So did anyone go to the Anti War/Bush rallies this weekend?

[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='E-Z-B']So you propose going to war with Saudi Arabia, too? They hate us just as much as Iraq does. Remember when the Palestians were cheering when they learned that the planes hit the World Trade Center towers? They want us dead too, so let's go to war with them, too, right?

I think the real solution is to repair our country's reputation with the world. Then maybe people won't hate us anymore.[/quote]

So it is our fault terrorists want to kill all Americans and Israelis?

You are such a f*#king idiot. [/quote]

Nice post, Scrubking. :roll: Maybe you should stick to your own advice:

[quote name='Scrubking']That is why I don't bother to discuss these topics and just post links[/quote]
 
If you can not argue your viewpoint without resorting to personal invectives against those who disagree with you, Scrubking, then that makes you....the average American, I'm afraid. Heh.

Well, that's okay. CheapAssGamer is not a particularly appropriate venue for political discussion anyways, so one can not expect much good to come of this thread here. Guess a little harmless venting is good for communal blood pressures.
 
So we only attack the "weak" countries. I thought we went to Iraq because they were a threat to us and our allies. We went because we thought they had WMDs, which wouldn't make them weak. What kind of country would we be if we attacked any weaker country that got on our nerves. Evil dictatorship is just that, whether the dictator rules Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. So if we take onto our selves to stop evil dictators we should stop them all right.
 
[quote name='RBM']If you can not argue your viewpoint without resorting to personal invectives against those who disagree with you, Scrubking, then that makes you....the average American, I'm afraid. Heh.

Well, that's okay. CheapAssGamer is not a particularly appropriate venue for political discussion anyways, so one can not expect much good to come of this thread here. Guess a little harmless venting is good for communal blood pressures.[/quote]

It's amusing how my personal invectives bother you, but EZB's don't. Can you say hypocrite? :wink:
 
[quote name='"Scrubking"'][quote name='E-Z-B']

And if you had any political sense you would realize that you can't just attack anyone whenever you want. We hit Iraq cause they were weak, politically and militarily so the surrounding countries were not going to mind very much. If we go into saudi arabia or N Korea the world will end cause everyone will start to launch nukes.[/quote]

Hmm so we can only invade countries that dont have WMDs. Sounds good.


I love how these discussions get so lame, with people spouting out crap from both sides. Face it, 90% of us are arguing for or against the war just because its what our party affiliations think we should. Bush is in office, so somehow Dems are anti-american. When Clinton was in office, the GOP cetrainly didnt support him, so they were anti-american. Its a great place to live... and if you disagree with me you can get out. :)
 
It's amusing how my personal invectives bother you, but EZB's don't. Can you say hypocrite? :wink:[/quote]

...you caught me by surprise with that one. I looked over the posts in this thread again in case I'd missed a post in which EZB insulted you personally. ....he didn't. You were the first one to throw a punch directly at the other person instead of addressing his arguments.

Starman9000, don't oversimplify man. I voted for Bush, although I'm not a registered Republican and now have serious doubts as to his actions as President. And I don't belong to either party and am not faithfully regurgitating party-specific stances.
 
[quote name='RBM']
It's amusing how my personal invectives bother you, but EZB's don't. Can you say hypocrite? :wink:
Click to expand...

...you caught me by surprise with that one. I looked over the posts in this thread again in case I'd missed a post in which EZB insulted you personally. ....he didn't. You were the first one to throw a punch directly at the other person instead of addressing his arguments.[/quote]

Um, I never said he attacked me personally, but he sure did a number on GW. But that was all common sense right? :roll:
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='RBM']
It's amusing how my personal invectives bother you, but EZB's don't. Can you say hypocrite? :wink:
Click to expand...

...you caught me by surprise with that one. I looked over the posts in this thread again in case I'd missed a post in which EZB insulted you personally. ....he didn't. You were the first one to throw a punch directly at the other person instead of addressing his arguments.[/quote]

Um, I never said he attacked me personally, but he sure did a number on GW. But that was all common sense right? :roll:[/quote]

Scrubking, I don't think you know what RBM's "personal invectives" means. It means directed to YOU, not GWB.
 
"Um, I never said he attacked me personally, but he sure did a number on GW. But that was all common sense right?"

