U.S. hostage Johnson apparently beheaded

I can't believe the terrorist group, I forgot the name, wanted all their imprisoned men to be released for that one mans life.....it shows how desperate they are and they are a bunch of pathetic cowards
 
[quote name='Cracka']saddam needed to be dealt with sooner or later. Apparently you have no clue about anything Saddam has done in his life.[/quote]

You're funny.

Saddam Hussein has always been our boy. He'd been working for us up until the gulf war since the early 1960's when we helped him organize the first Baathist coup overthrowing the Qassim government. Just ask Rummy, he met with Saddam on several occasions.

Try doing some reading that hasn't been stamped and approved by the right-wing media and maybe, just maybe, YOU will have a clue some day.


[quote name='Cracka']yea cause we know those evil-doers (terrorists) would never try and attack us.[/quote]

More significant than the threat of terror is the way the tragic events of 9/11 have been abused to create a state of widepread fear and misinformation. Afghanistan (you know, the place where the t3RR@h1zts!!! supposably came from) is falling to pieces right now, and we're busy securing oil wells and setting up shady deals for Halliburton in Iraq. The fact that you can just pretend none of this is true and you can believe that we're actually bringing democracy to Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts or that this is actually a mission of self-defense is a perfect example of just how stupid the majority of americans are and how far we've fallen as a nation.
 
From Dictionary.com

LIE:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Do you have ANY proof that the statements Bush made were deliberate lies? As far as I know just about everyone both Dems and Repubs thought the intelligence was true. Much of the intelligence was gathered during the Clinton years. The UN didnt dispute any of it then either.

So for all those that say "Bush lied to us!" I say..you are just full of bullshit. It's just good rhetoric but it's not reality.
 
[quote name='"Hereticked"']Saddam Hussein has always been our boy. He'd been working for us up until the gulf war[/quote]

There's the key point! Did you miss it? "He'd been working for us up until the gulf war..."! See, it was at that point when he went over the line and turned the world community (and us) against him. The recent invasion of Iraq was the continuation of that war. Remember, the Gulf War supposedly ended because Saddam agreed to various resolutions about not possessing banned weapons. There have already been numerous U.N. resolutions stating that he violated the earlier resolutions, so there's your justification for the invasion right there.

And by the way, saying that Saddam Hussein was "our boy," as if that exonerates him from any future wrongdoing, is ludicrous. I wonder if Kobe Bryant's lawyers have tried that one:

"Your honor, the state is trying to prosecute Mr. Bryant, but apparently they forgot that he he been a beloved basketball player up until these accusations of rape."

"You're right! Case dismissed!"

[quote name='"Hereticked"']Afghanistan (you know, the place where the t3RR@h1zts!!! supposably came from) is falling to pieces right now, and we're busy securing oil wells and setting up shady deals for Halliburton in Iraq. The fact that you can just pretend none of this is true and you can believe that we're actually bringing democracy to Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts or that this is actually a mission of self-defense is a perfect example of just how stupid the majority of americans are and how far we've fallen as a nation.[/quote]

Oh yes, I'm sure we've been securing oil wells like crazy over there! As proof, you can see how gas prices have plummeted over the last few months! And of course, it makes perfect sense to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in order to secure tens of billions of dollars worth of oil. Never mind that we could have lifted trade restrictions with Saddam any time and gotten all the cheap oil we need...no, a full-scale invasion is a much simpler solution! After all, why would we go into another country just to bring democracy to its citizens and overthrow an evil dictator? That's preposterous! When has that ever happened before in history?[/i]
 
Oh how I long for the days when all we worried about was whether or not that stain on her dress was a milk stain or a cum stain. Since George W. Bush(aka THE IDIOT) took office its been nothing but bad news day after day. The funny thing about people supporting Bush and his war on terror is that they are playing right into the terrorist hands. Terrorist love attention good or bad and thats exactly what Bush and the republicans are giving them.
 
You know what's sad about this, Bush stated strongly through this whole thing that "we do not negotiate with terrorists" leaving this man to die over there, he pretty much told the family of this guy "To bad, guess you have a dead family member" meanwhile during the attack on the WTC when all flights were suspended he had given the orders to the airforce to pick up and escort the Bin Laden family out of the country, so much for Negotiating with terrorists. Some priorities Terrorist family protection or US Citizen protection? Some great choices there chief.
 
[quote name='defender']Do you have ANY proof that the statements Bush made were deliberate lies? As far as I know just about everyone both Dems and Repubs thought the intelligence was true. Much of the intelligence was gathered during the Clinton years. The UN didnt dispute any of it then either.

So for all those that say "Bush lied to us!" I say..you are just full of bullshit. It's just good rhetoric but it's not reality.[/quote]


Last I checked the burden of proof lies on the person making the claims.

The Bush administration said there were nuclear weapons programs and massive stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq. We've found fuck all. That is called PROOF that Bush LIED his ass off, along with Colin Powell and the rest of his filthy administration.

Since you like looking words up in the dictionary, let me look one up for you.

SHEEP:

3a. A person regarded as timid, weak, or submissive.
3b. One who is easily swayed or led.

You conservatives can put on the facade of strength and righteouness all you want. I see you for what you truly are, frightened children.


[quote name='abates17']There have already been numerous U.N. resolutions stating that he violated the earlier resolutions, so there's your justification for the invasion right there.[/quote]

So the United Nations is worthless, we don't need to follow their edicts (like when they voted AGAINST WAR with Iraq) but our highest national priority is upholding UN resolutions? Uhhhhhhh, yeah. You have to believe that to be a Republican today.

Good luck with that hypocrisy.

[quote name='abates17']Oh yes, I'm sure we've been securing oil wells like crazy over there! [/quote]

Ummm, yes. One of the first things we did in Iraq was secure their oil wells, and the first thing we did upon entering Baghdad was secure the Ministry of Oil (while mysteriously ignoring the other major government offices.)

You see.... sarcasm doesn't work when what you're talking about actually happened.

[quote name='abates17']As proof, you can see how gas prices have plummeted over the last few months![/quote]

Ever hear of cause and effect?

The world is running out of cheap oil. If you don't think the most powerful nations will be fighting over it in the future, you're naive in the extreme. This is just the beginning.

[quote name='abates17']Never mind that we could have lifted trade restrictions with Saddam any time and gotten all the cheap oil we need[/quote]

Not without exposing our government as the giant hypocrites they are to the entire world.

[quote name='abates17']After all, why would we go into another country just to bring democracy to its citizens and overthrow an evil dictator?[/quote]

You call him "evil" yet you admit that we created him.

Good job.
 
This is going to sound rather tasteless, but remember that for many people humor is the first step towards acceptance. That said, read the name of the topic:

US Hostage Johnson apparently beheaded.

I mean, that would be painful, and the loss of blood would be huge, but isn't that exactly what they do in a circumcision?
 
You're funny.

Saddam Hussein has always been our boy. He'd been working for us up until the gulf war since the early 1960's when we helped him organize the first Baathist coup overthrowing the Qassim government. Just ask Rummy, he met with Saddam on several occasions.

Try doing some reading that hasn't been stamped and approved by the right-wing media and maybe, just maybe, YOU will have a clue some day.
Click to expand...

i dont see how what i said was funny. You notice you said we were working with him until the gulf war. Do you know why we went to war with Iraq during the Gulf War?

Saddam came to power by telling his cousin (who was the leader at the time) that he would kill him if he didnt step down. I dont believe we helped him do that.

And sadly none of my information was "stamped and approved by the right-wing media."


