NationStates Jolt Archive

He was told all these things would happen if he invaded Iraq from all the professionsals from Day One. But Bush thought the greed of Dick Cheney is a higher priority for him than objective reality and decided to lie his way into attacking Iraq for no good reason. You can read about all the details in this link to my local paper:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wo...y-top-headlines

It says the page I requested was not found.

"The page you requested was not found."

Might be this:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq134256907may13,0,2890610.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

It says the page I requested was not found.
That's because he copied and pasted the address from another thread by just highlighting it instead of by using 'copy link location', so he ended up with the middle characters cut out.
Or at least that's what it looks like to me.

That's because he copied and pasted the address from another thread by just highlighting it instead of by using 'copy link location', so he ended up with the middle characters cut out.
Or at least that's what it looks like to me.
Yep. Shows a bit of shoddy work and trolling.

He was told all these things would happen if he invaded Iraq from all the professionsals from Day One. But Bush thought the greed of Dick Cheney is a higher priority for him than objective reality and decided to lie his way into attacking Iraq for no good reason. You can read about all the details in this link to my local paper:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wo...y-top-headlines

Well, I agree, the Iraq War was (and is being) poorly executed.

But, to blame this solely on Bush is far from correct. Of course, Bush played a big role, but the whole administration owns a share in the blame.


I personally believe that Bush is a moron (for lack of a better word), and I think it was just plain dumb of us to elect based on morals (though this isn't really the whole story).

But, come on, doesn't intelligence play a factor in the presidency?



Regardless, in both this and your last thread, you are personally attacking and blaming Bush for things that are obviously not (completely) his fault.

So, stop trolling please.

BonePosse, are you done yet?

That's because he copied and pasted the address from another thread by just highlighting it instead of by using 'copy link location', so he ended up with the middle characters cut out.
Or at least that's what it looks like to me.

Ah, that explains that, then. I was wondering if this was some new development (which it isn't) or in reference to the extension of the state of emergency.

Ehm, has a link between Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, 9/11 been found yet?

Ehm, has a link between Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, 9/11 been found yet?

Well, a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein has been found. :p

Also, a link between Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and 9/11 has been found. :p


Amongst the two groups, no link has been found. Well, that's not technically true, because now Al-Qaeda is involved in Iraq. But that's purely because of the war, i.e. it wasn't a pre-war connection.

Well, a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein has been found. :p

Also, a link between Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and 9/11 has been found. :p


Amongst the two groups, no link has been found. Well, that's not technically true, because now Al-Qaeda is involved in Iraq. But that's purely because of the war, i.e. it wasn't a pre-war connection.
Okay, second question - Has the war been justified yet?

hmm read the article... didnt see the part where theres a civil war in Iraq though. in case you havent realized, sunni's and shi'ites have been killing each other (mostly sunni's killing the shi'ites and kurds) for a long, long time.

the fact that Al Zarqawi (i know i shat on the name) has take control of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks, does not mean a civil war has occurred, nor is occurring.

there are many attacks on the American soldiers now, because the attackers may shoot at soldiers and easily blend in with a crowd of people. Or an attacker may set booby traps or road side bombs, or car bombs. An attacker can also shoot at a soldier and then hide in a mosque- the soldier is not allowed to shoot back or go into the mosque.

The huge liberals (not all of them, jsut the ones that like to complain about everything, and blame all their problems on bush) have found a way to complain in this situation. They complain that American troops are being killed and its Bush's fault. Then they complain if CNN shows a soldier running into a mosque taking aim at an attacker who ran in for cover. Its a lose-lose situation for the Americans with common sense, and the government.

Okay, second question - Has the war been justified yet?

Of course. Everyone knows we went to war with Iraq to root out Al-Quadea, um I mean, to take posession of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, um, I mean, to liberate the Iraqi people from killings and improve their quality of life, um no... wait, what are we doing again? Oh! Spreading freedom and democracy! Deposing evil nasties! That's it. That was the plan all along, no really it was!

hmm read the article... didnt see the part where theres a civil war in Iraq though. in case you havent realized, sunni's and shi'ites have been killing each other (mostly sunni's killing the shi'ites and kurds) for a long, long time.
Well now, the Sunni and Shia in Iraq are working together for the most part.

Okay, second question - Has the war been justified yet?

Well since the only two justifications I could think of (an imminent threat of WMDs and a connection with 9/11), both of which are sketchy justifications at best, have not been verified... I'd have to say no.


Others would argue, however, that forcing our idea of democracy on them is justification. Well, democracy sure, but why does it have to be our version? That way we get rich.

