John McCain = Warmonger

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
war?mon?ger Pronunciation[wawr-muhng-ger, -mong-]
a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.
[Origin: 1580?90; war1 + monger]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, ? Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
war?mon?ger (w?r'mŭng'gər, -mŏng'-)

One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.
warmonger (n.)
1590, from war (n.) + monger. First attested in Spenser's "Faerie Queene," and perhaps coined by him.

warmonger

noun
a person who advocates war or warlike policies [syn: militarist]
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
50
Fort Worth, TX
Here's another dictionary entry.

don?key Audio Help /ˈdɒŋki, ˈdɔŋ-, ˈdʌŋ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dong-kee, dawng-, duhng-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -keys, adjective
?noun 1. the domestic ass, Equus asinus.
2. (since 1874) a representation of this animal as the emblem of the U.S. Democratic party.
3. a stupid, silly, or obstinate person.
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
Here's another dictionary entry.

don?key Audio Help /ˈdɒŋki, ˈdɔŋ-, ˈdʌŋ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dong-kee, dawng-, duhng-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -keys, adjective
?noun 1. the domestic ass, Equus asinus.
2. (since 1874) a representation of this animal as the emblem of the U.S. Democratic party.
3. a stupid, silly, or obstinate person.


What is stupid is McCain, who was tortured as a POW now approves it. When he ran against Bush the Rep party said some very bad things about his family, he fathered a black baby, his wife's drug use and McCain was unbalanced because he was a POW. Now they're all for him.

McCain has all of his eggs in the war basket. Hey if you don't care about the American lives, think about the money, 4 billion dollars a week, that one million dollars x 4,000.

There's talk today that Iraq has 100 billion dollars sitting in the bank. Why are Americans still paying for this war.

McCain is for pushing for a war, along with Israel, against Iran, how much is that going to cost and who's going to fight in it?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Old John a Warmonger? I'm not sure. He seems not to know who were fighting in Iraq. If a warmonger you would think he could at least remember that. Age plays tricks on you.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,529
284
83
Victory Lane
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq's ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that his country still needs the U.S. military to survive and predicted that the next U.S. president, whoever it is, will agree that the troops will have to stay for at least a while longer.


Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie predicts that Iraq will be "a work in progress" in five years.

"Now it is all about getting votes," Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie said of the presidential hopefuls and their views on Iraq.

"When the candidate is successful and is in the White House, that candidate is going to have a different mind frame. At that point, most of the choices will converge."

Sumaidaie, who made the comments after a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, added that he has been in contact with the U.S. presidential campaigns.

Earlier, he told the Washington think tank that American forces "have to leave in a responsible manner."

"We want them to leave. Let's be clear," he said.

Sumaidaie spoke as Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker were talking to Congress about the latest U.S. military and diplomatic strategy.

Don't Miss
Iraq hearings highlight differences
Shiite cleric threatens to end militia's cease-fire
Officials: Petraeus unlikely to recommend troop cuts
The focus of Sumaidaie's speech was "Iraq after five years."

Looking ahead to that time frame, he predicted that Iraq will still be "a work in progress," comparing the current situation in the nation to "a recovery from a terminal illness."

"I am willing to predict there will be gradual reduction over the next few years of American involvement, commitment in Iraq, but I am not willing to get into numbers and dates," he said.

After his speech, he said he understands the frustration of members of Congress and many Americans seeking to end U.S. involvement in Iraq.

"I say to them, yes, I understand your pain, but it is not something you can get out of so easily. This is the wrong time unless you want to hand the country on a plate to Iran," he said.

Future Iraqi governments will decide whether non-combat U.S. military forces will stay in Iraq, he added.
..........................................................

I was saying this over a year ago.

Politicians will say just about anything to get in to office. Once in the white house they do not have to do anything they have promised people.

Face it. We are in Iraq for many years more.

Like the guy said, do we want to hand Iraq over to Iran and Al Sadr ?

It seems impossible to think about after all who have sacraficed so much. Not to mention the trillions.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,529
284
83
Victory Lane
Darth_Sadr.jpg


Americans must leave now, so I can
begin the new goverment in Iraq with my friends
from Iran. I will be the newest dictator. I will crush anyone in my way.