More significant than the threat of terror is the way the tragic events of 9/11 have been abused to create a state of widepread fear and misinformation. Afghanistan (you know, the place where the t3RR@h1zts!!! supposably came from) is falling to pieces right now, and we're busy securing oil wells and setting up shady deals for Halliburton in Iraq. The fact that you can just pretend none of this is true and you can believe that we're actually bringing democracy to Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts or that this is actually a mission of self-defense is a perfect example of just how stupid the majority of americans are and how far we've fallen as a nation.
Click to expand...

first, Afghanistan isnt falling to pieces.. afghanistan was already shiitty when we go there, plus it was run by people supporting Al-Qaeda(sp?).

I know that in your ritual worshiping of CNN, they have led you to believe that the whole war on terror is about oil... and of course you believe that.

Let me guess. If YOU were president when 9/11 happened, you wouldnt have attacked afghanistan would you? No, that'd be crazy. Attacking a nation this is run by and training Al-Qaeda terrorists?! thats just insane.

And if YOU were president, you wouldnt have attacked Iraq, after the CIA told you that they had credible evidence that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, and that they were developing a nuclear weapon. Becase ur smarter than that right? i mean come on, you watch CNN, you gotta be smarter than that!!

you say that us thinking the way we do shows that the majority of America is stupid? Let me guess... this "majority" of Americans who are stupid, are the people who dont watch CNN right?


The funny thing about people supporting Bush and his war on terror is that they are playing right into the terrorist hands. Terrorist love attention good or bad and thats exactly what Bush and the republicans are giving them.
Click to expand...

you're right. Bush should've done what those smaaart Democrats would've done. We should've sat back and done nothing. Ignored them and gave them the silent treatment. Because all they want is attention... so if we dont give them attention then terrorism will end and we can all hold hands as we skip through fields of daisies.

If we did not react to the terrorist attack, that wouldnt stop anything. That would show the terrorists that they can attack and nothing will happen to them, and that could possibly cause more attacks.


You know what's sad about this, Bush stated strongly through this whole thing that "we do not negotiate with terrorists" leaving this man to die over there, he pretty much told the family of this guy "To bad, guess you have a dead family member"
Click to expand...

and do you have any clue what the terrorists were asking?? they wanted us to release all of the terrorists that we had captured. Yes it terrible that this man had to die, but we could not have released all of the fucking terrorists that we captured.


abates17 wrote:
After all, why would we go into another country just to bring democracy to its citizens and overthrow an evil dictator?


You call him "evil" yet you admit that we created him.

Good job.
Click to expand...

he didnt act like an evil dictator till he was in power... dumbass..

a woman can have a baby, and when that baby turns 20 years old, he can decided to go on a killing spree. does that make the woman a bad person? no.

good job

abates17 wrote:
Oh yes, I'm sure we've been securing oil wells like crazy over there!


Ummm, yes. One of the first things we did in Iraq was secure their oil wells, and the first thing we did upon entering Baghdad was secure the Ministry of Oil (while mysteriously ignoring the other major government offices.)

You see.... sarcasm doesn't work when what you're talking about actually happened.
Click to expand...

there's a difference in securing the oil wells, and claiming the oil, or taking the oil. Saddam was trying to basically destroy all the oil. anyone who wouldnt try and stop this would be a complete and utter dumbass.. and from the way you talk, you wouldnt have secured the oil wells...

you see... being a smartass doesnt work if you dont know what you're talking about.


So the United Nations is worthless, we don't need to follow their edicts (like when they voted AGAINST WAR with Iraq) but our highest national priority is upholding UN resolutions? Uhhhhhhh, yeah. You have to believe that to be a Republican today.

Good luck with that hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

not sure if you knew this or not, but the only nations in the U.N. that were voting against the war in iraq was Russia and France. Ironically they had oil contracts with Iraq, and russia had been selling technology and weapons to Iraq, go figure. You should spend a little more time find out all of the facts before trying to call someone a hypocrit.


Last I checked the burden of proof lies on the person making the claims.

The Bush administration said there were nuclear weapons programs and massive stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq. We've found shaq-fu all. That is called PROOF that Bush LIED his ass off, along with Colin Powell and the rest of his filthy administration.
Click to expand...

Last time i checked, Bush didnt work for the CIA. The CIA told bush that there was credible evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he was developing a nuclear weapon. Bush's administration didnt say that saddam had all of these things, it was Bush's advisors. But of course you like to make it seem like Bush himself did this. One again the facts must've gotten mangled somewhere between CNN and you brain.

I like how after you're done stating false things, you like to call people names, as if it strengthens your argument.
 
Wow, there's a LOT to correct here. But I expect lots of assumption and idiocy from ditto-heads, so I'm used to it.

First of all, I don't watch CNN (or any cable news for that matter), so we can wipe away all of your idiotic comments about that. Nor is CNN a "left" outfit as ditto-heads like to paint it, because anything left of Fox News that doesn't bow down and kiss Bushs ass on a regular basis is considered an evil, communist, traitor news operation by you idiots... but that's another debate altogether.


[quote name='Cracka']Saddam came to power by telling his cousin (who was the leader at the time) that he would kill him if he didnt step down. I dont believe we helped him do that.[/quote]

You're assuming he didn't and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. The CIA met with Saddam Hussein many times before the Qassim government fell. Do your homework.


[quote name='Cracka']first, Afghanistan isnt falling to pieces.. afghanistan was already shiitty when we go there[/quote]

I wasn't talking about the current physical state of Afghanistan, I'm talking about how we've diverted so many resources to Iraq that we currently don't have the manpower to save Afghanistan. It's turning into a trainwreck as the Taliban run rampant, poppy production has doubled, and Hamid Kharzai makes as many trips out of state as humanly possible just to avoid being killed. Again, do your homework.


[quote name='Cracka']And if YOU were president, you wouldnt have attacked Iraq, after the CIA told you that they had credible evidence that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, and that they were developing a nuclear weapon.[/quote]

1. Nothing was found.

2. It has been disclosed in several books from defectors of the insane Bush Administration that the intelligence wasn't given, it was ASKED FOR. Bush decided on a course of action and then demanded the "facts" to back up that action. But I suppose you're buying the bullshit story that they were all just "bitter ex-employees" right? Uh huh.



[quote name='Cracka']you're right. Bush should've done what those smaaart Democrats would've done. We should've sat back and done nothing.[/quote]

You have no argument, so you imply that a Democrat in office would've done NOTHING at all because that's the only conceivable way a leader could be doing worse than George DUBYA Bush, and even that is questionable.


[quote name='Cracka']there's a difference in securing the oil wells, and claiming the oil, or taking the oil.[/quote]

Nope, not for us, because we're getting the oil one way or another. We're going to squeeze them like hell after this for the cheapest, dirtiest blood oil we've ever gotten.


[quote name='Cracka']you see... being a smartass doesnt work if you dont know what you're talking about.[/quote]

Thank you for proving that today.


[quote name='Cracka']I like how after you're done stating false things, you like to call people names, as if it strengthens your argument.[/quote]

And also, thank you for being a hypocrite.
 
First of all, I don't watch CNN (or any cable news for that matter), so we can wipe away all of your idiotic comments about that. Nor is CNN a "left" outfit as ditto-heads like to paint it, because anything left of Fox News that doesn't bow down and kiss Bushs ass on a regular basis is considered an evil, communist, traitor news operation by you idiots... but that's another debate altogether.
Click to expand...

ok let me get this straight... you dont watch CNN or Fox News, yet you know that Fox News kisses Bush's ass, and from what you said it sounds like you support what CNN says.

also you're what.. a few sentences into your post and you're already calling me an idiot? as if it strengthens your argument... once again.

You're assuming he didn't and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. The CIA met with Saddam Hussein many times before the Qassim government fell. Do your homework.
Click to expand...

and that means that we helped him overthrow the Iraqi government? some of terrorists who crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11 met with Saddam, does that mean he helped them in planning?

i'm not sure, but i believe i also said that we were talking with saddam before he became the crazy dictator.