And besides, who said we had to kill thousands of innocent people to do this?

Well since the only two justifications I could think of (an imminent threat of WMDs and a connection with 9/11), both of which are sketchy justifications at best, have not been verified... I'd have to say no.


Others would argue, however, that forcing our idea of democracy on them is justification. Well, democracy sure, but why does it have to be our version? That way we get rich.

And besides, who said we had to kill thousands of innocent people to do this?
And forcing democracy down people's throats isn't the best way of being adored by Iraqis.

Ehm, has a link between Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, 9/11 been found yet?

Ehm, has a link between Saddam Hussein and millions of oppressed iraqis been found yet?

Yes.

Did we do something about it?

Yes, we took out Saddam and gave the Iraqis their first free vote in a half-century.

And Iraq does have Al Qaeda cells.

Iraq, a rogue nation that in the past has used chemical weapons to murder millions, and also has possession of extensive oilfields, has failed to fully comply with a UN resolution to cooperate with weapons inspectors.

1. "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out...our God, that is." Says Vice President Dick Cheney. "If they have WMDs, that's a good reason to get 'em. And if they don't, well, then they can't defend themselves! I smell a new colony, either way!"

[Accept]

2. "What we need to do is overthrow their current corrupt and genocidal government, and replace it with one more in touch with their people," says humanitarian rights activist Shirley Prissmeister. "All people on earth have the right to free elections, free health care, free schools, heck, free everything! Since we have the power, we have the responsibility to step in!"

[Accept]

3. "What we have here is a failure to communicate!" argues peace activist Ian Bryce Apansy. "There is no right and wrong way to live - just different. Sure, Iraq's leader is brutal and crazy, but we have no right to judge anyone else! I mean, look at the way we have behaved towards the indigenous people of our own country; are we really riding such a moral high horse?"

[Accept]

4. "War, yes, but oilfields, no," says Neo-Conservative Rich Perlman. "There is no reason to send our boys and girls to die on foreign soil. Pansy yellow bleeding hearts are always arguing to reduce the size of our mighty nuclear arsenal - lets get rid of a few missiles right now, by turning Iraq into a slab of glass! That'll teach the world who the power to be reckoned with is!"

[Accept]

[Can't Dismiss This Issue]

It's my belief that Bush just decided to make up a reason to invade Iraq because his father withdrew our troops in Desert Storm. This war isn't about anything other than making himself look good in the eyes of his daddy. And why in the world we re-elected the moron is news to me. :headbang:
I know I didn't vote for him. I just don't see how anyone can justify sending our troops to Iraq to be murdered for something that had nothing toi do with us. So Saddam was a bad person, why didn't we just let Iraq deal with it and not get involved. It's none of our business who's running their country. I mean what would we think if Australia decided to come into America and take over our government to run it how they see fit. :confused:

And forcing democracy down people's throats isn't the best way of being adored by Iraqis.

If I remember correctly, millions of Iraqis braved getting capped to go out and show their appreciation for freedom/democracy when they went to the polls.

Okay, second question - Has the war been justified yet?

do you people honestly believe that saddam didnt have the capability to make nuclear weapons, if not already having them. Are you that naive to believe that he has turned UN weapons inspectors back at the border hundeds of times in the past 12 or so years, that he has failed to show proof of the destruction of the weapons, and has been known to already posses chemical weapons and long range missiles?

it is obvious that he had-at least-the capability to make the weapons sometime within the next year or so. and if you ask me, its better to strike pre-emptively, then wait for a large attack on the US, and then go to war. BTW, Israeli intelligence reports (some of the most accurate b/c they have some of the best technology, weaponry, and intelligence in the world) says that a week before the US went into IRAQ, they spotted a motorcade of large-material carrying cargo trucks, into Syria. I wouldnt be surprised that within 10 years we will probably go to syria in some sort of war (since it seems to be the pattern of US involvement in the middle east), and find all of saddams stash there.

Anyway, that was justification enough for going to Iraq. justification for Afghanistan is common knowledge. Justification for staying in IRaq was to free the oppressed people (kurds and shiites) from the minority Sunnis. Now we are there to set up a govt. that promotes domocracy in the middle east, and training their military so we can get the hell out of there (and hey, we can start a new war too!)

im also sick of hearing all these dick cheney conspiracies. He gets money from Haliburton, and its called pension, b/c he used to work there. And im sick of this crap about how we only went for oil. have u seen gasoline prices lately!?!? theyre skyrocketing, and we dont have oil. They crazy liberals came up with their own scheme here, of how the big bad govt and large corporate business heads are controlling the oil. This is where haliburton comes in.. and the crazies say that haliburton is taking all of the oil for itself and keeping the moeny made. to this i say, 'for the love of god stop your ranting about nonsense'. might i remind you that haliburton's only use for oil, is the trasporting and trade of the oil... they are not an oil company who sells gasoline. next, haliburton is a multifaceted company that also packages the foods that soldiers eat, makes and distributes the weapons, makes the uniforms suits and other equipment... they this is to clear up the misconception that haliburton is a oil-roving tool of the govt. and somehow george bush is behind some plot to plan the downfall of american democracy, while making a hefty sum.