Ah, I see. This was a grammatical misinterpretation. A personal invective, you see, is a personal insult. That is, an insult directed at you and not somebody else. Thus, if I were to call President George Bush a weenie, that would be an insult. But if I were to call Scrubking (that's you) a weenie, then *that* would be a "personal invective." #-o
 
[quote name='"E-Z-B"']Even Bush's advisor, Richard Clarke, who served under Clinton, Bush Sr., AND Reagan, said that Bush was intent on taking out Saddam as soon as he took office.[\quote]

I'd trust Richard Clarke's assessment of any situation about as far as a five year old could throw him. This is the same guy that insisted back in the mid 90s that all future terrorist attacks would be computer based and pushed for 'cyber defense.' Not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, and a good example of someone who was just left in a position for too long (when he was out of touch) because no one had the guts to let him go and risk hurting his feelings.

This is also the same guy who claims Condie Rice had never heard of al Qaeda, because when he mentioned the name 'she got a strange look on her face.' Uh huh.

Just a coincidence that his book is out now. Also just a coincidence that 60 Minutes is pushing his story out there. Also just a coincidence that 60 Minutes is aired on CBS, which is owned by Viacom, whose publishing arm publishes Clark's book. Nothing fishy there, no sir. Move on, nothing to see here...

These guys that are writing books that criticize the current administration get zero credibility with me. If they saw something wrong, why not speak up BACK WHEN IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE?!? And I don't buy any crap about 'it would have cost them their job.' If it's so important that we can scream about it NOW, it was important enough to lose a damn job over THEN.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='E-Z-B']Even Bush's advisor, Richard Clarke, who served under Clinton, Bush Sr., AND Reagan, said that Bush was intent on taking out Saddam as soon as he took office.[/quote]

I'd trust Richard Clarke's assessment of any situation about as far as a five year old could throw him. This is the same guy that insisted back in the mid 90s that all future terrorist attacks would be computer based and pushed for 'cyber defense.'
These guys that are writing books that criticize the current administration get zero credibility with me. If they saw something wrong, why not speak up BACK WHEN IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE?!? [/quote]

It's easy to say this when you have 20/20 hindsight. At that time, no one knew 9/11 was going to happen. A few events like that can forever change this country.
 
[quote name='RBM']"Um, I never said he attacked me personally, but he sure did a number on GW. But that was all common sense right?"

Ah, I see. This was a grammatical misinterpretation. A personal invective, you see, is a personal insult. That is, an insult directed at you and not somebody else. Thus, if I were to call President George Bush a weenie, that would be an insult. But if I were to call Scrubking (that's you) a weenie, then *that* would be a "personal invective." #-o[/quote]

Come on now. Don't be so quick to avoid the issue.

The fact is that personal attacks on GW are considered common sense by you, but a personal attack on anyone who personally attacks GW is wrong.

Now please continue to spin and act intellectually superior. :roll:
 
[quote name='RBM']"if I were to call Scrubking (that's you) a weenie, then *that* would be a "personal invective." #-o[/quote]


Are you saying Scrubking's a weenie or just making a point? Because if you're saying Scrubking's a weenie, that would be mean, but if you're saying Scrubking's a weenie to illustrate the difference between an insult and invective, that's okay I guess.
 
Well...if you insist. You see, the Nth degree of the fourth term of the previous argument clearly specifies that all parties involved in this discussion--hereafter referred to as Bull Donkey--shall not engage in rhetorical fisticuffs on behalf of said representatives, unless pre-established parameters of argument resolution are adhered to, according to CAG post #442231 (see list of works cited, pgs. 221-223 in Appendix VIII.)

Meteors: for heaven's sake I'm not actually calling him a weenie. *snicker* ...if you'll notice my first posting in this thread, you can guess that I don't take a very serious (much less emotionally charged) attitude here.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='RBM']"Um, I never said he attacked me personally, but he sure did a number on GW. But that was all common sense right?"

Ah, I see. This was a grammatical misinterpretation. A personal invective, you see, is a personal insult. That is, an insult directed at you and not somebody else. Thus, if I were to call President George Bush a weenie, that would be an insult. But if I were to call Scrubking (that's you) a weenie, then *that* would be a "personal invective." #-o[/quote]

Come on now. Don't be so quick to avoid the issue.

The fact is that personal attacks on GW are considered common sense by you, but a personal attack on anyone who personally attacks GW is wrong.

