BF2S Forums Senator John Glenn Quotes

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Last time I checked, the only thing we control is the "Green Zone", and we can't even stop bombings in there.

What about the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner on the aircraft carrier?

Everyone knows, including you, that that banner was a statement implying toppling Saddam Hussein reign.

It is unfortunate that, that was not the end of it, I wish it had been.

How would I come to the conclusion that "Mission Accomplished" meant toppling Saddam's reign, when the pretext for the war was "disarming Saddam", not "beheading Saddam"?

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-04-27 11:55:59)

Stopped reading after this:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city,about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq ..

Well if you're talking about how deadly a place is, at least include other deaths that aren't combat related. Like all the kidnappings, suicide bombings and all that shit. I'm sure that doesn't happen in Detriot or anywhere in the U.S - what that statement is trying to say is that Iraq is more safe than the U.S. You have got to be fucking shitting me.

This really needs to go in the Junk Drawer.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

What about the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner on the aircraft carrier?

Everyone knows, including you, that that banner was a statement implying toppling Saddam Hussein reign.

It is unfortunate that, that was not the end of it, I wish it had been.

How would I come to the conclusion that "Mission Accomplished" meant toppling Saddam's reign, when the pretext for the war was "disarming Saddam", not "beheading Saddam"?

"My name is Saddam Hussein. I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate"


How much more disarmed do you want him to be?
It was the Iraqis that tried and beheaded him.

.. but i do agree. "Mission Acomplished Banner", huge mistake. It gave Americans a sense of conclusion.

Stingray24 wrote:

You're debating it, so it belongs here.  Sorry boys, just because you can't handle all those facts in a row doesn't mean it leaves D&ST. This is fun.

This is mindless.  Debating the war in Iraq has little to do with that ridiculous list.

Facts such as "the war in Iraq was over in less than 51 days".  Just one. 

It is fun for me to see people post mindless 'facts' like this list as proof that "liberals are wrong and conservatives are right", and then see people agree with it.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-04-27 12:15:33)

Stingray24 wrote:

You're debating it, so it belongs here.  Sorry boys, just because you can't handle all those facts in a row doesn't mean it leaves D&ST. This is fun.

We could debate the superiority of grape flavored sodas relative to that of orange flavored sodas, but if it wasn't serious talk it could still be deleted. This is debate AND serious talk, implying a thread would need to satisfy both conditions.

Kmarion wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Winning the war was easy, winning the peace has proven to be the tough part.

Exactly right. As far as im concerned the war is not over.

It is for the US. Give me a reason they should be there. To support an elected government that sides with Al-Sadr?

To clean up the mess they have caused.

Stingray24 wrote:

Ken-Jennings:
Because of complaints by elected Democrats regarding how long the war is taking and the reasons it was started, this comparison has everything to do with the Iraq war.  And it didn't say it was over, it said the time it took to take Iraq.  Big difference.  Quite interesting you didn’t dispute any of the remainder of the OP.

I just don't want to take the time.  I could dissect the list, but it would incredibly bore me and probably most members here.

My point is, this is mindless blabbering.  A post perfect for the Junk Drawer.  I could post retarded things like this in the D&ST section, but IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE LEGITIMACY of the section.

I have no problem with John Glenn speaking his mind to another politician, which has been posted before if I recall correctly, I have a problem with the comparisons.

Now that I recall, I think this list was actually posted before too.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=64759

about 2 months ago

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-04-27 12:50:10)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=64759

about 2 months ago

Merged

Since we're talking about quotes.

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

If not then why is the post comparing "Conservative" Bush actions to "Democrat" former Presidents' actions?

I was speaking personally. Not about the content of the letter.

I was speaking generally, not about the posts contained herein.

Yea but you quoted me..lol

The letter is flawed none-the-less.

PureFodder wrote:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city,about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq ..

When was the last time 200 people were murdered in one day in one city in the US?

*tiptoes in*

9/11

*tiptoes out*

The exchange between John Glenn and businessman Howard Metzenbaum is close, but not exact and lacking context.

Glenn and Metzenbaum were both Democrats competing in a primary for a Senate seat in 1970.  Metzenbaum's original questioning was that Glenn, being a military man, had no prior business experience, which was a valid point.  He did not imply that Glenn "never had a real job".  Glenn cleverly twisted it though and his speechwriters had a field day.

The rest of the letter, other than the exchange between G and M, were not penned by Glenn or anyone with more than 3 brain cells for that matter.  I've seen a lot of chain letters filled with lies and outright distortions, but this one is pure gold in that regard.