I wasn't talking about the current physical state of Afghanistan, I'm talking about how we've diverted so many resources to Iraq that we currently don't have the manpower to save Afghanistan. It's turning into a trainwreck as the Taliban run rampant, poppy production has doubled, and Hamid Kharzai makes as many trips out of state as humanly possible just to avoid being killed. Again, do your homework.
Click to expand...

where are you getting all of these facts from? from the way you talk, you live in afghanistan and you're witnessing these things first hand.

first off you're making it sound like it was a great place when we got there, like its Bush's fault that it is like it is now.. like i said before it was in shitty condition when we got there. What do you mean by "the taliban is running rampant" ? .. what are they doing exactly? because when we got there, they were running the country and killing whoever they felt like killing, while supporting terrorist training camps.

Is opium illegal in Afghanistan? if not, who cares if their poppy production has doubled? that really has nothing to do with the state of affairs in afghanistan. That would be like someone saying "Tobacco production in America has doubled, They're country is in a terrible state of affairs...


1. Nothing was found.

2. It has been disclosed in several books from defectors of the insane Bush Administration that the intelligence wasn't given, it was ASKED FOR. Bush decided on a course of action and then demanded the "facts" to back up that action. But I suppose you're buying the bullshit story that they were all just "bitter ex-employees" right? Uh huh.
Click to expand...

how many months was it between the last weapons inspections and when we attacked? i believe it would've been plenty of time to export the weapons to neighboring countries.

once again you use name calling as a way to try and strengthen your argument. how is the Bush administration insane? and how did that have anything to do with what you were trying to say?

and then, again, the story is "bullshit" because you dont believe it? Let me guess... if the story came from a group of Democrats, and it said negative things about Bush, it wouldn't be bullshit then would it?

I have not read these books that say that bush requested the information. Have you read the books? or did you hear about these books from a democratic media source?

You have no argument, so you imply that a Democrat in office would've done NOTHING at all because that's the only conceivable way a leader could be doing worse than George DUBYA Bush, and even that is questionable.
Click to expand...

maybe you should read what i was responding to. I believe this is what you said? ..

The funny thing about people supporting Bush and his war on terror is that they are playing right into the terrorist hands. Terrorist love attention good or bad and thats exactly what Bush and the republicans are giving them.
Click to expand...

so from what i'm reading, by waging a war on terror, we are playing into the terrorists hands and giving them attention. Therefore you are implying that you, being the military genius you are, would've not waged a war on terrorism.

Maybe you should read what you post, then try not to contradict it.

Nope, not for us, because we're getting the oil one way or another. We're going to squeeze them like hell after this for the cheapest, dirtiest blood oil we've ever gotten.
Click to expand...

umm... yes there is a difference in stopping them from blowing up their oil fields, and us exporting their oil. If there was no difference, then their oil would've already been exported and in the U.S. ,and our gas prices wouldn't been as high as they are.

yea this gonna be the cheapest dirtiest oil we've ever gotten.. because if we wouldn't have bought it, saddam would've sold it and built another mansion, and the people of Iraq would've never seen a penny of it.

So you're obviously saying that us buying the oil and the money going to the iraqi people, and them not living in fear of saddam, is muuuch worse than saddam being in power and slaying his people at random, and him selling the oil and using it to build more mansions for himself. Yes, you my friend are a genius.

Thank you for proving that today.
Click to expand...

oh no, .. thank you

And also, thank you for being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

i believe the only think i called you was a smartass? and thats because i was mocking the way you called names to strengthen your argument. Nice try though
 
same old bullshit...

Hereticked if you are so damn smart then what's the solution?
People are always so fucking quick to denouce a plan but yet can't come up with one of their own. Cmon John Kerry FanBoy...wtf would you do?

Cmon...let's hear your bright idea.
 
[quote name='defender']same old bullshit...

Hereticked if you are so damn smart then what's the solution?
People are always so shaq-fuing quick to denouce a plan but yet can't come up with one of their own. Cmon John Kerry FanBoy...wtf would you do?

Cmon...let's hear your bright idea.[/quote]

na, he doesnt have any ideas. It is just easier for him to criticise.
 
[quote name='Cracka']some of terrorists who crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11 met with Saddam, does that mean he helped them in planning?[/quote]

Do you have any evidence proving this? I have never heard anyone suggest this because if they did it would certainly help justify the war in Iraq.
 
it was all over the news the weeks following 9/11.

Mohammed Otta(sp?) supposedly met with Saddam Hussein shortly before he came to America.
 
[quote name='defender']same old bullshit...

Hereticked if you are so damn smart then what's the solution?
People are always so shaq-fuing quick to denouce a plan but yet can't come up with one of their own. Cmon John Kerry FanBoy...wtf would you do?

Cmon...let's hear your bright idea.[/quote]

If I may help out Hereticked here (not that he seems to need my help)...

1. Get a UN force in charge of security in Iraq. As long as there is an American face on the occupying army, they are going to be huge targets for any resistance. But before we can do that we need to...

2. Repair our relations with the UN and foreign nations. Bush has burned all his bridges internationally except for England. At this point I don't know if he could restore good will. The quickest way to do this would be a regime change here with a president who will build bridges instead of burning them.

3. Use the troops we remove from Iraq to hunt for bin Laden THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED US. We took some of the best and brightest we had in Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq to look for the mysterious WMD's.

4. Lean heavily on the Saudis to police their own country and round up the extremists there where the vast majority of 9/11 terrorists were from.

5. Put the screws to both Israel and the Palestinians to resolve their conflict and add some stability to the region. Not saying it would be easy, but it beats doing nothing.

6. (Get ready to roll your eyes, Fox News Kool-Aid drinkers) Encourage the development of higher mileage vehicles and raise gasoline taxes to promote less dependence on foreign oil. Otherwise we are going to keep getting dragged into these messes in the Middle East every decade until they run dry.

7. Have a truly bipartisan cabinet to try to get the country away from the constant Red vs. Blue bickering that gets nothing accomplished.

I'd also normalize relations with Cuba, raise the minimum wage, push for an end to the electoral college, have life without parole instead of the death penalty, legalize gay marriage, offer incentives for companies to give more vacation time, and establish a national health care system.

Then for my second 100 days...
 
[quote name='Cracka']it was all over the news the weeks following 9/11.

Mohammed Otta(sp?) supposedly met with Saddam Hussein shortly before he came to America.[/quote]

Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam
A document tying the Iraqi leader with the 9/11 terrorist is probably fake. PLUS, how terror financiers manage to stay in business
WEB EXCLUSIVE
Newsweek
Updated: 11:31 a.m. ET Dec.19, 2003

Dec. 17 - A widely publicized Iraqi document that purports to show  that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta visited Baghdad in  the summer of  2001 is probably a fabrication that is contradicted by U.S. law-enforcement records showing Atta was staying at cheap motels and apartments in the United States when the trip presumably would have taken place, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and FBI documents.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/539dozfr.asp

Mohamed Atta, the leader of the September 11 hijackers, visited Prague twice in the fifteen months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in June 2000 and April 2001, and met with an Iraqi agent at least once during the second visit. Czech officials say they have a photograph of the meeting. Atta, who was not previously known to Czech authorities, turned up in routine surveillance by Czech counterintelligence officials of Ahmed al-Ani, a consul at the Iraqi embassy here.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36124

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38372
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='defender']same old bullshit...

Hereticked if you are so damn smart then what's the solution?
People are always so shaq-fuing quick to denouce a plan but yet can't come up with one of their own. Cmon John Kerry FanBoy...wtf would you do?

Cmon...let's hear your bright idea.[/quote]

If I may help out Hereticked here (not that he seems to need my help)...