Now please continue to spin and act intellectually superior. :roll:[/quote]

:whistle2:k Does anyone know how this relates to the meaning of "personal invectives" against another CAG?
 
[quote name='RBM']Meteors: for heaven's sake I'm not actually calling him a weenie. *snicker* ...if you'll notice my first posting in this thread, you can guess that I don't take a very serious (much less emotionally charged) attitude here.[/quote]


Okay good, calling Scrubking a weenie isn't going to solve anything :twisted:
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='E-Z-B']Even Bush's advisor, Richard Clarke, who served under Clinton, Bush Sr., AND Reagan, said that Bush was intent on taking out Saddam as soon as he took office.[/quote]

These guys that are writing books that criticize the current administration get zero credibility with me. If they saw something wrong, why not speak up BACK WHEN IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE?!? [/quote]

O'Neille tried to tell bush that his tax cuts plus the deficit spending wouldn't help our economy, and consequently, he was fired. The person who estimated that the cost of going to war with Iraq, top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, said it would cost $80-100 billion was consequently fired, even though the final count was $87B. The Bush administration isn't listening to its advisors, and that's what's getting them in hot water. And if you don't listen to people like O'Neille, Lindsey, and Clarke (and I'm predicting Colin Powell within one year), then what does it take?
 
Uh, you all are missing the biggest point, the environment.

We all have to live in it and the Bush admin is messing it up.

How could you possibly vote AGAINST the environment? It makes no sense at all!


And only weak minded fools associate themselves with a political party.
Damn conformists.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Uh, you all are missing the biggest point, the environment.

We all have to live in it and the Bush admin is messing it up.

How could you possibly vote AGAINST the environment? It makes no sense at all!


And only weak minded fools associate themselves with a political party.
Damn conformists.[/quote]

Personally, I base all of my votes on environmental issues. Bush is destroying the environment for the sake of profit margins for his political contributers. Kerry, on the other hand, has something like a 97% League of Conservation Voters rating. That is, whenever there was a vote involving an environmental issue, Kerry voted pro-environment 97% of the time. That's why I'll be voting for him in November.
 
Hey Quack, I am curious as to how the Bush admin is messing up the environment. Anyways, what good is the environment is we aint alive to enjoy it?

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"
 
i agree with most of what EZB said...its also the fact that its a 'US-pushed' war....i mean, wasnt the UN placed to stop these little wars and keep peace.....US goes around the UN w/ the backing of england in order to force the war?

world opinion of the war is so shoddy (meaning nobody thinks it was necessary...not even the weapons inspectors)...cmon, its a false war

if we were so intent a year ago on getting rid of WMD we wouldve gone after people we knew had them or were distributing them...IE libya, saudi arabia, north korea, etc

and if we were in this war to get rid of dictators and liberation of people...well, lets just say there are FAR WORSE and more brutal dictators in africa

this war was for personal vengeance and for getting a foot in the door of the middle east...its obvious the administration thought that they could 'spread democracy' through taking over iraq...oh, i mean 'liberating' iraq...and found the perfect excuse in the 'war on terrorism' and trying to make a false link between al queda and sadaam husein (which is ridiculous if you know anything about the muslim religion and the history of the kurds...osama's religious beliefs conflict with sadaams...and osama is still sore over the killing of his kurdish brethren so many years ago)

so there we have it...my views of htis whole thing...im out
 
[quote name='flizmo007']Hey Quack, I am curious as to how the Bush admin is messing up the environment. Anyways, what good is the environment is we aint alive to enjoy it?

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"[/quote]

Loosening ALL of the EPA regulations on power plants, factories, cars, agricultural facilities, etc.

And you are a peice of crap conformist.

Liberalism is a mental disease?
I suppose you want a single party system and restrictions on the first ammendment (freedom of speech and symolic expression), right?
Well, that would make you a communist. =]

Btw, if we were going to liberate an oppressed country than China would be first on the list, not Iraq.
 
[quote name='flizmo007']Hey Quack, I am curious as to how the Bush admin is messing up the environment. Anyways, what good is the environment is we aint alive to enjoy it?