Another interesting random fact for the crazy liberals who still arent over the whole kerry for president thing (and i know youre still out there): Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame). Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes (always democrats) obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

Iraq, a rouge nation that in the past has used chemical weapons to murder millions, and also has possession of extensive oilfields, has failed to fully comply with a UN resolution to cooperate with weapons inspectors.

1. "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out...our God, that is." Says Vice President Dick Cheney. "If they have WMDs, that's a good reason to get 'em. And if they don't, well, then they can't defend themselves! I smell a new colony, either way!"

[Accept]

2. "What we need to do is overthrow their current corrupt and genocidal government, and replace it with one more in touch with their people," says humanitarian rights activist Shirley Prissmeister. "All people on earth have the right to free elections, free health care, free schools, heck, free everything! Since we have the power, we have the responsibility to step in!"

[Accept]

3. "What we have here is a failure to communicate!" argues peace activist Ian Bryce Apansy. "There is no right and wrong way to live - just different. Sure, Iraq's leader is brutal and crazy, but we have no right to judge anyone else! I mean, look at the way we have behaved towards the indigenous people of our own country; are we really riding such a moral high horse?"

[Accept]

4. "War, yes, but oilfields, no," says Neo-Conservative Rich Perlman. "There is no reason to send our boys and girls to die on foreign soil. Pansy yellow bleeding hearts are always arguing to reduce the size of our mighty nuclear arsenal - lets get rid of a few missiles right now, by turning Iraq into a slab of glass! That'll teach the world who the power to be reckoned with is!"

[Accept]

[Can't Dismiss This Issue]

a "rouge" nation?

so they're into make-up... I see!

hehe

Logic.....here logic....here logic.

Oh where, oh where did the logic go, oh where oh where could it be?

If I remember correctly, millions of Iraqis braved getting capped to go out and show their appreciation for freedom/democracy when they went to the polls.
Or maybe they'd prefer someone in charge rather than anarchy or the US soldiers.

a "rouge" nation?

so they're into make-up... I see!

hehe

Well, maybe their whole economy is based on mascara, foundations, and Avon products...

Jalula, are you a Sunni Muslim?

And Iraq does have Al Qaeda cells.

So does the US and the UK, your point? Also, Iraq probably has more Al-Qaeda and other terroist cells now than it ever did before the war.

Jalula, are you a Sunni Muslim?

Nah, but I play one on TV...

Actually, I live near Jalula, Iraq - near being a US military base in the vicinity..

Jalula, are you a Sunni Muslim?
I am! :D

It's my belief that Bush just decided to make up a reason to invade Iraq because his father withdrew our troops in Desert Storm. This war isn't about anything other than making himself look good in the eyes of his daddy. And why in the world we re-elected the moron is news to me.
I know I didn't vote for him. I just don't see how anyone can justify sending our troops to Iraq to be murdered for something that had nothing toi do with us. So Saddam was a bad person, why didn't we just let Iraq deal with it and not get involved. It's none of our business who's running their country. I mean what would we think if Australia decided to come into America and take over our government to run it how they see fit.


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

...sigh.... :eek:

its stupid liberals like this who didnt want to send our troops to europe to fight in WW2, b/c it didnt "affect us". they also wanted the jews to deal with the problem of the holocaust by themselves. you are obviously too clouded with liberal media garbage, and you think the world is full of flowers and peace and love, and think.. "hey, if we leave them alone, then they'll leave us alone".. then when something like sept 11 happens their like "i cant believe they did this to us, god i hate them, anyway, lets go back to being pussies in our little corner and let them deal with their problems"


you cant reason with these kind of people, its just better to let their generation die out slowly, until a more sensical and aware generation is grown. either that or pack them into fenced off areas with pot and guitars, and flowers and scented candles.. theylll amuse themselves to death.

