History Test

[Bodacious]

All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions...

Kerry even admits free fire zones were against the laws of warfare, why won't you?

 

[No Limit]

I did read the whole thing like you all did. Damn, why am I even stooping this low, maybe because work is slow today.

He said that he participated in free fire zones, something HE WAS ORDERED TO DO. SOMETHING THAT WAS US POLICY.

In HIS OWN OPINION he thinks those were atrocities, by the rule of our government those were NOT atrocities. Do you understand that or do you not have the mental capability to?

 

[No Limit]

This means that if a soldier in Iraq kills a civillian accidentally and says he commited an atrocity does it mean he really did? No smart one, it means in HIS OWN OPINION he did.

 

[Hapless]

I did read the whole thing like you all did. Damn, why am I even stooping this low, maybe because work is slow today.

He said that he participated in free fire zones, something HE WAS ORDERED TO DO. SOMETHING THAT WAS US POLICY.

In HIS OWN OPINION he thinks those were atrocities, by the rule of our government those were not atrocities. Do you understand that or do you not have the mental capability to?

I see, so Kerry thinks what he did was atrocious and criminal, but since the U.S. government said it wasn't, it's alright? Bush and the U.S. government says what we're doing is not criminal, but you say it is. You're right, I don't have the mental capability to understand you.

 

[Bodacious]

I did read the whole thing like you all did. Damn, why am I even stooping this low, maybe because work is slow today.

He said that he participated in free fire zones, something HE WAS ORDERED TO DO. SOMETHING THAT WAS US POLICY.

In HIS OWN OPINION he thinks those were atrocities, by the rule of our government those were NOT atrocities. Do you understand that or do you not have the mental capability to?

So you don't have any beef with kerry coming back calling what othe soldiers did attrociteis, but when John Kerry admits he is part of committing those atrociteies, they are suddenly not atrocites?

So what weight does Kerry's senate testimony have if they aren't atrocities to begin with?

 

[No Limit]

I see, so Kerry thinks what he did was atrocious and criminal, but since the U.S. government said it wasn't, it's alright? Bush and the U.S. government says what we're doing is not criminal, but you say it is. You're right, I don't have the mental capability to understand you.

For christ sake. Ok, lets so this SLOOOOOOOWLY so you can understand.

A soldier comes home and says he commited an atrocity in fighting the war in Iraq. However, he was in the military before Bush started the war and was forced to ship out. So I ask you, did he really admit to commiting atrocities or did he just follow orders that he thinks weren't right?

 

[Absinthe]

Am I misreading this, or are you not implying that Bush is responsible for war crimes and atrocities?

Those fall on the people committing the crimes or the people ordering them, depending on the situation.

I do, however, hold Bush responsible for making these crimes possible, which can be just as bad.

 

[seinfeldrules]

In HIS OWN OPINION he thinks those were atrocities, by the rule of our government those were NOT atrocities. Do you understand that or do you not have the mental capability to?

Read the quote again, he even admits it was against the laws of warfare.

All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions...

 

[No Limit]

Read the quote again, he even admits it was against the laws of warfare.

They WERE AGAINST THE GENIVA RULES OF WAR but it was US POLICY SO HE HAD TO DO IT. By international standards the war in Iraq is illegal so that means every soldier there is commiting atrocities by your stupid ass logic.

 

[Hapless]

For christ sake. Ok, lets so this SLOOOOOOOWLY so you can understand.

A soldier comes home and says he commited an atrocity in fighting the war in Iraq. However, he was in the military before Bush started the war and was forced to ship out. So I ask you, did he really admit to commiting atrocities or did he just follow orders that he thinks weren't right?

What on earth are you talking about? Seriously, your replies get more and more convoluted. I can't even remember what we were discussing.

 

[Bodacious]

They WERE AGAINST THE GENIVA RULES OF WAR but it was US POLICY SO HE HAD TO DO IT. By international standards the war in Iraq is illegal so that means every soldier there is commiting atrocities.

Again, because kerry was ordered to do it, and somehow, by your logic it makes those crime a-ok, why did Kerry throw a fit about them when he got back from the war?

 

[No Limit]

Again, because kerry was ordered to do it, and somehow, by your logic it makes those crime a-ok, why did Kerry throw a fit about them when he got back from the war?

