**** the troops! - Page 34

Tuatara · #**331** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRelevant

December 4, 1996

Electric appliances come alive to sell their G.M. sibling, the EV1.

By STUART ELLIOTT

COMMON household appliances are the stars of a spectacular spot that signals the start of ambitious efforts intended to create interest in an uncommon car.

The spot, by Hal Riney & Partners in San Francisco, promotes the EV1, the electric-powered two-seat coupe that the General Motors Corporation will make available by lease at Saturn dealerships in four Western markets. The first electric car in decades will be a tough sell because of its high price, more than the cost of a Lexus lease; its limited driving range, 70 to 90 miles, and its lengthy recharging period, 3 to 14 hours.

Every single person that owned one drove it back and forth to work and charged it overnight. No problem.

Quote:

The commercial is the cornerstone of a 12-week media blitz with a budget estimated at $8 million, which also includes print advertisements, billboards and a World Wide Web site (http://www.gmev.com). And though the EV1 will initially be offered in only the four markets, it will be the focus of glitzy marketing ploys typically used for national introductions of prestigious cars.

No mention of how many commercials were actually shown. Exactly where it was printed and how often. This whole argument falls apart here.

Quote:

If consumers prove reluctant to lease EV1's

Every single one they made was leased. Every single one. Here read all this.

Tuatara · #**332** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRelevant

Motives for war all laid out innumerable times by Bush.

Yes and they were all lies and misleading.

Quote:

You are acting like the forthought to remove Saddam from power was a neocon invention.

Bush I wanted him removed but had some foresight and knew that Iraq would become chaos.

Quote:

It was no secret ,going back for years(see Bill Clintons Iraqi liberation act of 199.

Yup and if 911 happened on Clinton's watch maybe he would have used that as a pretense to go to war against Iraq. We don't know. Clinton was also tied to big oil also.

Quote:

Your constant assertions that Saddam never provoked the US is laughable.

How did he provoke the US?

Quote:

Maybe youre just using the wrong word for what you really mean but he certainly provoked the US on a consistant basis

On a constant basis??? You will have to show me how.

Quote:

The right to wage war against enemies, in the hands of the UN, also hysterical.

The US is a signatory of the UN. They must follow UN law.

Quote:

You ran from the EV1 conspiracy you seemed so sure of yourself with

No, it's still going. I must have missed your last post.

Quote:

at least address how Iraq firing anti aircraft missles (which were banned under UN sanctions)

No they weren't. We had been through this before. No mention in any UN resolution about No Fly Zones.

Quote:

at coalition planes not provoking the US?

They were unmanned spy planes and Iraq had every right to shoot them down.

Quote:

Saddam by ordering these attacks were meant to PROVOKE a response.

Yes he wanted a response. He wanted the US to stop flying these planes into Iraqi airspace.

Do you honestly think the US waged war against Iraq that has caused thousands of lives for the reason that Saddam shot down a couple of unmanned aircraft?

What a great pendulum of injustice that would be.

Tuatara · #**333** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

Where do you get that from?

Read it all here.

Quote:

On important matters, it is necessary to get nine members of the Security Council to agree. However:

* The five permanent members each have veto power, and any one of them can block any resolution of the Security Council.

When the UN's Economic and Social Council apply sanctions through resolutions, they have to be passed through by the Security Council.
http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/un/works.htm

bugalugs · #**334** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

We have already established that they did attack us, both through surrogates and in firing on our planes.

No - that has not been established at all.

Firing on unmanned aircraft over Iraq does not constitute an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations requiring individual or collective self-defence.

Even if it did - why was Article 51 never cited as justification for the invasion? Why were the lies about WMDs invented to try to seek a Resolution to enforce Resolution 1441?

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

No you did not. I am talking about where I was talking about sovereignty.

No - I addressed that. I wrote:
"...there is no question that the UNSC is in any way threatening the sovereignity of the USA"

Do you know what "sovereignity is?

Sovereignty is the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself...In constitutional and international law, the concept also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in certain context to various organs possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

Are you trying to tell me that by determining the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression under Article 39, the UNSC is somehow threatening the USA's governments ability to possess
full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit? Or the US Government's ability to make laws and govern its people?

I don't think so

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

You don’t even read your own sources do you? It plainly states that we would have no vote in a matter such as that.

Where does it say that?

Publius Infinitum · #**335** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

Yes and they were all lies and misleading.

Cite one lie advanced by President Bush or retract. Your failure to cite an fact advanced by President Bush which you can factually show that the President knew to be false at the time he stated it will be a default concession by you that YOUR statement is FALSE.

Best of luck...

(Now friends, let's recognize that this member will be unable to post ANY evidence of ANY position regarding the war on terror or the campaign in Iraq within that war, wherein the President advanced as fact a position he knew to be false. We also know that as is their habot, their inability to support their position through valid reasoning will in no way sway them from advancing it again and again and again...

EDIT: *ad hominems are the last refuge of weak minds and weak arguments.*

They're not with us friends... treat them accordingly.

danarhea · #**336** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRed

I don't agree with this person with regards to not giving a crap if the soldiers are being killed and/or wounded.

However, that being said, there is something interesting to be discussed here: The worship in our culture of the soldier. It is odd. Adds more credibility to the fact that we are a warrior nation and hold the soldier to high esteem.

And I can't say I support the troops because if I don't support the politician for sending the troops to a destination for an objective I don't agree with, I can't support the people performing the actual action of it. I know I will get heat for it, but I don't really care. People have been brought up to love the soldier know matter what and that is just wrong. I cannot support a people that willfully engage in something fundamentally incorrect and immoral.

Going back to an early discussion, a standing military is not necessary. Regular Americans could easily thwart almost any invasion. As for regular threats from rogue nations or aggressive nations, the mere fact that we could kill every man, woman and child anywhere on this Earth; well let's just say I don't think anyone would mess with us.

Terrorist attacks are a bit different. But a standing army won't thwart that either. Foreign policy changes will.

Nonetheless, back to the original intent of my post. I don't wish death upon soldiers by any means. But I also don't wish death upon innocent civilians.

You don't have to support the mission to support the troops. It's a bad mission, but I still have the utmost respect for those who are putting their lives on the line. Without them, America would have been overrun by its enemies long ago.

Tuatara · #**337** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

You don't have to support the mission to support the troops. It's a bad mission, but I still have the utmost respect for those who are putting their lives on the line. Without them, America would have been overrun by its enemies long ago.

Which enemies and when?

Tuatara · #**338** (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 09:49 PM

Also I don't respond to PI anymore especially about subjects that were covered in full details before.

BigRed · #**339** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

You don't have to support the mission to support the troops. It's a bad mission, but I still have the utmost respect for those who are putting their lives on the line. Without them, America would have been overrun by its enemies long ago.

I don't understand that logic sir.

You don't support the mission, but support those carrying out the mission?

akc814ilv · #**340** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRed

I don't understand that logic sir.

You don't support the mission, but support those carrying out the mission?

Its not that hard to do...

You dont support the mission but you wish for those who are over there serving to get back home safely.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What The Troops Really Think About Iraq	Toby	Political Opinions & Beliefs	38	04-09-2008 12:42 PM
Help our troops	abu-afak	Political Opinions & Beliefs	0	04-17-2007 08:51 PM
For all of you who like to say you support the troops	DanM	Veterans	4	01-07-2006 08:58 PM
Help the troops	SedyAlpha	Warfare / Military	0	05-22-2005 11:11 AM
My Time with the Troops	JP5	Current Events	2	09-03-2004 06:16 PM