*coughgodwincough*

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

...sigh.... :eek:

its stupid liberals like this who didnt want to send our troops to europe to fight in WW2, b/c it didnt "affect us". they also wanted the jews to deal with the problem of the holocaust by themselves. you are obviously too clouded with liberal media garbage, and you think the world is full of flowers and peace and love, and think.. "hey, if we leave them alone, then they'll leave us alone".. then when something like sept 11 happens their like "i cant believe they did this to us, god i hate them, anyway, lets go back to being pussies in our little corner and let them deal with their problems"


you cant reason with these kind of people, its just better to let their generation die out slowly, until a more sensical and aware generation is grown. either that or pack them into fenced off areas with pot and guitars, and flowers and scented candles.. theylll amuse themselves to death.

the sad thing is that if President Bush had decided not to send troops to help the people of iraq gain their freedom, the liberals would be blasting him for not helping Iraq in their time of need.

lmao

they just blindly hate President Bush, and no matter what he does, they'll play devil's advocate.

the sad thing is that if President Bush had decided not to send troops to help the people of iraq gain their freedom, the liberals would be blasting him for not helping Iraq in their time of need.

lmao

they just blindly hate President Bush, and no matter what he does, they'll play devil's advocate.

I think that's true. I am a soldier in Iraq RIGHT NOW and though I didn't think we should have invaded in the first place, there WAS pressure from the left to curb Saddam's behavior - and anger from the left that we had left him in power after the first Gulf War...

And Iraq does have Al Qaeda cells.

Says the US government and other nations actively involved in Iraq (justification perhaps)

To those of you who justify the invasion of Iraq by saying that you have brought Democracy and freedom to the Iraqi's all I can say is shame on you.

Democracy is about the freedom to choose, show me where the Iraqis chose Western style Democracy in a free and fair manner. Being told by the US what to do does not constitute freedom.

Further, if you are going to use this weak excuse for invading a nation, why has the US and Britain not invaded China, Zimbabwe and Lybia to name just a few undemocratic nations.

Its time a large number of people came to realise what some of us saw from the beginning. Its all about the economies of the US and Britain. or in one word OIL

I was most disappointed when both Bush and Blair were returned to office. Ones a snake and the other a bafoon, but both lied to their voters and have gotten away with it.

Democracy is about the freedom to choose...
I was most disappointed when both Bush and Blair were returned to office. Ones a snake and the other a bafoon, but both lied to their voters and have gotten away with it.

Isn't it a little funny to define democracy in one line and then blast voters who didn't vote for the guy you liked?

And isn't it a bit arrogant to think that you know better than the majority of the populations of two different countries?

Says the US government and other nations actively involved in Iraq (justification perhaps)

To those of you who justify the invasion of Iraq by saying that you have brought Democracy and freedom to the Iraqi's all I can say is shame on you.

Democracy is about the freedom to choose, show me where the Iraqis chose Western style Democracy in a free and fair manner. Being told by the US what to do does not constitute freedom.

Further, if you are going to use this weak excuse for invading a nation, why has the US and Britain not invaded China, Zimbabwe and Lybia to name just a few undemocratic nations.

Its time a large number of people came to realise what some of us saw from the beginning. Its all about the economies of the US and Britain. or in one word OIL

I was most disappointed when both Bush and Blair were returned to office. Ones a snake and the other a bafoon, but both lied to their voters and have gotten away with it.

if it were about oil, woundus, then we made a pretty poor decision, because we're spending money out the yin-yang to depose saddam, bring the iraqis their vote and now try to protect them from the damn insurgents.

the "oil" argument is without, to my knowledge, valid grounds.

Says the US government and other nations actively involved in Iraq (justification perhaps)

To those of you who justify the invasion of Iraq by saying that you have brought Democracy and freedom to the Iraqi's all I can say is shame on you.

Democracy is about the freedom to choose, show me where the Iraqis chose Western style Democracy in a free and fair manner. Being told by the US what to do does not constitute freedom.

Further, if you are going to use this weak excuse for invading a nation, why has the US and Britain not invaded China, Zimbabwe and Lybia to name just a few undemocratic nations.

Its time a large number of people came to realise what some of us saw from the beginning. Its all about the economies of the US and Britain. or in one word OIL

I was most disappointed when both Bush and Blair were returned to office. Ones a snake and the other a bafoon, but both lied to their voters and have gotten away with it.