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"[/quote]

Where to begin?
1. Refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Even though the Bush Administration admitted that global warming is a serious issue (and the pentagon is drawing up emergency plans to deal with global warming), he refuses to do anything about it.
2. Initially refused to accept Clinton's rule for arsenic levels in drinking water. He later changed his mind, but never did lower it to where Clinton had set it.
3. Increased timber harvesting in the name of "fire prevention". A clear giveaway to one of Bush's major contributers, most of the harvesting is done far away from communities and removes the most fire-resistant trees.
4. Refuses to enforce the clean water act. He is allowing pollution levels exceeding what is allowed by the act, especially mercury levels. Mercury is mainly produced via the burning of coal (the coal industry is another major campaign contributer).
5. Refuses to enforce the clean air act. He is allowing power plants to pollute in excess of what is allowed. His administration has directed the EPA to drop lawsuits against power plants and to revise "safe" pollution levels upwards.
6. Mountain top removal mining. He is allowing mining companies to strip away the tops of mountains and to dump the waste into valleys and streams. Thousands of miles of streams have been lost to this practice.

I have to get back to work now, but if you want more examples, I'll gladly provide them at my next break!
 
Okay, I'm not online much, so here's a response to my detractors so far:

No, they're protesting our involvement with Iraq. The american people were mislead into believing that Iraq had WMD. Even Bush's advisor, Richard Clarke, who served under Clinton, Bush Sr., AND Reagan, said that Bush was intent on taking out Saddam as soon as he took office. Shortly after 9/11, he wanted Clarke to come up with evidence that linked Iraq to 9/11 to justify an attack. Nearly 700 american lives have been lost for what Bush now simply calls "a brutal dictatorship", but you know what? North Korea, Cuba, many african nations, China, etc. have just as bad human rights abuses.

There was never a direct link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.


So why don't we take out Hamas and company too?

And if you oppose going to war with North Korea, you would support the human suffering there, too?
-E-Z-B

Americans were not mislead on the WMD issue. We know he had them because hed had them in the mid 90s and refused to destroy them. He used them on his own people, for Christ's sake! Do you really think all the chemical and biological weapons dissapeared into thin air when the inspectors came in? They are either hidden o moved to the likes of Iran or Serbia.

There was never an OFFICIAL lnik between Hussein and al-Qeada. This is, of course, difinitive evidence that they NEVER, EVER spoke. I'm sure Hussein never even knew about the terrorist camp in norther Iraq-with an airliner's fuselage for training exercises.

I don't oppose going to war with North Korea. If anything, Kim Ill Jong is a greater threat than Iraq. Personally, I would have liked to see him ousted in the late 90s... but we know how effective the military was under Mr. Clinton.

As for what goatindaruffness wrote... god grief. I won't even dignify it with a response, other than to remind him of the Bush=Hitler add MoveOn.org was so happy about.

In conclusion, I do not completely agree with the president (his position on immigration sucks, and he could be spending less) but he's a lot better than the alternative. Given the choice, I would have gone into Iraq (and several other places) long ago.
 
[quote name='flizmo007']Hey Quack, I am curious as to how the Bush admin is messing up the environment. Anyways, what good is the environment is we aint alive to enjoy it?[/quote]

To let other animals have a chance to enjoy it. This planet was doing just fine before you humans showed up ;)
 
I don't feel like joining the argument, but one issue that hasn't yet been brought up is the draft. There are currently bills in both the house and the senate that would start the draft in June of 05, conveniently after the election. Anyone, male or female, ages 18-26 will be draftable. College will not be the shelter it was in Vietnam, and thanks to the smart border agreement, it will be very difficult to go to Canada should you choose that route. The Department of Defense had a notice on their webpage months ago calling for volunteers to staff the appeal boards, which haven't been staffed since the end of Vietnam, in preparation for the bills if they pass.
 
What was in Tom Wolfe said?

"A Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged, and a Liberal is a Conservative that has been arrested."
 
It was me who said:

"Consevatives and liberals are just conformists with no real independence that follow like sheep and beleive every sensationalist lie they hear."
 
This in hot off the presses...

Medicare will be bankrupt by 2019. This means that anyone currently 50 or younger will not have access to Medicare when they retire. Thank you so much GW for killing Medicare! I'm sure I won't really need it when I retire.
 