1. Get a UN force in charge of security in Iraq. As long as there is an American face on the occupying army, they are going to be huge targets for any resistance. But before we can do that we need to...

2. Repair our relations with the UN and foreign nations. Bush has burned all his bridges internationally except for England. At this point I don't know if he could restore good will. The quickest way to do this would be a regime change here with a president who will build bridges instead of burning them.

3. Use the troops we remove from Iraq to hunt for bin Laden THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED US. We took some of the best and brightest we had in Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq to look for the mysterious WMD's.

4. Lean heavily on the Saudis to police their own country and round up the extremists there where the vast majority of 9/11 terrorists were from.

5. Put the screws to both Israel and the Palestinians to resolve their conflict and add some stability to the region. Not saying it would be easy, but it beats doing nothing.

6. (Get ready to roll your eyes, Fox News Kool-Aid drinkers) Encourage the development of higher mileage vehicles and raise gasoline taxes to promote less dependence on foreign oil. Otherwise we are going to keep getting dragged into these messes in the Middle East every decade until they run dry.

7. Have a truly bipartisan cabinet to try to get the country away from the constant Red vs. Blue bickering that gets nothing accomplished.

I'd also normalize relations with Cuba, raise the minimum wage, push for an end to the electoral college, have life without parole instead of the death penalty, legalize gay marriage, offer incentives for companies to give more vacation time, and establish a national health care system.

Then for my second 100 days...[/quote]

Hmm. I like your platform, but tell me, under your administration will we crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women?
 
[quote name='Cracka']ok let me get this straight... you dont watch CNN or Fox News, yet you know that Fox News kisses Bush's ass, and from what you said it sounds like you support what CNN says.[/quote]

I never said that I'd never watched cable news in my life, merely that I don't anymore because it's obviously all part of the dumbing-down of America. Some stations are just more blantant than others.

Was that really hard to figure out? Or did you respond that way because you have nothing better to argue about?


[quote name='Cracka']some of terrorists who crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11 met with Saddam, does that mean he helped them in planning?[/quote]

I haven't read anything convincing about Saddam and Al Quada being in "cohoots". Saddam was a secular ruler and Al Quada are a group of religious extremists, they have nothing in common. The rampant speculation of them having anything to do with each other is just more fodder for the cover story.

where are you getting all of these facts from? from the way you talk, you live in afghanistan and you're witnessing these things first hand.
Click to expand...

I read everything I can and weigh what's said carefully, unlike most people who simply get their news from the same few biased sources and automatically assume they're being "informed".


[quote name='Cracka']Is opium illegal in Afghanistan? if not, who cares if their poppy production has doubled? that really has nothing to do with the state of affairs in afghanistan.[/quote]

If you don't understand how the perpetuation of an international drug trade is going to continue to harm the country (and other nations for that matter) you could really stand to take a course in geopolitics.


[quote name='Cracka']how many months was it between the last weapons inspections and when we attacked? i believe it would've been plenty of time to export the weapons to neighboring countries.[/quote]

You're assuming their were weapons to begin with. The weapons inspectors found nothing time and again, and the Bush Administration initiated its unilateral war before they could make their final inspection and report. Why do you think that is?

The possibility that the chemical weapons were destroyed in the mid-90s just completely flies over your head since you've been told again and again what an "evil-doer" he is, and how he gassed people (with the weapons we gave him) even though the pictures you've seen could just as easily be Iranians as Kurds.

The truth of the matter is you don't know a goddam thing, and you don't want to know. You're just another clueless, gung-ho war supporter who's ready to go along with whatever President Cowboy and his thugs want to do because it makes you feel empowered.


[quote name='Cracka']so from what i'm reading, by waging a war on terror, we are playing into the terrorists hands and giving them attention. Therefore you are implying that you, being the military genius you are, would've not waged a war on terrorism.[/quote]

Not just attention, and not just "terrorists". We are giving the entire arab world a reason to hate us as we slaughter innocents in an undefined war against an abstract enemy that is based solely on labels and assumptions. We throw around the word "terror" now like we do "freedom" and the significance of that doesn't even occur to you.


[quote name='Cracka']
umm... yes there is a difference in stopping them from blowing up their oil fields, and us exporting their oil. If there was no difference, then their oil would've already been exported and in the U.S. ,and our gas prices wouldn't been as high as they are.[/quote]

It takes time to repair oil wells, restart production and begin the export process again, especially in a conflict zone. I don't know why I'm bothering to explain that to you though because you're still naive enough to believe oil and political influence isn't the reason we're there.


[quote name='Cracka']
So you're obviously saying that us buying the oil and the money going to the iraqi people, and them not living in fear of saddam, is muuuch worse than saddam being in power and slaying his people at random, and him selling the oil and using it to build more mansions for himself. Yes, you my friend are a genius.[/quote]

Do you get EVERY talking point you know off Fox News? Because I feel like I'm listening to one of their douchebag news casters right now.

Even if the situation was as black and white as you've been told it is, what makes you think we have the right to invade and tell people how to use their oil resources?

If Saddam was such a tyrant and life in Iraq so unbearable, they wouldnt have put up with his rule for 30 years. When governments become too oppressive, people rise up and overthrow those governments, like we did 230 years ago.

i believe the only think i called you was a smartass? and thats because i was mocking the way you called names to strengthen your argument. Nice try though
Click to expand...

Actually no, you also called me a dumbass. So once again.... good job hypocrite.

I don't need name calling to "strengthen my argument", it's simply a manifestation of my frustration at being surrounded by brain-dead republican jerkoffs. It is appalling to me that so many people who share my favorite hobby have drank the koolaid.
 
[quote name='Cracka']http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/539dozfr.asp

Mohamed Atta, the leader of the September 11 hijackers, visited Prague twice in the fifteen months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in June 2000 and April 2001, and met with an Iraqi agent at least once during the second visit. Czech officials say they have a photograph of the meeting. Atta, who was not previously known to Czech authorities, turned up in routine surveillance by Czech counterintelligence officials of Ahmed al-Ani, a consul at the Iraqi embassy here.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36124

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38372[/quote]

This is from one of the article you linked:

"The current official U.S. intelligence conclusion is that Saddam's regime was not involved in supporting the Sept. 11 attacks."

All of these claims have been debunked. There is no credible proof now that Saddam had any link to the 9/11 attacks at all. If there were, the Bush administration would be shouting it from the rooftops to save their asses.
 
[quote name='defender']Hereticked if you are so damn smart then what's the solution? People are always so shaq-fuing quick to denouce a plan but yet can't come up with one of their own. Cmon John Kerry FanBoy...wtf would you do?[/quote]

First of all, I'm no John Kerry fanboy. I've already stated on this forum that he is not my ideal choice for the democratic nominee. But thanks for making that ASSUMPTION, it seems to be something you excel at.

Futhermore I don't need to have some brilliant plan in order to criticize this administration and point out the very obvious ways they are DESTROYING THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION.


[quote name='BigNick']na, he doesnt have any ideas. It is just easier for him to criticise.[/quote]

This from the guy who never adds anything to the political debate and just takes meaningless pot shots like that one?

You go BigNick.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Hmm. I like your platform, but tell me, under your administration will we crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women?[/quote]

But of course we will. Where's the fun if we don't?
 
Thank you for some sane arguments Hereticked and MrBadExample. I hate whenever someone criticizes Bush they are automatically labeled a Democrat and as a result wrong. Guess what so-called Republicans in politics it is not a 2 sided playing field with a left and a right. It is instead more of a 3d field with many facors (some googling might help here). So before you dismiss all other views as just ohh thats whats a Democrat would say, think about all the other possible views they might have in common with you. Just because they differ from what you have been percieve as right does NOT mean their argument can be easily dismissed as a "Bush hater".
 