:eek: :headbang: maybe if they had the choice to choose democracy the would... and now they did, since there was elections. the shiites and kurds wwere killed daily for no reasons.... im very ashamed that you would think that they dont want democracy... what else would they want.. another corrupt dictatorship, where the ppl wouldnt be getting any aid, food, fresh water.... ANYTHING (dont get me started on the OIL-FOR FOOD SCANDAL).
anyway, if its about oil, wheres all the oil at sir? have u seen oil prices...skyhigh.. and dont give me that liberal bullshit of how bush schemes to steal all the worlds oil... it really makes no sense at all. the fact that oil prices are high have nothinig to do with bush and blair returning to office... it has to do with OPEC, and their blatant hatred of the US.. since they controll the oil. so cut the shit, learn some facts, and stop jacking off to fahrenheit 911 and michael moores picture.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

...sigh.... :eek:

its stupid liberals like this who didnt want to send our troops to europe to fight in WW2, b/c it didnt "affect us". they also wanted the jews to deal with the problem of the holocaust by themselves. you are obviously too clouded with liberal media garbage, and you think the world is full of flowers and peace and love, and think.. "hey, if we leave them alone, then they'll leave us alone".. then when something like sept 11 happens their like "i cant believe they did this to us, god i hate them, anyway, lets go back to being pussies in our little corner and let them deal with their problems"


you cant reason with these kind of people, its just better to let their generation die out slowly, until a more sensical and aware generation is grown. either that or pack them into fenced off areas with pot and guitars, and flowers and scented candles.. theylll amuse themselves to death.

Wow. Just wow.

Yes, I agree, that was a biased opinion. But your opinion is JUST as biased. You say liberals have "conspiracies against Bush," but you have conspiracies against liberals as well. Oh no, the big bad "liberal media" is spreading lies to convert people to their obviously misguided ideals.

We joined WWII because of Pearl Harbour (well actually, there is evidence to debate this, but since this evidence is brought up by liberal sources we will choose to ignore it for now). So, we were attacked, we attacked back.

Comparing Iraq to Hitler's Germany is flawed on so many levels it's not even funny. Germany invaded many countries before we even became involved in WWII.


Finally, 9/11 was not Hussein's doing! It was Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden. And, oh yeah, we haven't found Bin Laden yet! Why's that?

Well, one liberal proposal is that we really don't care that much about Afghanistan because we are greedy, and want the oil from Iraq. But, I can't use that as evidence, so I'll just leave the question in the air.



I am a far-left liberal, but if a country invaded another country and threatened the world, I would have no problem with us warring that country. Iraq did not do that. Period.

Isn't it a little funny to define democracy in one line and then blast voters who didn't vote for the guy you liked?

And isn't it a bit arrogant to think that you know better than the majority of the populations of two different countries?
Well obviously you believe that you're right in your opinion.

Isn't it a little funny to define democracy in one line and then blast voters who didn't vote for the guy you liked?

And isn't it a bit arrogant to think that you know better than the majority of the populations of two different countries?

sorry, jalula, i had you all wrong. good post.

and thanks very much for serving our country and helping the iraqis rebuild theirs

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

...sigh.... :eek:

its stupid liberals like this who didnt want to send our troops to europe to fight in WW2, b/c it didnt "affect us". they also wanted the jews to deal with the problem of the holocaust by themselves. you are obviously too clouded with liberal media garbage, and you think the world is full of flowers and peace and love, and think.. "hey, if we leave them alone, then they'll leave us alone".. then when something like sept 11 happens their like "i cant believe they did this to us, god i hate them, anyway, lets go back to being pussies in our little corner and let them deal with their problems"


you cant reason with these kind of people, its just better to let their generation die out slowly, until a more sensical and aware generation is grown. either that or pack them into fenced off areas with pot and guitars, and flowers and scented candles.. theylll amuse themselves to death.

I just think that it would be different if Iraq wanted help. I have A cousin in Iraq right now, I also have three friends who just resently joined the Army, and my husband is in the Navy, so I actually do care about whats going on, i just think that if he wanted to invade iraq he should have had a reason, instead of lying to Americans about it. I also think that he should have worried more about terrorism, like Al queda. And if your all like "oh, they have weapons of mass destruction" what is Bush doing about Korea?

Well obviously you believe that you're right in your opinion.

For the record, I didn't even state an opinion. I just hate it when folks on the left OR the right start bashing voters as being stupid and misinformed...

I just think that it would be different if Iraq wanted help. I have A cousin in Iraq right now, I also have three friends who just resently joined the Army, and my husband is in the Navy, so I actually do care about whats going on, i just think that if he wanted to invade iraq he should have had a reason, instead of lying to Americans about it. I also think that he should have worried more about terrorism, like Al queda. And if your all like "oh, they have weapons of mass destruction" what is Bush doing about Korea?

i hear the word "lie" thrown around in here and i'll assume you're all referring to WMD.

in order for Bush to have lied, he would have to have KNOWN that there were not WMDs.

being wrong about something is not the same as lying... and the key lies (pun intended.. hehe) with whether or not the person has knowledge of that which he speaks.