:scared
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Yes we do learn slow that some Gov just don't run the way we try to force them to. Sad that it took a guy like Saddam to make Iraq work. But Iraq has three groups they don't like each other and have been killing each other for 2000 years. This won't change soon. Well maybe another1000 years. We need another tough guy to take over.
Sad state.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,529
284
83
Victory Lane
Yes we do learn slow that some Gov just don't run the way we try to force them to. Sad that it took a guy like Saddam to make Iraq work. But Iraq has three groups they don't like each other and have been killing each other for 2000 years. This won't change soon. Well maybe another1000 years. We need another tough guy to take over.
Sad state.

......................................................

we could send George W when he is done fawking up the US.
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
last i heard,mccain`s against torture...and he considers waterboarding torture....

has he changed his mind?....maybe i can finally get next to him....

didn`t he sponsor some torture banning law?....


Today, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) establishing one interrogation standard across the government. The bill requires the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding.

Just hours ago, the Senate voted in favor of the bill, 51-45.

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding:

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted ?no? on Wednesday afternoon.

The New York Times Times notes that ?the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it ?would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.??

After Bush vetoes the bill, McCain will again be confronted with a vote to either stand with President Bush or stand against torture. He indicated with his vote today where he will come down on that issue.

John McCain: He was against waterboarding before he was for it.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,584
231
63
"the bunker"
o.k... maybe i`ll reconsider sitting this election out....

thank god he finally came to his senses....

although i see your point...we get so much dependable information from just sitting down and having a conversation and treating them like human beings in a businesslike manner...

i wish i could have seen khalid sheikh mohammed`s face when he was interogated and responded with, "speak to my lawyer"......and then got waterboarded......

of course,he promptly gave up key info that lead to the capture of other al qaeda members...

safe...effective...thank god bush finally found that veto pen...
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Yeah, and if they don't tell us what we want to hear, then waterboard them for another 5-10 years until they don't tell us what we want to hear, and when the light shines on them, admit they had no reason to hold them for the first 5-10 years, and we'll release them in a couple months, and then hold them for another 5-10 years, and then release them.

I mean, heck, we paid a good $5,000 each for those dudes, we should get to keep 'em as long as we want to, and do whatever we want to, right? :chairshot :s1:

Isn't that what America is all about? :00x21
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,584
231
63
"the bunker"
Yeah, and if they don't tell us what we want to hear, then waterboard them for another 5-10 years until they don't tell us what we want to hear, and when the light shines on them, admit they had no reason to hold them for the first 5-10 years, and we'll release them in a couple months, and then hold them for another 5-10 years, and then release them.

I mean, heck, we paid a good $5,000 each for those dudes, we should get to keep 'em as long as we want to, and do whatever we want to, right? :chairshot :s1:

Isn't that what America is all about? :00x21

this ain`t hollywood chad....you don`t defeat monsters by playing "fair"...

they signed on to no geneva convention accords that i`m aware of,......they aren`t giving our soldiers bibles and appropriate food...

they`re cutting off our heads...and god only knows what goes on before we`re "dispatched"...

this is the real world...somebody comes after you with a 2x4,you best damned sight better get something to counter-balance the situation....

this isn`t la-la land..they`re trying to kill us by the thousands...i`m sure you read about the british plot to blow up planes over the u.s....

this isn`t parchesi....waterboarding isn`t permanently harmful..and it works...

i`d gladly listen to your argument if we were fighting some nation-state that agrees to the geneva convention,....but,that`s just not the c ase...

we`re dealing with ANIMALS that send retarded womnen into shopping centers strapped with explosives...

put away the wii.....put down the x-box and turn off american idol...don`t be a tool..they`re at war with US....whether we like it or not....

i`m not paying taxes out the ying yang so illegal mexicans can get in-state tuition.....keep me f-cking safe..
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
The government approving of torture just puts our soldiers at risk. I guess some people who will never serve don't see themselves at risk, so why not vote for it.

The US, who spends more money on defense than the whole world put together, can tap any phone they want to, have spy satellites and planes. Can offer millions of dollars as rewards for info, has to depend on torture for info. Meanwhile when Bush got info on Bin Laden means to attack US, they did nothing.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,584
231
63
"the bunker"
The government approving of torture just puts our soldiers at risk. I guess some people who will never serve don't see themselves at risk, so why not vote for it.