Cracka you need to get a life or a clue. Your way to emotional about this stuff. Thats why having a Republican at the controls scares me. Give me a good old boy from Arkansas anyday over some idiot cowboy from Texas with a "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" bumper sticker.
 
Cracka you need to get a life or a clue. Your way to emotional about this stuff. Thats why having a Republican at the controls scares me. Give me a good old boy from Arkansas anyday over some idiot cowboy from Texas with a "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" bumper sticker.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure how i'v gotten too emotional.. I havent gotten any more emotional than hereticked, but i guess since you are taking his side, you wont point out how "emotion" he is also.

also you're whole comment about having a good ole boy from arkansas instead of an idiot cowboy from Texas with a "guns dont kill people, people kill people" bumper sticker, was one of the most moronic things i've heard in a while. But of course, you dont provide any proof or evidence of your feelings, you just like to call people names, or make fun of people, as if that proves your point.

you would make an excellent debater.. i imagine it would go something like this..

lil stinky, how do you feel about Bush's actions in Iraq?

lil stinky: HE"S STUPID!1! STUPID COWBOY!!!111!


All of these claims have been debunked. There is no credible proof now that Saddam had any link to the 9/11 attacks at all. If there were, the Bush administration would be shouting it from the rooftops to save their asses.
Click to expand...

i'm guessing you didnt read the articles about how the Czechs have pictures of him meeting with officials in Iraq? let me guess, you are one of the people who also say that it isnt R. Kelly on his video?


I haven't read anything convincing about Saddam and Al Quada being in "cohoots". Saddam was a secular ruler and Al Quada are a group of religious extremists, they have nothing in common. The rampant speculation of them having anything to do with each other is just more fodder for the cover story.
Click to expand...

i believe i posted links to sites that says the Czechs have a picture of Atta metting with Iraqi officials, and surveilance(sp?) footage.

If you don't understand how the perpetuation of an international drug trade is going to continue to harm the country (and other nations for that matter) you could really stand to take a course in geopolitics.
Click to expand...

damn, you're right. When we're done on the war on terror, we better wage an international war on drugs, and attack any nation that is producing plants that can be made into drugs. Also maybe you should protest by boycotting poppy seed bagels at the grocery store! we'll teach those damn afghanis!

You're assuming their were weapons to begin with. The weapons inspectors found nothing time and again, and the Bush Administration initiated its unilateral war before they could make their final inspection and report. Why do you think that is?

The possibility that the chemical weapons were destroyed in the mid-90s just completely flies over your head since you've been told again and again what an "evil-doer" he is, and how he gassed people (with the weapons we gave him) even though the pictures you've seen could just as easily be Iranians as Kurds.
Click to expand...

and you are assuming that there werent weapons. Maybe you are unaware that when the weapons inspections were going on, the weapons inspecters were only allowed to go to buildings that Saddam authorized, at the times that he authorized.

so you are saying that he isnt an "evil doer" ??? Have you seen the videos of him lining up innocent people and killing them in firing squads? or the birth defects caused by the chemical weapons he used on his people? i dont have to be TOLD that he's an evil-doer, its obvious.

The truth of the matter is you don't know a goddam thing, and you don't want to know. You're just another clueless, gung-ho war supporter who's ready to go along with whatever President Cowboy and his thugs want to do because it makes you feel empowered.
Click to expand...

yet another entire paragraph used to call me stupid? You have no clue what i do and do not know. You obviously dont know as much as you thought you did either, whether you like to admit it or not. Maybe if you spent more time actually learning about what you're arguing about, instead of wasting all of your time trying to think up a whitty nick name for the President, or trying to think up another way to call me stupid, you would actually see how wrong you really are.


Not just attention, and not just "terrorists". We are giving the entire arab world a reason to hate us as we slaughter innocents in an undefined war against an abstract enemy that is based solely on labels and assumptions. We throw around the word "terror" now like we do "freedom" and the significance of that doesn't even occur to you.
Click to expand...

i agree. Because if we were run by a brutal dictator or a terrorists network, and another country came in and got rid of them, i'd be just as pissed as those arabs.

If Saddam was such a tyrant and life in Iraq so unbearable, they wouldnt have put up with his rule for 30 years. When governments become too oppressive, people rise up and overthrow those governments, like we did 230 years ago.
Click to expand...

its just that easy isnt it? hey we dont like him, lets take him out of office. I'm sure everyone in German was happy as hell when Hitler was in power, because nobody over threw him, so he must not have been an evil tyrant huh? Maybe that is how things work in your perfect sheltered world, but its not that damn easy.


Actually no, you also called me a dumbass. So once again.... good job hypocrite.

I don't need name calling to "strengthen my argument", it's simply a manifestation of my frustration at being surrounded by brain-dead republican jerkoffs. It is appalling to me that so many people who share my favorite hobby have drank the koolaid.
Click to expand...

Seriously, like i've said before, if you spent half the time actually looking into some of the things that you say, instead of trying to think up another way to call me or republicans, or Bush stupid, you would realize how wrong you are.


Just for the record i WISH Kerry would win and then fukk everything up just so i could laugh at all of you who support him.
 
2. It has been disclosed in several books from defectors of the insane Bush Administration that the intelligence wasn't given, it was ASKED FOR. Bush decided on a course of action and then demanded the "facts" to back up that action. But I suppose you're buying the bullshit story that they were all just "bitter ex-employees" right? Uh huh.


If you are talking about richard clarke, or the other outcast, both of them made their booktours talking like that, but neither of the actual information in the books supported their claims they made in their speaches, it was a cheap gimmick to get the anti bush movement to purchase their books...while I don't agree with them at all, it was a very intelligent publicity(sp?) stunt to extend their 60 seconds of fame..

Someone posted above their views on what we need to do...while some are great idea's, I shuddered reading your first few idea's in relation to the US and the UN. Everyone talks about how this canidate, or that canidate is corrupt, in bed with oil, in bed with the unions blah blah blah...the UN is the most corrupt organization in the world...Besides the fiasco that was supposed to be the Oil for Food program in iraq, hans blix, the former weapon inspector for a number of years, never ever found illegal weapons, and he was in places that turned out to have them..They refused to aid haiti a couple of months ago, saying it was to much of a mess for them to go in, this is comin from the group that is supposed to oversee the world, but can't handle a situation on a tiny island? And now their is the corruption and sexcapades of the man in charge of investigating the UN. And you want to go to them for help and support. Never mind the antisemiticism (sp?) that is running wild among many countries, why would we put our country, our people, our troops in the hands of this defunct and corrupt organization. We can't even get 500 or so people from congress, the senate, and the white house to correspond and make things happen in one country, and you want to turn to a body consiting of the entire world. Thanks but no thanks
 
[quote name='Cracka']damn, you're right. When we're done on the war on terror, we better wage an international war on drugs[/quote]

I've already made the analogy of the "war on terror" to the "war on drugs" myself. It's a good analogy, because both are perpetual, and therefore stupid.

We need an intelligent strategy to deal with terrorism, a real coalition of nations with real goals. A real task force to deal with the problem instead of just using a conventional military to invade nations where supposably they've been or there might be activity.

Any of this sending off that part of the brain that says "wow, thats rational!!!"? No? Didn't think so.


[quote name='Cracka']and you are assuming that there werent weapons..[/quote]

No, I'm not. I don't need to assume there were no weapons to justify inaction or a different course of action. YOU have to assume there were weapons in order to justify action. As I said earlier, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

That logic seems to escape republicans.... somehow.


[quote name='Cracka']so you are saying that he isnt an "evil doer" ??? Have you seen the videos of him lining up innocent people and killing them in firing squads? or the birth defects caused by the chemical weapons he used on his people? i dont have to be TOLD that he's an evil-doer, its obvious.[/quote]

You're seeing what they want you to see. You have no way of verifying those videos are actually from the time and place they claim or the events they're citing. Why do you think they're trying to shock you with these things? To get you to install another flag on your porch? To join the army? Couldn't be to scare the shit out of you so you blindly support whatever hair-brain thing the Bush administration decides to do..... nah.


