out to me, cockpouch.

      I think that I shall never see,
      An epithet as funny as thee.

      Good one, Dan!

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 05 at 11:56 AM • permalink


    1. Re #61, Texas Bob, I’m sure that the only way drputz gets anyone to agree with him is through sock puppets.  This twit takes the old joke about being a “self-made man” way too far……

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 05 at 12:26 PM • permalink


    1. #63 Paco,
      That was an epithet?, cool!. Whenever I hear the word “junta” I just start swearing. Anyone who uses that word, outside of South America, is a moron with a truly juvenile understanding of politics and needs to be reminded of it in no uncertain terms. And I like saying cockpouch.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 05 at 12:40 PM • permalink


    1. Junta. Mmmmm y-e-e-s. Many’s the time I’ve found myself standing outside of the agency where I work, smoking a meditative cigarette – on my lunch break, mind you – and seen the presidential motorcade pull out of the White House grounds: Bush dressed in his Bolivian admiral’s uniform, with the platinum epaulettes; Cheney in his black, double-breasted suit, monocle, and black and red GOP arm ribbon; Karl Rove in silk top hat, white tie, and the red sash of the Order of International Skullduggery, hanging out the window taking pot shots with his luger at anti-war protestors. Yes, Junta just about covers it. And to think that Bush got away with stealing the election! There was poor John Kerry, who had just purchased the election in good faith from the Daily Kos and George Soros with Teresa’s money, and then, in one careless moment, he left it laying on the seat of his Cadillac Escalade – with the doors unlocked! –  so that W and his cronies were able to pinch it. Sad, very sad.

      Say, seriously, who’s in charge of troll quality control this week. Since Stoop Davy doesn’t seem to be around, let’s assume it’s him. Remember: (1) lefties, albeit wrong-headed, who drop in and attempt to engage in more or less honest debate, ok; (2) lefties who come here for the sole purpose of mooning commenters, and then go running off with their arse on fire whining about “how unfair it all is”, not ok.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 05 at 12:59 PM • permalink


    1. #66 Paco,
      I always imagined Cokespoon Mcflightsuit stealing the election from under a Christmas tree, Grinch style.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 05 at 01:06 PM • permalink


    1. #67: Cokespoon Mcflightsuit

      May I say, sir, that you are absolutely ON FIRE today! LOL!

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 05 at 01:11 PM • permalink


    1. #68 Paco,
      Someone else used that name on this site a while back, so I can’t take the credit. It might have been that Wronright chap, he seems to get around a bit.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 05 at 01:26 PM • permalink


    1. #40: Professor Ramey – stop me if you’ve heard this one:

      Jean-Paul Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of Being and Nothingness. He says to the waitress, “I’d like a cup of coffee, please, with no cream.” The waitress replies, “I’m sorry, monsieur, but we’re out of cream. How about with no milk?”

      Or this one:

      Question: What do you get when you cross the Godfather with a philosopher?
      Answer: An offer you can’t understand.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 05 at 02:04 PM • permalink


    1. #18 – I posted that link on Swanson’s blog. The lying coward deleted it.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 05 at 02:31 PM • permalink


    1. Eh, is it just me or is it just a little bit suspicious that Hal immediately disappeared as drpoll has surfaced? Same droning style and lack of follow-up to their own previous points once they’ve been responded to, too.

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 05 at 06:42 PM • permalink


    1. I went to that Swanson link. I really feel sorry for that guy-he needs help.  If you wonder how supposedly bright people can be so gullible, just look at the system of education these people are coming out of.

      I can’t do those linky things, but you should go to this site.


      It still works because I just tried it.  This will give you a good laugh and also a good example of the lack of critical thought in the university of today.  This clown teaches in the business PHD program at Stanford.  He really does!  Honest to God!

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 05 at 07:13 PM • permalink


    1. It ain’t just you, PW.  I think someone is sock puppeting here.

      yojimbo—the link doesn’t work, “no page found”.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 05 at 07:33 PM • permalink


    1. The_Real_Jeffs

      Well, it’s 6/6/06 in OZ so what do you expect.

      I just tried it on my Earthlink(google),yahoo and ask.com and it worked on all three?  I don’t know what to say. It really is something to see.  This piece of garbage was also published in a “learned journal”, and probably peer reviewed!