The US, who spends more money on defense than the whole world put together, can tap any phone they want to, have spy satellites and planes. Can offer millions of dollars as rewards for info, has to depend on torture for info. Meanwhile when Bush got info on Bin Laden means to attack US, they did nothing.

name one american soldier...captured by al qaeda...that got waterboarded?....

name one that came back?

name one that`s alive?....all we find is fingers...

that s-it works when your opponent is civilized...otherwise,you fight fire with fire....and waterboarding`s pretty weak,at that...

and btw...f.u. with that phony military service b.s....and even if you served,which is about as likely as hillary wearing a skirt,you`re a quisling at best....a full blown jihadi at worst...


i`m sorry the asshole transplant didn`t take(the asshole rejected spy)....
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
When America approves torture they become no better than the enemy. I would say people high in our government who's only contact with the military is to use them as a backdrop for a photo ops. America has hit a new low.

We became the REDCOATS when we invaded Iraq, and now we became the Kempeitai and the Gestapo.


World War II

During World War II, Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, as well as the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred, which included waterboarding consisting of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.


After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,584
231
63
"the bunker"
When America approves torture they become no better than the enemy. I would say people high in our government who's only contact with the military is to use them as a backdrop for a photo ops. America has hit a new low.

We became the REDCOATS when we invaded Iraq, and now we became the Kempeitai and the Gestapo.


World War II

During World War II, Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, as well as the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred, which included waterboarding consisting of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.


After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

i would be all for a ban on waterboarding if the enemy were a signatory of the geneva conventions or some other rule of law regarding conflict between nation states....

in that case,i`m totally for it...cause in that case,it serves as a guarantee that our brave boys will get fair and equal treatment...

but,that isn`t the case here...it`s apples and oranges....we`re getting murdered....be it military personnel,civilians or the press.....

we`re getting no due process...none of our people have the red cross monitoring al qaeda`s treatment of our people being held....

they just torture us(REAL torture),murder us and send back some fingers or an ear......and in some cases,these ghouls videotape the party....

waterboarding has been used sparingly on major al qaeda leaders,has proven effective,and (inconsequentially imo)causes no permanent harm....

rack your brain(both neurons)...would you rather waterboard al zawahiri(if he were alive)and potentially save thousands of americans,or just ban waterboarding period?.....

i`d rather let the powers that be have the tool at their disposal,be it obama/mccain or hillary or the cia,than not have it....

so,forgive me spy,but,your propaganda doesn`t fly here..

btw,take the time to read something that i`m sure won`t matter one bit to you...maybe the lightbulb will go on for some other schmoe who revels in seeing our secret service hamstrung in their battle vs these animals...

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/art...1_L12485957_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-SECURITY.xml

seems there are just as many politically correct quislings in britain as here in the u.s.

you and the rest of"radical islam" suck...
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I understand your position on this quite well, Wease, but the thing is, even in this situation, there has to be some kind of common sense to what our country does - if we care at all about what the civilized world thinks about us, and we want to have allies in this war (whatever the hell it is).

I understand the need and use of force against a known enemy, especially those who we know to have committed atrocities against our soldiers, citizens, etc. I can even at some base levels understand the value of torture to gain knowledge from these known animals that will save lives and protect citizens and soldiers now and in the future. I'm not a pacifist, and admittedly I care more about American citizens than others at most levels - living and protecting our country would be one of those levels.

But when the people who are holding these people, and their supervisors, say that there is no evidence they are one of these animals, then you have no ground to stand on - again - if you care about what civilized people think about your country. You continue to blur the issue, and that is the problem, in my mind. When a country pays cash to have individuals handed over, from unscrupulous individuals only looking to profit from the action of turning over people (irregardless of who or what they are - makes no difference to them) for cash, holds them for years in some kind of nebulous "interrogation" scenario, then deems them as being no terror threat, and continues to hold them and terrorize them, then that is simply wrong. And to approve of that with a broad brush is simply backing a different form of terror, simply for terror sake.

It's wrong. And you are wrong for lumping it all together.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top