[quote name='Cracka']Maybe if you spent more time actually learning about what you're arguing about, instead of wasting all of your time trying to think up a whitty nick name for the President, or trying to think up another way to call me stupid, you would actually see how wrong you really are.[/quote]

Yeah Cracka.... it's obvious that since I don't just assume my way through life and follow the prevailing propaganda of the day that I'm not as informed as you are.

Sign me up for the GOP and PNAC newsletters, I want to be "right" like you.

*rolls eyes*


[quote name='Cracka']its just that easy isnt it? hey we dont like him, lets take him out of office. I'm sure everyone in German was happy as hell when Hitler was in power, because nobody over threw him, so he must not have been an evil tyrant huh? Maybe that is how things work in your perfect sheltered world, but its not that damn easy.[/quote]

Revolution is never easy, and I never suggested it was. Nor did I suggest that a ruler can't be horrible dictator with the complicity of his own people (look at our country today for example), as usual you're just making assumptions about what I said instead of actually analyzing it.


[quote name='Cracka']Seriously, like i've said before, if you spent half the time actually looking into some of the things that you say, instead of trying to think up another way to call me or republicans, or Bush stupid, you would realize how wrong you are.[/quote]

I'd wager to guess I read more news in a day then you do in a week.

And I don't need to think up new ways to call Republicans stupid, the good ole plain way works fine.

Live in ignorance, I really don't care. I'm not trying to change your mind or the minds of any of the other brainwashed republicans here at CAG. I'm just making an example of you. The more I do this, the more everyone sees that you punks are nothing but posturing and flag waving.
 
We need an intelligent strategy to deal with terrorism, a real coalition of nations with real goals. A real task force to deal with the problem instead of just using a conventional military to invade nations where supposably they've been or there might be activity.

Any of this sending off that part of the brain that says "wow, thats rational!!!"? No? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

how would YOU deal with terrorism? Going into the countries that are harboring them and getting rid of them seems quite rational to me.

What other nations are you wanting to help us exactly? because from the way you said that, it seems u arent satisfied with the current group of nations... which correct me if i'm wrong, because i dont remember if these are all right or not, but its the U.S., Britain, Japan had troops in Iraq, Australia had troops in iraq, Canada was helping, i even believe Russia and maybe France also had troops in Iraq after we ousted saddam.
(i'm fairly sure i got all of those right, but i honestly may have gotten one or two wrong, so correct me if i did)


Cracka wrote:
and you are assuming that there werent weapons..


No, I'm not. I don't need to assume there were no weapons to justify inaction or a different course of action. YOU have to assume there were weapons in order to justify action. As I said earlier, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

That logic seems to escape republicans.... somehow.
Click to expand...

ok, you are contradicting yourself again. First you said "You're assuming there were weapons in the first place"(not directly quoting) I then said, "You are assuming that there werent weapson?" and you say no.

Do you even have an opinion on this? I'm wrong for assuming there were weapons when our intelligence told us there were. Yet you dont believe that there werent weapons.. What is your opinion on this whole thing??

You're seeing what they want you to see. You have no way of verifying those videos are actually from the time and place they claim or the events they're citing. Why do you think they're trying to shock you with these things? To get you to install another flag on your porch? To join the army? Couldn't be to scare the shit out of you so you blindly support whatever hair-brain thing the Bush administration decides to do..... nah.
Click to expand...

This actually was on a documentary on Saddam Hussein, and it wasnt on a news network. This wasnt a quick 2 minute clip of some people being shot. This was like a 15-20 minute video of Saddam picking out 20 or so men from a crowd inside a building (people who he suspected of doubting him) took him outside, tied them up to wooden posts, then Saddam stood there as he made rest of the people who were inside the building come outside and shoot the people who were tied up.

i dont think it was made to get me to hang up another flag, join the army, or support Bush... maybe...just maybe it was made to show how much of a brutal dictator Saddam was! yea maybe that was it!


Sign me up for the GOP and PNAC newsletters, I want to be "right" like you.
Click to expand...

no no sign me up for the John Kerry Fanboy newsletters, i want to get the wrong info straight from the horse's (or in this case ass's) mouth.


Revolution is never easy, and I never suggested it was. Nor did I suggest that a ruler can't be horrible dictator with the complicity of his own people (look at our country today for example), as usual you're just making assumptions about what I said instead of actually analyzing it.
Click to expand...

lmao i took NOTHING out of context. you plainly said that life must not have been that bad in Iraq, and that Saddam must not have been that bad of a dictator, because the people didnt over throw him. There was nothing taken out of context. Damn you flip flop more than John Kerry.
I'm just glad YOU dont have purple hearts like Kerry did, or you would've already thrown em at me.


I'd wager to guess I read more news in a day then you do in a week.

And I don't need to think up new ways to call Republicans stupid, the good ole plain way works fine.

Live in ignorance, I really don't care. I'm not trying to change your mind or the minds of any of the other brainwashed here at CAG. I'm just making an example of you. The more I do this, the more everyone sees that you punks are nothing but posturing and flag waving.
Click to expand...

its funny, you manage to read all that news everyday and still dont have the facts right.

If you have to call republicans names to sleep better at night, go ahead.

You arent making an example of anyone. The only thing you are showing is that when you dont know what you're talking about, you revert to name calling. But if it makes you feel like the bigger man, more power to you.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']Someone posted above their views on what we need to do...while some are great idea's, I shuddered reading your first few idea's in relation to the US and the UN. Everyone talks about how this canidate, or that canidate is corrupt, in bed with oil, in bed with the unions blah blah blah...the UN is the most corrupt organization in the world...Besides the fiasco that was supposed to be the Oil for Food program in iraq, hans blix, the former weapon inspector for a number of years, never ever found illegal weapons, and he was in places that turned out to have them..They refused to aid haiti a couple of months ago, saying it was to much of a mess for them to go in, this is comin from the group that is supposed to oversee the world, but can't handle a situation on a tiny island? And now their is the corruption and sexcapades of the man in charge of investigating the UN. And you want to go to them for help and support. Never mind the antisemiticism (sp?) that is running wild among many countries, why would we put our country, our people, our troops in the hands of this defunct and corrupt organization. We can't even get 500 or so people from congress, the senate, and the white house to correspond and make things happen in one country, and you want to turn to a body consiting of the entire world. Thanks but no thanks[/quote]

I never said the UN was perfect, but the US can't play cowboy and go it alone all the time (or even with the Coalition of the Willing). There is corruption everywhere. Our own administration right now is very thick with the Halliburtons and Enrons. There is always going to be corruption. The best you can do is ferret it out when you find it.

And where did they find WMD's that Hans Blix missed?
 
[quote name='Cracka']
All of these claims have been debunked. There is no credible proof now that Saddam had any link to the 9/11 attacks at all. If there were, the Bush administration would be shouting it from the rooftops to save their asses.
Click to expand...

i'm guessing you didnt read the articles about how the Czechs have pictures of him meeting with officials in Iraq? let me guess, you are one of the people who also say that it isnt R. Kelly on his video?[/quote]

One more time, our own government has not confirmed any of those rumors. They have concluded that they are forgeries.

From the article I posted earlier:
But U.S. officials and a leading Iraqi document expert tell NEWSWEEK that the document is most likely a forgery—part of a thriving new trade in dubious Iraqi documents that has cropped up in the wake of the collapse of Saddam's regime.

 "It's a lucrative business," says Hassan Mneimneh, codirector of an Iraqi exile research group reviewing millions of captured Iraqi government documents. "There's an active document trade taking place … You have fraudulent documents that are being fabricated and sold" for hundreds of dollars a piece.
Click to expand...