OK, listen, I am getting sick of this shit with you not answering my questions so I am not going to respond to anything from you until you 2 reply to my direct and simple question.

If a US soldier comes home from Iraq, the war which is illegal by international standards, and says I commited atrocities does that mean he is really admiting to doing that and should be prosecuted?

 

[Bodacious]

If a US soldier comes home from Iraq, the war which is illegal by international standards, and says I commited atrocities does that mean he is really admiting to doing that and should be prosecuted?

Hahah, I am going to answer this with a quote from your side of the fence.

If the queen had balls she would be the king.

 

[Absinthe]

Again, because kerry was ordered to do it, and somehow, by your logic it makes those crime a-ok, why did Kerry throw a fit about them when he got back from the war?

US policy doesn't need to take into account International policy. If the world says "Nay" while the US says "Yay", then it's not like the US is going to be put on trial. But even if the crimes committed were A-OK in the government's eyes (thus absolving Kerry of guilt), it doesn't make the act any less horrible.

 

[Scoobnfl]

You mean like Bush's record?
He wasn't dishonorably discharged.

yes he was, it's in his records that's why he won't release them

 

[Absinthe]

If the queen had balls she would be the king.

Actually, you don't even understand that quote.

 

[Hapless]

Hahah, I am going to answer this with a quote from your side of the fence.

If the queen had balls she would be the king.

Man, I was going to use that.......

 

[Hapless]

Actually, you don't even understand that quote.

I do, and it seems to have been used correctly, so apparently he does to.

 

[Absinthe]

yes he was, it's in his records that's why he won't release them

Links. Please, I beg you.

According to Kerry's record, he was dishonorably discharged.
Kerry's record is a secret.
But if Kerry's record is a secret, then you don't know for sure if he was dishonorably discharged.

...

:rolling:

It's not a convincing argument.

 

[seinfeldrules]

They WERE AGAINST THE GENIVA RULES OF WAR but it was US POLICY SO HE HAD TO DO IT.

The Geneva Rules of War are the US Rules of War.

 

[seinfeldrules]

If a US soldier comes home from Iraq, the war which is illegal by international standards, and says I commited atrocities does that mean he is really admiting to doing that and should be prosecuted?

If he was involved in Abu Gharib, then yes he should be prosecuted. All soldiers fighting in war cannot be considered criminals right off the bat.

 

[No Limit]

Shows how much intellect you guys have, that quote you posted to dodge my question shows what an idiot you are since you don't even know what that quote means; so after this post I am done talking to the both of you. We can let everyone here judge who is right and who is wrong.

The quote stern posted was talking about an even in the past, an event that can not be changed. What I posted is something that can still happen (and probably already happened). So there you go, you avoid my simple question and make an ass out of yourself in the process, congrats. I am going home and if you want drag this on as long as you need to help your ego, I am going back to debating with people that have an IQ above 1.

 

[No Limit]

If he was involved in Abu Gharib, then yes he should be prosecuted. All soldiers fighting in war cannot be considered criminals right off the bat.

No dude, you are side stepping the simple question. That question I posted was about a soldier disagreeing with US policy and saying he commited atrocities so he gets his point across, he doesn't actually mean it. Abu Gharib is (hopefully) against US policy.

 

[No Limit]

The Geneva Rules of War are the US Rules of War.

Apperently not. Free fire zones were against Geniva yet our government still allowed them.

 

[Hapless]

Shows how much intellect you guys have, that quote you posted to dodge my question shows what an idiot you are since you don't even know what that quote means; so after this post I am done talking to the both of you. We can let everyone here judge who is right and who is wrong.

The quote stern posted was talking about an even in the past, an event that can not be changed. What I posted is something that can still happen (and probably already happened). So there you go, you avoid my simple question and make an ass out of yourself in the process, congrats. I am going home and if you want drag this on as long as you need to help your ego, I am going back to debating with people that have an IQ above 1.

Bye

/me waves and drools while gazing blankly into space

 

[Absinthe]

I do, and it seems to have been used correctly, so apparently he does to.

That saying applies to hypothetical situations regarding the past. For instance, you could use it against the following statement.

"Hitler would have been alright if he didn't kill Jews."

You can not use it against just any hypothetical statement or question.

So no, he didn't understand it.