For the record, I didn't even state an opinion. I just hate it when folks on the left OR the right start bashing voters as being stupid and misinformed...


All hail LOGIC! Great and powerful LOGIC!

For the record, I didn't even state an opinion. I just hate it when folks on the left OR the right start bashing voters as being stupid and misinformed...
Err, I didn't mean you directly. I'll restate it:

Well one obviously believes that he/she is right in their opinion.

i hear the word "lie" thrown around in here and i'll assume you're all referring to WMD.

in order for Bush to have lied, he would have to have KNOWN that there were not WMDs.

being wrong about something is not the same as lying... and the key lies (pun intended.. hehe) with whether or not the person has knowledge of that which he speaks.

it was more of the fact that even after he didn't find any, he kept trying to find reasons to invade, like he was pulling things out of the air

in order for Bush to have lied, he would have to have KNOWN that there were not WMDs.


There is evidence now that if the Bush administration didn't exactly lie, well at least they pushed hard to get the answers they wanted; like cigarette companies sponsoring cancer research...

i hear the word "lie" thrown around in here and i'll assume you're all referring to WMD.

in order for Bush to have lied, he would have to have KNOWN that there were not WMDs.

being wrong about something is not the same as lying... and the key lies (pun intended.. hehe) with whether or not the person has knowledge of that which he speaks.

Even if that's the case, how does that in any way make it more justifiable?

Assuming that Bush truly did believe Iraq had WMDs (I dunno whether he did or not, but I'll concede in this case that he probably did), how does that justify rushing in to war without gaining any more information?


If we suddenly got intelligence that Iran had nuclear weapons that it planned to use asap, would we invade? No, we'd try to verify the information first.

It is the rush in to war that really gets to me with this argument.

That's because he copied and pasted the address from another thread by just highlighting it instead of by using 'copy link location', so he ended up with the middle characters cut out.
Or at least that's what it looks like to me.
yeah thats what I did exactly

Yes, I agree, that was a biased opinion. But your opinion is JUST as biased. You say liberals have "conspiracies against Bush," but you have conspiracies against liberals as well. Oh no, the big bad "liberal media" is spreading lies to convert people to their obviously misguided ideals.

We joined WWII because of Pearl Harbour (well actually, there is evidence to debate this, but since this evidence is brought up by liberal sources we will choose to ignore it for now). So, we were attacked, we attacked back.

Comparing Iraq to Hitler's Germany is flawed on so many levels it's not even funny. Germany invaded many countries before we even became involved in WWII.


Finally, 9/11 was not Hussein's doing! It was Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden. And, oh yeah, we haven't found Bin Laden yet! Why's that?

Well, one liberal proposal is that we really don't care that much about Afghanistan because we are greedy, and want the oil from Iraq. But, I can't use that as evidence, so I'll just leave the question in the air.



I am a far-left liberal, but if a country invaded another country and threatened the world, I would have no problem with us warring that country. Iraq did not do that. Period.


1) wasnt comparing hitler to saddam, just a comparing of situations where liberals dont want to "get involved"
2)i know 9/11 wasnt saddams doing...you really have to learn how to read, it was a comparison, not a direct action. it was a hypothetical situation with an actual postulate.
3)we havent found bin-laden b/c there are thousands of caves on teh afghan/pakistan border... (and also a joke: thousands of taxis in NYC where he can be posing as a driver)
4)and you were right, you cant use the evidence that we went for oil, because there is no evidence. there is no proof, just opinions from bush haters.
5)iraq didnt have to invade anyone, by attacking preemptively, we prevented a future attack... he violated the UN for 12+ years, hes made a fool of the entire world, and Bush gave him an ultimatum to show proof that he has no weapons.... yea saddam wiped his ass with the ultimamtum, so we wiiped his ass out of power... its very simple why we went in, and it makes perfect sense... if you want to wait for us to be attacked rather than take heed of warning signs, and proof and biological weapons and long range missiles, then you are very naive, and im afraid very stupid. better to deal with a problem before it becomes too much of a problem to handle... look @ north korea, they have nukes... so we cant do shit except "talk" with them..and those arent getting anywhere... if saddam was in the position, he could easily take opec over, and we would be in some mess. .... so a resounding: :headbang: : from me to you, and your unsensical mentality.