And BTW, my article was from Newsweek and MSNBC - two reputable news sources. You posted 2 links to World Net Daily, a radical right website that make Fox News actually look fair and balanced.

Just for the record i WISH Kerry would win and then fukk everything up just so i could laugh at all of you who support him.
Click to expand...

Woo-hoo! One more vote for Kerry! My work here is done.
 
[quote name='Cracka']how would YOU deal with terrorism? Going into the countries that are harboring them and getting rid of them seems quite rational to me.[/quote]

It really shouldn't seem all that rational. If you look at statistics of the number of terrorist attacks against a country before and after going into a "war on terrorism", you'll find that the number of attacks increase after an attack. For example, if you'll look at the time when Israel invaded Lebanon to root out PLO factions who build bases near the borders, you'll notice that the number of attacks more than doubled in the subsequent years, despite Israel's military victory against the PLO. Additionally, after the War on Terror was declared by Bush and we first invaded Afghanistan, terrorist attacks actually increased.

Fighting a war is too easy of a solution, believe it or not. Terrorism has existed almost since the beginning of time because it is an effective technique to reach a political end. For a long time, the term "terrorist" was thought to be an honorable title for great heroes. It wasn't until recent times that terrorism became known to be an evil. But, unfortunately, fighting the "Evil Doers" doesn't seem to be helping anything. I don't know of a way to stop it, but the great thinkers leading our nation need to be a little bit more "out of the box" in order to at least subdue terrorist activities.
 
[quote name='Cracka']
All of these claims have been debunked. There is no credible proof now that Saddam had any link to the 9/11 attacks at all. If there were, the Bush administration would be shouting it from the rooftops to save their asses.
Click to expand...

i'm guessing you didnt read the articles about how the Czechs have pictures of him meeting with officials in Iraq? let me guess, you are one of the people who also say that it isnt R. Kelly on his video?[/quote]

You need to do your homework about the Al Qaeda. The countries and governments to which the Al Qaeda network has established ties with are: Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan. That is it. I believe that in the charters and official doctrines of several of the various Al Qaeda-linked terrorist organizations that they specifically declare war against the Middle Eastern countries that are not run under strict fundamentalist Islamic rule.
 
[quote name='Cracka']Going into the countries that are harboring them and getting rid of them seems quite rational to me.[/quote]

A simple idea, but well intentioned. Unfortunately it's NOT that simple and we're not doing anything nearly that effective.

[quote name='Cracka']What other nations are you wanting to help us exactly? because from the way you said that, it seems u arent satisfied with the current group of nations[/quote]

Our "coalition" has been a joke since day one. The only nations that were enthusiastic about signing on were Britian and Spain, and even their peoples are whole heatedly against this lie. The rest of the nations either owe us or were bought and only gave assistance once the main phase of the ground war was over, doing nothing but demonstrating that their resolve was NOT in this conflict and the only reasons they're in the "coalition" are diplomatic.


[quote name='Cracka']ok, you are contradicting yourself again. First you said "You're assuming there were weapons in the first place"(not directly quoting) I then said, "You are assuming that there werent weapson?" and you say no. Do you even have an opinion on this? I'm wrong for assuming there were weapons when our intelligence told us there were. Yet you dont believe that there werent weapons.. What is your opinion on this whole thing??[/quote]

I have yet to say anything contradictory, so I don't know where you get the "again" part, but since you obviously don't understand the rudiments of logic or debate, I will explain this to you in a very slow, deliberate manner.

In order for us to take action on a matter, it must first be proven that the action is justified. In this case, it needed to be proven that Iraq had WMD. In other words, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

In the aftermath of this mess, you are still clinging to the assumption that there were weapons present in 2003, while I have never assumed that there were no weapons. Just because I am against this conflict (because we haven't found any massive stockpiles of weapons) doesn't mean that I assume they never existed or don't exist. I am simply arriving at the rational conclusion based on the available data while the right-wing's best argument at this point is "ohhh who cares if there was no weapons, Saddam was a doody head and we're bringing democracy to Iraq."

You apparently are uninterested in the fact that this war has been a lie, and our servicemen have been killed for lies. Could evidence still come to light to show that this conflict was actually justified? Possible, but I highly doubt it.


[quote name='Cracka']This actually was on a documentary on Saddam Hussein, and it wasnt on a news network. This wasnt a quick 2 minute clip of some people being shot. This was like a 15-20 minute video of Saddam picking out 20 or so men from a crowd inside a building (people who he suspected of doubting him) took him outside, tied them up to wooden posts, then Saddam stood there as he made rest of the people who were inside the building come outside and shoot the people who were tied up.[/quote]

Horrible, but it doesn't make him a terrorist or a harborer of terrorists. That could have happened in the Iran-Iraq war for all you know. There are dictators the world over who have done similar and much worse. Why aren't we invading them? You can't answer that question. Not to your own satisfaction or anyone elses, and once again it is shown that it is the republicans, not the democrats, who determine policy on emotion instead of rational thought.


[quote name='Cracka']no no sign me up for the John Kerry Fanboy newsletters, i want to get the wrong info straight from the horse's (or in this case ass's) mouth.[/quote]

Since I've already said I'm not a fan of John Kerry, this comment makes no sense.

If you want it straight from the ass's mouth, you need Rush Limbaughs newsletter.
 
[quote name='Hereticked']We've already covered the whole "flip flop" terminology in this thread, and quite frankly anyone whos susceptible enough to take their political ideas from 15 second ads like that is too stupid to live. Please be kind to the gene pool and kill yourself.[/quote]

Your argument would be more convincing if you ignored your opponent's name calling and didn't respond with more name calling or insulting of your own.
 
[quote name='alongx']Your argument would be more convincing if you ignored your opponent's name calling and didn't respond with more name calling or insulting of your own.[/quote]

You're right, I shouldn't be responding like that, especially if i want to make (or set) an example.

My apologies Cracka.... it's easy for these kind of discussions to get overheated.
 
This thread is dumb. No one ever convinces anyone of anything. I hate politics in a forums...escpecially a games forums.

I like what Bush is trying to do. I don't think anyone could be doing a much better job. You may not like what he is doing but in my eyes. At least he is doing SOMETHING. Just complaining about the current administration isnt enough. It's coming up with better ideas that's more important. I dont ever hear any.

I dont have the moment to rebuttle that thread with your points on what to do but trust me..I will. Most of what you say isnt realistic.
 
[quote name='defender']I hate politics in a forums...escpecially a games forums.[/quote]

Agreed.


[quote name='defender']
I like what Bush is trying to do. I don't think anyone could be doing a much better job. You may not like what he is doing but in my eyes. At least he is doing SOMETHING.[/quote]

You like that the Bush administration is ruining our future?

As far as I'm concerned Bush is living proof that doing "something" isn't always better than doing nothing.

The idea that Gore would've done "nothing" in the wake of 9/11 is a false argument to begin with, but I won't even bother going into it. I've already done enough flaming today.

[quote name='defender']Just complaining about the current administration isnt enough. It's coming up with better ideas that's more important. I dont ever hear any.[/quote]

MrBadExample provided an entire list. I can't wait to hear why they're so "unrealistic". Especially compared to the unrealistic expectations of the "war on t3RR@H" and how unrealistic it is that this war in Iraq has anything at all to do with "terror".
 
I'm so sorry, Horse.
I know that you just want to die and be done with it all, yet they all seem to just want to continue beating you.
I'm sorry, Horse, but you know, they'll probably still be beating you after you're dead.

Well, at least you know you won't be chopped up and feed to French children at least.

Poor Horse.
 
first off, i'd like to say you should all remember that we're talking politics. It does get heated sometimes, but there i have no personal dislike for any of you. We're just talking, so dont let things get out of hand.