I've always thought marches were horribly ineffective. EVERYONE does them now to support every cause (Moms, gay rights, education, AIDS, world hunger, anti-war, you get the point). It's what some have called the siren effect- yes the siren really gets your attention, but if you hear them every day you learn to tune them out.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']It was me who said:

"Consevatives and liberals are just conformists with no real independence that follow like sheep and beleive every sensationalist lie they hear."[/quote]

So are you a nihilist? Say what you want about the tennents of Conservatism and Liberalism, at least they are some type of ethos.
 
He sounds like some neo-hippie to me. Even liberals are at least informed enough to make a decision, as opposed to punk-ass kids who think they're wise because they don't know anything about their own country.
 
[quote name='Knuckles913']Americans were not mislead on the WMD issue. We know he had them because hed had them in the mid 90s and refused to destroy them. He used them on his own people, for Christ's sake! Do you really think all the chemical and biological weapons dissapeared into thin air when the inspectors came in? They are either hidden o moved to the likes of Iran or Serbia.[/quote]

Perhaps we should've given the inspectors more time to verify that Iraq dismantled their WMD program like they said.

[quote name='Knuckles913']There was never an OFFICIAL lnik between Hussein and al-Qeada. This is, of course, difinitive evidence that they NEVER, EVER spoke. I'm sure Hussein never even knew about the terrorist camp in norther Iraq-with an airliner's fuselage for training exercises.[/quote]

Not sure where you're going with this. He couldn't control the people (Kurds, I think) in northern Iraq. I'm trying to remember......that was the one area where his dictatorship couldn't reach. Ultimately, they helped the U.S. invade Iraq one year ago. So it was doubtful that al Qaeda was helping us launch an offensive attach on Saddam. Saddam was far from religious, which infuriated radical Muslims. They believed that religion should play a major role in the government, which Saddam opposed, and for that, he was hated by Iran, the Kurds, and al Qaeda.

[quote name='Knuckles913']I don't oppose going to war with North Korea. If anything, Kim Ill Jong is a greater threat than Iraq. Personally, I would have liked to see him ousted in the late 90s... but we know how effective the military was under Mr. Clinton.[/quote]

No, I don't know. Our role in yugoslavia seemed effective to me. It stopped the ethnic cleansing taking place there in 1998.

[quote name='Knuckles913']Given the choice, I would have gone into Iraq (and several other places) long ago.[/quote]

Which is what the current administration has wrecklessly done, and which is why america, in less than 2 years, has gone from worldwide sympathy after 9/11 to one of the most hated countries today.
 
I've always thought marches were horribly ineffective. EVERYONE does them now to support every cause (Moms, gay rights, education, AIDS, world hunger, anti-war, you get the point). It's what some have called the siren effect- yes the siren really gets your attention, but if you hear them every day you learn to tune them out.
Click to expand...

i really agree with this. People will get fired up one day, then move on. It seems to me that Liberals will take their voice to the streets, while Conservatives will take their voice to the polls. Which is more effective?


also, in case you guys haven't noticed, arguing over the internet is gay. Anyone who says, "fuck Bush" is a moron, as well as anyone who blindly abides to what he says.
 
[quote name='"munch"']
also, in case you guys haven't noticed, arguing over the internet is gay. Anyone who says, "f*#k Bush" is a moron, as well as anyone who blindly abides to what he says.
Click to expand...

It's really hard to take someone's argument seriously if they describe something as 'gay'. Unless that thing does actually like to have sexual intercourse with members of its own gender, which I don't think arguments over the internet like to do.
 
Lets not forget the blatant lies in Bush's new TV ads.

"Kerry want a 900 billion dollar tax raise"

No, he just wants to cancel the tax cuts for the rich. He is actually planning to lower taxes for the middle and lower classes.
 
Here's today's great accomplishment:

The Bush administration on Tuesday eased restrictions on logging old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, completing a rules change that will allow forest managers to begin logging without first looking for rare plants and animals.

The change was prompted by a timber industry lawsuit and is intended to increase logging on 24 million acres of public land.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/forest.plan.ap/index.html
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Hey Scrubking, I'd like to hear you put a positive spin on THAT! ^[/quote]

I'll do it for him.

"You see Stan, If we don't hunt the animals, they'd keep reproducing and eventually starve to death. So to help nature out a bit, we have to...'thin out their numbers'..."
 