Yep. Shows a bit of shoddy work and trolling.
people are allowed to criticize der fuhrer

i just think that if war is nessesary, then fine. The war on terrorism is ok with me, but what did Iraq itself do to America? We also complain about money and funding(we as in many many americans, including myself) This country is in the deficate, we are flat broke, have been flat broke, so how could we aford to go blow a country up(not literally) and then piece it back together. I think that the war would have been justified if there was a solid reason behind it.

Well, I agree, the Iraq War was (and is being) poorly executed.

But, to blame this solely on Bush is far from correct. Of course, Bush played a big role, but the whole administration owns a share in the blame.


I personally believe that Bush is a moron (for lack of a better word), and I think it was just plain dumb of us to elect based on morals (though this isn't really the whole story).

But, come on, doesn't intelligence play a factor in the presidency?



Regardless, in both this and your last thread, you are personally attacking and blaming Bush for things that are obviously not (completely) his fault.

So, stop trolling please.
Bush is the President so whether hes a moron or not he ultimately takes the blame for all the failures of policy. Thats not trolling thats a fact

1) wasnt comparing hitler to saddam, just a comparing of situations where liberals dont want to "get involved"
2)i know 9/11 wasnt saddams doing...you really have to learn how to read, it was a comparison, not a direct action. it was a hypothetical situation with an actual postulate.
3)we havent found bin-laden b/c there are thousands of caves on teh afghan/pakistan border... (and also a joke: thousands of taxis in NYC where he can be posing as a driver)
4)and you were right, you cant use the evidence that we went for oil, because there is no evidence. there is no proof, just opinions from bush haters.
5)iraq didnt have to invade anyone, by attacking preemptively, we prevented a future attack... he violated the UN for 12+ years, hes made a fool of the entire world, and Bush gave him an ultimatum to show proof that he has no weapons.... yea saddam wiped his ass with the ultimamtum, so we wiiped his ass out of power... its very simple why we went in, and it makes perfect sense... if you want to wait for us to be attacked rather than take heed of warning signs, and proof and biological weapons and long range missiles, then you are very naive, and im afraid very stupid. better to deal with a problem before it becomes too much of a problem to handle... look @ north korea, they have nukes... so we cant do shit except "talk" with them..and those arent getting anywhere... if saddam was in the position, he could easily take opec over, and we would be in some mess. .... so a resounding: :headbang: : from me to you, and your unsensical mentality.

America no has weapons that are robot, they have a specific target and can stay in one place fore a decade and wait for that one specific target, also all the other technolidgy we have, if a doctor can see inside a persons body without cutting them open, why can't we send a camera to search in caves

Bush is the President so whether hes a moron or not he ultimately takes the blame for all the failures of policy. Thats not trolling thats a fact

Granted, but this is a WAR, not a police action, so the Congress declared it, not the pres...

And if your all like "oh, they have weapons of mass destruction" what is Bush doing about Korea?

Bush seems to be just cleaning out the middle-east and ignoring everthing else. I mean, it backs China, who is threatening countries who the USA should see to be more democratic etc etc (Tiwan). Chinda has WMDs, so does Nth Korea, China, Iran, ISRAEL etc etc, so what happens to them?

Why did the USA support the unprovoked invasion of East Timor? Why doesn't the USA care about the great atrocities that happen all over the word everyday - tens of thousands dieing of preventable diseases, people being gunned down in the street in Bush's own country, student killing sprees in schools, the fact that on average a drug user spends more time in prison, on average, than a mass murderer, a pidophile, a rapist etc etc? If the USA is so sure about Capital Punishment, why is the most common cause of death on Death Row natural causes?

I would have far more respect for the USA if they soughted out their own problems before messing with other peoples.

Bush seems to be just cleaning out the middle-east and ignoring everthing else. I mean, it backs China, who is threatening countries who the USA should see to be more democratic etc etc (Tiwan). Chinda has WMDs, so does Nth Korea, China, Iran, ISRAEL etc etc, so what happens to them?

Why did the USA support the unprovoked invasion of East Timor? Why doesn't the USA care about the great atrocities that happen all over the word everyday - tens of thousands dieing of preventable diseases, people being gunned down in the street in Bush's own country, student killing sprees in schools, the fact that on average a drug user spends more time in prison, on average, than a mass murderer, a pidophile, a rapist etc etc? If the USA is so sure about Capital Punishment, why is the most common cause of death on Death Row natural causes?

I would have far more respect for the USA if they soughted out their own problems before messing with other peoples.

i agree with you completely

Ehm, has a link between Saddam Hussein and millions of oppressed iraqis been found yet?

Yes.

Did we do something about it?

Yes, we took out Saddam and gave the Iraqis their first free vote in a half-century.