It's obvious that alot of us have very different opinions. For the most part, we have all pretty much so voiced our opinions.

You all know how i feel about the issues we've discussed, and i know how yall feel about the issues.

I doubt either of us will change the others mind, and this thread really isnt going anywhere. If it's leading to anything, it's more than likely just a huge argument that will get out of hand.

as you can tell, i like to voice my opinion on the political threads, but i try not to make it personal when talking/arguing to/with people.

I'd like to repeat that nothing i've said was meant to be personal to any of you, so dont carry things over from this thread into others. IMO what happens in heated threads, should stay in heated threads.

with all of that said, i'm done with this thread.
 
[quote name='Hereticked']In order for us to take action on a matter, it must first be proven that the action is justified. In this case, it needed to be proven that Iraq had WMD. In other words, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.[/quote]

You want proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that violated U.N. resolutions? Let's see...first off, you have both Hans Blix and Saddam Hussein, who admitted before the war that Iraq had those illegal weapons. (In fact, Hussein admitted to having those illegal weapons numerous times, each time claiming that those were the only illegal weapons that he had.) But if that's not enough evidence for you, here are a few passages from U.N. Resolution 1441:

[quote name='Resolution 1441']
The Security Council,
...
          Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

          Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

          Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

          Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
...
          Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
...
          1.       Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);[/quote]

Really, do I have to go on? Resolution 1441 1) declares that Iraq had been in material breach of other resolutions dating back to 1991, and 2) declared that the cease-fire between the U.S. and Iraq was predicated on full compliance by Iraq of all the the various resolutions pertaining to its weapons programs. That alone is enough justification for continuing the war that started in 1990, even if no other weapons were found in Iraq in the aftermath.

Now granted, the intelligence reports about Saddam Hussein's other undisclosed weapons programs have turned out to be somewhat exaggerated. But remember, the U.S. intelligence in this matter was the same intelligence that every other country had, and the same intelligence that Bill Clinton to this day agrees with. So which is more likely: that Saddam's regime found some way to hide most of the evidence of illegal weapons in the months between Resolution 1441 and the start of the war; or that somehow, the intelligence of every civilized country in the world was somehow in grave error?

[quote name='Hereticked']You apparently are uninterested in the fact that this war has been a lie, and our servicemen have been killed for lies. Could evidence still come to light to show that this conflict was actually justified? Possible, but I highly doubt it.[/quote]

Try Resolution 1441.


[quote name='Hereticked']There are dictators the world over who have done similar and much worse. Why aren't we invading them?[/quote]

Oh wait, I know this one! Is it because none of those other countries have actually invaded a neighboring country and precipitated a war? Is it because those other countries haven't violated numerous U.N. resolutions, some of which were required for a cease-fire to take place? Is it because those other countries are not swimming on a sea of oil which can be and has been used in shady backdoor deals to keep the country supplied with weapons, in clear violation of trade embargoes against that country? Is it because those other countries have not been illegally siphoning off supplies from the oil-for-food program and using it to fund their military regimes? Oh, of course! It's ALL of those reasons!

Honestly, decisions like going to war with another country are not made in a vacuum. We didn't invade Iraq just because they we thought they were a threat to us, or because they violated numerous U.N. resolutions, or because they were a threat to their neighbors, or because they were killing and abusing their own people, or because they were destabilizing an already unstable region of the world, or because they had been harboring terrorists, or because they are a leading supplier of oil. We invaded Iraq for all of those reasons, to various degrees. You can't just discount one reason, and then call the entire war invalid or unjustified. That's not the way the world works.
 
[quote name='abates17'][quote name='Hereticked']In order for us to take action on a matter, it must first be proven that the action is justified. In this case, it needed to be proven that Iraq had WMD. In other words, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.[/quote]

You want proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that violated U.N. resolutions? Let's see...first off, you have both Hans Blix and Saddam Hussein, who admitted before the war that Iraq had those illegal weapons. (In fact, Hussein admitted to having those illegal weapons numerous times, each time claiming that those were the only illegal weapons that he had.) But if that's not enough evidence for you, here are a few passages from U.N. Resolution 1441:

[quote name='Resolution 1441']
The Security Council,
...
          Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

          Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

          Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

          Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
...
          Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
...
          1.       Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);[/quote]

Really, do I have to go on? Resolution 1441 1) declares that Iraq had been in material breach of other resolutions dating back to 1991, and 2) declared that the cease-fire between the U.S. and Iraq was predicated on full compliance by Iraq of all the the various resolutions pertaining to its weapons programs. That alone is enough justification for continuing the war that started in 1990, even if no other weapons were found in Iraq in the aftermath.

Now granted, the intelligence reports about Saddam Hussein's other undisclosed weapons programs have turned out to be somewhat exaggerated. But remember, the U.S. intelligence in this matter was the same intelligence that every other country had, and the same intelligence that Bill Clinton to this day agrees with. So which is more likely: that Saddam's regime found some way to hide most of the evidence of illegal weapons in the months between Resolution 1441 and the start of the war; or that somehow, the intelligence of every civilized country in the world was somehow in grave error?

[quote name='Hereticked']You apparently are uninterested in the fact that this war has been a lie, and our servicemen have been killed for lies. Could evidence still come to light to show that this conflict was actually justified? Possible, but I highly doubt it.[/quote]

Try Resolution 1441.


[quote name='Hereticked']There are dictators the world over who have done similar and much worse. Why aren't we invading them?[/quote]

Oh wait, I know this one! Is it because none of those other countries have actually invaded a neighboring country and precipitated a war? Is it because those other countries haven't violated numerous U.N. resolutions, some of which were required for a cease-fire to take place? Is it because those other countries are not swimming on a sea of oil which can be and has been used in shady backdoor deals to keep the country supplied with weapons, in clear violation of trade embargoes against that country? Is it because those other countries have not been illegally siphoning off supplies from the oil-for-food program and using it to fund their military regimes? Oh, of course! It's ALL of those reasons!

Honestly, decisions like going to war with another country are not made in a vacuum. We didn't invade Iraq just because they we thought they were a threat to us, or because they violated numerous U.N. resolutions, or because they were a threat to their neighbors, or because they were killing and abusing their own people, or because they were destabilizing an already unstable region of the world, or because they had been harboring terrorists, or because they are a leading supplier of oil. We invaded Iraq for all of those reasons, to various degrees. You can't just discount one reason, and then call the entire war invalid or unjustified. That's not the way the world works.[/quote]

I think it's safe to say that this guy will be voting for Bush this winter. :roll:
 
[quote name='JSweeney']I'm so sorry, Horse.
I know that you just want to die and be done with it all, yet they all seem to just want to continue beating you.
I'm sorry, Horse, but you know, they'll probably still be beating you after you're dead.

Well, at least you know you won't be chopped up and feed to French children at least.

Poor Horse.[/quote]

LOL Classic! Too bad everyone is too busy arguing to notice a funny post on this thread.
 
[quote name='defender']This thread is dumb. No one ever convinces anyone of anything. I hate politics in a forums...escpecially a games forums.

I like what Bush is trying to do. I don't think anyone could be doing a much better job. You may not like what he is doing but in my eyes. At least he is doing SOMETHING. Just complaining about the current administration isnt enough. It's coming up with better ideas that's more important. I dont ever hear any.

I dont have the moment to rebuttle that thread with your points on what to do but trust me..I will. Most of what you say isnt realistic.[/quote]

Heres a better idea. How about not invading Iraq and using that 300 billion to find Bin Laden and beef up security of our country(airport and border security are still a joke).
 
Back on topic:

This is sickening. I was unlucky enough to see a picture of his severed head (some bastard on another forum posted it), and felt like vomiting. Savages, I tell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top