Stop picking on Scrubking, guys. Yes, he seems a bit conservative, but someone needs to defend Bush from wild accusations about the war in Iraq. It was a simple intelligence failure; Saddam's WMD developers lied to him, he believed them, therefore the CIA believed them, and Clinton believed the CIA. Clinton launched his bombing campaigns to keep Iraq in check, and Bush tried to take it a step further the next time Saddam breached the resolutions. So I guess the WMDs didn't exist (at least recently--we know they did in the early 90s when he used them), but using the available intelligence, Bush's (and Clinton's) Iraq strategies were the only responsible thing to do.

^^My $0.02^^
 
I'm glad that after 700 lives, Bush can still find humor in this:

President Bush poked fun at ... himself Wednesday night at a black-tie dinner where he hobnobbed with the news media.

There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/bush.broadcasters.ap/index.html

Pretty funny man! Hey, maybe it'll be even funnier when it's up to 1,000 american lives lost.
 
Scrubking's accusation about Leninist/Marxist/wingnuts organizing these kinds of events, if by organizing he means getting the permits, is true. Other than that, they really don't do squat. People find out permits have been taken out, and bring their own personal government beef with em. I've been to a good coupla protests, and I've never talked to someone that was there to forward any kind of hard socialist/communistic agenda directly.

Your basic underlying fact is correct, but any extrapolation on that fact is absolutely incorrect.

Other than that, this thread is a little too hot for me.
 
Have you ever noticed that the government doesn't count civilian deaths?
They should do a civilian casualty report with 3 categories: young children, 13-17 year olds, and adults.

Al thse kids getting shot and bombed for something they were never involved in is pretty funny too.
 
People who are too much of a fanatic one way are not to be trusted and are off their rocker for a lot of things. If you're too far left you get hitler, and if you're too far right you can still end up like hitler except with trees and kamikazi whales blowing themselves up in the name of your cause. The most sensible person is the one who looks at each and every subject and makes up their mind for themselves after giving a serious nonbiased review of it. I'm not saying that being a republican or a democrat is wrong but please make up your own mind and understand the subject completely.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Have you ever noticed that the government doesn't count civilian deaths?
They should do a civilian casualty report with 3 categories: young children, 13-17 year olds, and adults.

Al thse kids getting shot and bombed for something they were never involved in is pretty funny too.[/quote]

I read Michael Moore's new book and in it he had Iraqi and Pakistani civilian casualties of above 6,000 by a reliable source that I forget. May I remind you the 9/11 casualty of U.S. citizens was 3,000...just something to ponder. Oh and we have killed many more civilians since that book has been out for a long while.
 
[quote name='The Cheapest Ass Gamer']Stop picking on Scrubking, guys. Yes, he seems a bit conservative, but someone needs to defend Bush from wild accusations about the war in Iraq. It was a simple intelligence failure; Saddam's WMD developers lied to him, he believed them, therefore the CIA believed them, and Clinton believed the CIA. Clinton launched his bombing campaigns to keep Iraq in check, and Bush tried to take it a step further the next time Saddam breached the resolutions. So I guess the WMDs didn't exist (at least recently--we know they did in the early 90s when he used them), but using the available intelligence, Bush's (and Clinton's) Iraq strategies were the only responsible thing to do.

^^My $0.02^^[/quote]

I disagree with this. This is a huge step up in sending in troops to get rid of sadaam put in a whole new style of government and do this all on America's dollar. We needed the support of the rest of the world to do this AND remember Hans Blitz, one of the most greatly respected and truthful men around the world, said that he could not find any traces of the WMD. Bush overstepped his boundary with this. I like your arguement and a lot of it makes sense, but bottom line is is that Hans Blitz had more Intelligence than our agency and he couldn't find them. If America knew why not tell Mr. Blitz where to look or test to see if he had any traces?
 
[quote name='DPawlik349'][quote name='Quackzilla']Have you ever noticed that the government doesn't count civilian deaths?
They should do a civilian casualty report with 3 categories: young children, 13-17 year olds, and adults.

Al thse kids getting shot and bombed for something they were never involved in is pretty funny too.[/quote]

I read Michael Moore's new book and in it he had Iraqi and Pakistani civilian casualties of above 6,000 by a reliable source that I forget. May I remind you the 9/11 casualty of U.S. citizens was 3,000...just something to ponder. Oh and we have killed many more civilians since that book has been out for a long while.[/quote]

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top