Chauncy, AKA Madmatt7g, Combats the Trolls in the Trenches

The following is an excerpt from an argument between the Cult of 7G's Chauncy Biggins and some liberal trolls in a Yahoo News message board. You can read the news story we were discussing here.

Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: jp_01752 (39/M/White House basement)
07/20/05 02:08 pmMsg: 640 of 807
Iraqis are doing it for them!!!!


Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:12 pmMsg: 662 of 807 1 recommendation
Well, actually, more troops have died at home in car accidents than in the field. Those suicide bombers and so-called insurgents mostly target Iraqi civillians and security forces. That insurgency you're rooting for is intentionally targeting civillians. So that puts you in an interesting position. You're actually against the Iraqi people and their newly-elected government, but in favor of the Ba'athist Sunnis and radical Wahabbi muslims from Iran. How does it feel to lend comfort to murderers and terrorists?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 640 by jp_01752


Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: hwy32redux
07/20/05 02:15 pmMsg: 680 of 809
the insurgency we're rooting for?Geez, get a grip. We're rooting to get our soldiers home and safe. We're rooting to get the US away from a fascist policy of foreign policy through unilateral attack. We're rooting to bring decency, honor, and honesty back to the government.And if we hadn't gone in there in the first place, there'd be no insurgency for anyone to root for. There were no WMDs. There were no terrorists. THere was no threat.That's the point, sir. None of this had to happen. We just want to get our soldiers, and our tax money, out of Iraq.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 662 by madmatt7g


Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:22 pmMsg: 705 of 809
You're ignoring recent history. In Tawaitha, Saddam had 1.8 tons of enriched uranium. He was still funding the IAEC until we invaded in 2003. Just because he didn't have stockpiles of nukes doesn't mean he wasn't trying. Besides, he was also in violation of un resolutions and our ceasefire agreement. Weeks into the conflict, we found a stash of russian migs that violated UN resolutions. The only reason those resolutions were in place was to protect the kurds and shiites from genocide! Sure, he wasn't the biggest threat to us? But since when are you libs non-interventionist isolationists? Saddam had to go, and military action was the only way to do it! You also ignore the fact that the Iraqi government doesn't want us to leave yet, doesn't even want us to announce a date. Because the decent people of Iraq need us to stay until they're secure enough to go it alone. What you want is for us to leave now, allow the Ba'athists to take over, and kill hundreds of thousands of people, like the last Gulf War or like Vietnam and Cambodia. Then you liberals could chalk this up as another American failure and use it in your propaganda to win elections.

And you can't tell me this garbage you people spew doesn't embolden our enemies and weaken our troops' morale. You can't pull this crap where you claim to support the troops when you shit on their mission and hope they fail. If that's what you think is support, then I'm sure they don't need it.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 680 by hwy32redux


Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: hwy32redux
07/20/05 02:29 pmMsg: 727 of 811
and now, like a good little Rove-ite, you change the discussion. The fact remains. Saddam lost all of his WMD under the UN restrictions enforced by Clinton.The rest of your parsing is just that: parsing.But good try. Go now to Fox News and see if you can come up with more bumper sticker stuff.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 705 by madmatt7g


Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:35 pmMsg: 740 of 813
Oh, bullshit. You've probably said that line to a hundred other people this week! Are you denying that he was in violation of our ceasefire agreement? Are you denying that Saddam Hussein was funding a nuclear weapons program that enriched 1.8 tons of enriched uranium? Isn't that at the very heart of the discussion, since you seem to think there was no justification for war? What about the horrible human rights abuses? Why doesn't that count? We invaded the Serbs, our NATO allies with less justification. Where was the massive outcry of criticism from the anti-war left then? You want us to believe that Saddam was this benign, huggable teddy bear and we're just these evil villains, invading a completely innocent country. But that's bullshit, and most people know it, including you. You're the one who changes the subject and turns to ad-hominem attack because you can't respond to my arguments.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 727 by hwy32redux


Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: hwy32redux
07/20/05 02:38 pmMsg: 750 of 815 1 recommendation
He didn't have shit. Yes, I'm denying it. If funding research is the standard, perhaps we should have attacked India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, which all have nuclear capability, not just research.Get a grip. we had no reason to attack Saddam. Not one. All the reasons Bush has used are more applicable to 20 other countries on earth before they'd be relevant to Iraq.Please, think. DOn't just listen to Rove and company.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 740 by madmatt7g


Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:49 pmMsg: 783 of 841
No, you think instead of parroting the same bullshit I hear from the talking heads in the media and your favorite hollywood movie stars. You want to invade 20 countries at once? We've already got a full plate with Iraq and Afghanistan. Shit, man, we were already engaged in Iraq. In case you weren't aware, our pilots have been risking their lives enforcing the no-fly-zone ever since the end of the first gulf war. Saddam kept moving anti-aircraft guns into the de-militarized zones, in violation of our ceasefire. So techinically, we've been in a state of war anyway. Which is better? Sending ground troops and overthrowing the problem, or authorizing pointless bombing campaigns against empty targets like Clinton? Perhaps now, someday we might actually pull out of Iraq. Isn't it better to solve a problem than to endlessly maintain it? Isn't it better to call the plumber than to put a bucket under the leaky pipe?

Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:51 pmMsg: 788 of 842
You're rationale for not stopping the human rights abuses in Iraq is that all the other countries are doing it? That's pretty pathetic, don't you think? So either you want us to solve all the world's problems, all at once, or we can't solve any of them at all. Is that what you're saying?
And just what would you say if the administration said they planned to invade india, pakistan, and north korea? Would you be behind it then? Or are non-sequiturs all you're capable of?
Perhaps you have the forensic "tools" to convince me you're right, but you're certainly not demonstrating it right now. And calling me a Rove-ite won't do it either. It neither hurts my feelings, nor does it sway my opinion. You're going to have to do better than that.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 750 by hwy32redux


Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: imperator_neoconus_maximus (531/M/In_partibus_ infidelium)
07/20/05 03:05 pmMsg: 818 of 846
the senate voted for the War against Saddam99-0I doubt you could get TED KENNEDY to vote for a war with INDIA!Unless they they by the JACK DANIELS DISTILLORY and outsource it to NEW DELHI!________________________________________Page 128 of the 9/11 commisson report--Sites evidence dating back to the CLINTON administration that claims SADDAM's IRAQI intelligence met with ALQUEDA---AND jointly worked on developing WMDS--according to CLINTON TERRORIST CZAR RICHARD CLARKE.Go read it yourself---of course it may or may not be true--however--given what was know before the WAR--it seemed to be plausible enough for YOUR SENATOR TO VOTE TO GO TO WAR!Don't listen to ROVE--LISTEN TO KERRY!or hillary or KENNEDY or PELOSIE!____________________________________“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998___________________________________________“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999____________________________________________“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002______________________________________________“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002______________________________________________He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002____________________________________________HILLARY EVEN MENTIONS THAT IRAQ GAVE AID TO ALQUEDA!IF YOU CAN'T believe HILLARY.......
Posted as a reply to: Msg 750 by hwy32redux