 

[Bodacious]

Actually, you don't even understand that quote.

BS dude, you can kiss my ass for insulting my intelligence. I am fully aware of the conversation between Stern and hapless, so you are wrong.

 

[Hapless]

a soldier disagreeing with US policy and saying he commited atrocities so he gets his point across, he doesn't actually mean it.

Sounds more like a statement than a question to me. But my intellect is limited. <drools>

 

[No Limit]

That saying applies to hypothetical situations regarding the past. For instance, you could use it against the following statement.

"Hitler would have been alright if he didn't kill Jews."

You can not use it against just any hypothetical statement or question.

So no, he didn't understand it.

Just give up, you explain it to them as easily as possible (and you are 100% right) and the idiot replies with:

BS dude, I you can kiss my ass for insulting my intelligence. I am fully aware of the conversation between Stern and hapless, so you are wrong.

Notice how he doesn't address why you are wrong and he is right, he simply says he is right and thats it. This is why I am done with the 2 of them and I would recommend the same for you or your IQ is going to start dropping with ever letter read from them.

 

[Absinthe]

BS dude, I you can kiss my ass for insulting my intelligence. I am fully aware of the conversation between Stern and hapless, so you are wrong.

I like chocolate pancakes.

 

[seinfeldrules]

That question I posted was about a soldier disagreeing with US policy and saying he commited atrocities so he gets his point across, he doesn't actually mean it.

So Kerry admitted to war crimes, but didnt really commit them. Even though he admitted to commiting them. You are making less and less sense.

 

[Bodacious]

That saying applies to hypothetical situations regarding the past. For instance, you could use it against the following statement.

"Hitler would have been alright if he didn't kill Jews."

You can not use it against just any hypothetical statement or question.

So no, he didn't understand it.

And vietnam isn't the past?

 

[Absinthe]

And vietnam isn't the past?

The question itself didn't necessarily apply to Vietnam specifically.

His statement was more along the lines of "If I were to do xxx, then what would happen?". The Queen's Balls saying can't really be applied to it.

But any way, I'm done. I need sleep. G'night.

 

[No Limit]

So Kerry admitted to war crimes, but didnt really commit them. Even though he admitted to commiting them. You are making less and less sense.

Look I have at least a little respect for you. So please, tell me you understand what I am saying so I don't have to treat you like the 2 idiots.

 

[Bodacious]

The question itself didn't necessarily apply to Vietnam specifically.

His statement was more along the lines of "If I were to do xxx, then what would happen?". The Queen's Balls saying can't really be applied to it.

But any way, I'm done. I need sleep. G'night.

Whatever, keep changing the situation to fit your agenda, real smart there.

 

[Hapless]

Summary-

Hapless: Some Democrats think Bush is like Hitler

No Limit: BS, show me a quote

Hapless: <shows 3 quotes>

No Limit: Idiot

 

[Kommie]

Whatever, keep changing the situation to fit your agenda, real smart there.

You were wrong you used the quote incorrectly case closed. You don't have to try and make absinthe look like an idiot to save face.

Summary-

Hapless: Some Democrats think Bush is like Hitler

No Limit: BS, show me a quote

Hapless: <shows 3 quotes>

No Limit: Idiot

Can we please not summarize? I mean it really serves no purpose except to inflame others.

 

[Absinthe]

Whatever, keep changing the situation to fit your agenda, real smart there.

OMG REPUBLICAN SPIN!!!!!1!!!!!111!

You're still wrong, so nyah.

 

[No Limit]

Summary-

Hapless: Some Democrats think Bush is like Hitler

You didn't say some, lets replace that with many.

No Limit: BS, show me a quote

Hapless: <shows 3 quotes>

Not a single quote shows a democrats saying Bush is like Hitler. I won't even mention one of your 3 was from a German, real smart.

No Limit: Idiot

I still stand by that

You can't even right a proper summary, didn't they teach you this in elementary school?

 

[Scoobnfl]

Links. Please, I beg you.

According to Kerry's record, he was dishonorably discharged.
Kerry's record is a secret.
But if Kerry's record is a secret, then you don't know for sure if he was dishonorably discharged.

...

:rolling:

It's not a convincing argument.

he could release his records to clear the issue up...... but he won't....... why???????? cuz he doesn't want anyone to know he was dishonorably discharged.