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 05 at 11:21 PM • permalink


    1. Ah! Ha!

      Bet you used /22-politics INSTEAD OF /22_politics.

      I just tried it with /22-politics and it doesn’t work.  Make sure you use 22/_politics.

      PW   You could be right since I have never seen them together, although we don’t get out much anymore.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 05 at 11:30 PM • permalink


    1. yojimbo, I did a cut&paste;.

      But I went a different route, and the correct
      URL is here.

      And you’re right…..it’s a hoot!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 05 at 11:42 PM • permalink


    1. Sorry, that link as posted by you really doesn’t work, yojimbo.

      Here we go (suffix was missing)…

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 05 at 11:44 PM • permalink


    1. Dang, too slow.

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 05 at 11:45 PM • permalink


    1. As far as I’m concerned the debate about the WMD’s is a moot point.  We’re there now so we should stay until they at least have a functioning gov’t.  Like Colin Powell told Bush: “If you break it, you’ve bought it”.

      But the continuing effort by die-hards on the right to link Saddam with 9/11 and Al Qaeda is pathetic.  Saddam and Osama loathed each other.  It’s a simple fact that the war in Iraq has radicalised more muslims than Osama would ever have been able to by himself.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 05 at 11:52 PM • permalink


    1. Well dang!

      I have it in my favorites.  Could this be the reason it comes up for me without all that http stuff? I fear this stuff is all beyond an older Yojimbo.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 06 at 12:42 AM • permalink


    1. I guess I will just have to invest in the new Paco Enterprises’ up-armoured operating system and search engine.

      Hal-The Clinton Administration used the connection to bomb the al Shifa factory in 1998, among other things.  If you don’t want to beleive it-fine by me.  Tired of going over all this stuff anyway.  The Dems used all this stuff to justify their actions in the 1990’s.  WMD’s, global terrorist threats, you name a connection and they made it.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 06 at 01:16 AM • permalink


    1. But the continuing effort by die-hards on the right to link Saddam with 9/11 and Al Qaeda is pathetic.  Saddam and Osama loathed each other.  It’s a simple fact that the war in Iraq has radicalised more muslims than Osama would ever have been able to by himself.

      PW, in another thread, you mentioned that Hal sounds familiar, and I mentioned that we likely have sock puppets coming up.  Here’s another example.  Hal anwers a question by changing the subject, bringing up yet another worn out, often refuted lefty talking point.  It’s like there’s an obsolete rantbot at the other end of the connection.

      God knows this putz is already old, and “Hal” has been around for less than a week (his join date is 29 May).  But this “Hal” sounds really familiar—like that idiot LLL (Leftiod Lunatic Lover or somesuch), who was banned for good reason.

      So this guy I’m just going to ignore.  He’s not original, he’s not smart, and he’s certainly not worth the time and trouble.

      But don’t worry…….Hal (or drputz?) will disappear, and we’ll get another low quality troll of a different name soon after.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 06 at 02:40 AM • permalink


    1. Saddam and Osama loathed each other.


      So did Churchill and Stalin.

      It’s a simple fact that the war in Iraq has radicalised more muslims than Osama would ever have been able to by himself.


      Really? You have evidence to back up that assertion? Numbers? Anything?

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 06 at 02:55 AM • permalink


    1. Saddam and Osama may have hated each other, but they agreed on one thing, they hated the US a great deal more.

      Dave S Didn’t you know that all of those madrasas exist only because of the war in Iraq.  Those 9/11 people only crashed planes into our buildings because of the war in Iraq.  These people were simply cute little agrarian types planting and harvesting organic wheat until the evil Texas Bob came along. Only quiet talk and thoughts of futbol until Texas Bob came along.  Heck, I bet you won’t even find the word Jihad in use until 2003 or so.  Get with the program.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 06 at 03:19 AM • permalink


    1. And I’ll bet they didn’t try to bring down the WTC in 1992, either. I mean, Clinton was President. The Muzzies loved us.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 06 at 04:24 AM • permalink


    1. Really? You have evidence to back up that assertion? Numbers? Anything?

      If Hal has backed up 10% of his assertions, I’d be surprised.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 06 at 04:48 AM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.