And Iraq does have Al Qaeda cells.
why would America all of a sudden care about democracy in Iraq when American foreign policy for decades has been to subvert democracys abroad?Youre saying we had a 360 degree change in policy for only Iraq and only for Saddam? Why would that be the case? I suppose its just a coincidence that Iraq has oilwells and that Bush had Ahmed Chalabi put in as the oil minister to prevent Iraqis from nationalizing the oil wells--yeah just a coincidence Im sure
and yeah Iraq does have Al queda cells NOW--after Bush invaded and made Iraq a major terrorist recruitment capital

I would have far more respect for the USA if they soughted out their own problems before messing with other peoples.

Unlike NS, real countries HAVE to deal with every issue at once - if we turned our back on the world until our own house was in order, the world would never hear from us again...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

...sigh.... :eek:

its stupid liberals like this who didnt want to send our troops to europe to fight in WW2, b/c it didnt "affect us". they also wanted the jews to deal with the problem of the holocaust by themselves. you are obviously too clouded with liberal media garbage, and you think the world is full of flowers and peace and love, and think.. "hey, if we leave them alone, then they'll leave us alone".. then when something like sept 11 happens their like "i cant believe they did this to us, god i hate them, anyway, lets go back to being pussies in our little corner and let them deal with their problems"


you cant reason with these kind of people, its just better to let their generation die out slowly, until a more sensical and aware generation is grown. either that or pack them into fenced off areas with pot and guitars, and flowers and scented candles.. theylll amuse themselves to death.

Okay, let's try this again.

1) I like how you didn't respond to the point that you are obviously being biased as well.
2) I hope you are not assuming all liberals are the same. It seems that way, but you also did say "liberals like this," showing sensibility
3) "Hey, if we leave them alone, then they'll leave us alone." Well, this is actually likely true. The thing is, Al Qaeda believed that we weren't leaving them alone. I'm not saying it's undoubtedly true, though.
4) When you say "something like sept 11 happens" you seem to be missing the point. Iraq is a country. It would be stupid for Iraq to do "something like sept 11," because that would obviously provoke a war. Only rogue terrorist groups spread throughout many countries would do this.
5) Finally, what is the reason for going to war with Iraq? I'd like to know the specific reason that you believe we did.

i see this link

1st president Bush-------Desert Storm
president clinton--------no war in Iraq
2nd president Bush--------War "In" Iraq

I say "In" because if it was an actual "war in Iraq" it wouldn't involve U.S. troops. It would be strictly Iraq. Just like WWI and WWII, wasn't a war "in" other countries, because everyone was involved. Wasn't The War "In" Vietnam, it was the Vietnam War.

do you people honestly believe that saddam didnt have the capability to make nuclear weapons, if not already having them. Are you that naive to believe that he has turned UN weapons inspectors back at the border hundeds of times in the past 12 or so years, that he has failed to show proof of the destruction of the weapons, and has been known to already posses chemical weapons and long range missiles?

it is obvious that he had-at least-the capability to make the weapons sometime within the next year or so. and if you ask me, its better to strike pre-emptively, then wait for a large attack on the US, and then go to war. BTW, Israeli intelligence reports (some of the most accurate b/c they have some of the best technology, weaponry, and intelligence in the world) says that a week before the US went into IRAQ, they spotted a motorcade of large-material carrying cargo trucks, into Syria. I wouldnt be surprised that within 10 years we will probably go to syria in some sort of war (since it seems to be the pattern of US involvement in the middle east), and find all of saddams stash there.

Anyway, that was justification enough for going to Iraq. justification for Afghanistan is common knowledge. Justification for staying in IRaq was to free the oppressed people (kurds and shiites) from the minority Sunnis. Now we are there to set up a govt. that promotes domocracy in the middle east, and training their military so we can get the hell out of there (and hey, we can start a new war too!)

im also sick of hearing all these dick cheney conspiracies. He gets money from Haliburton, and its called pension, b/c he used to work there. And im sick of this crap about how we only went for oil. have u seen gasoline prices lately!?!? theyre skyrocketing, and we dont have oil. They crazy liberals came up with their own scheme here, of how the big bad govt and large corporate business heads are controlling the oil. This is where haliburton comes in.. and the crazies say that haliburton is taking all of the oil for itself and keeping the moeny made. to this i say, 'for the love of god stop your ranting about nonsense'. might i remind you that haliburton's only use for oil, is the trasporting and trade of the oil... they are not an oil company who sells gasoline. next, haliburton is a multifaceted company that also packages the foods that soldiers eat, makes and distributes the weapons, makes the uniforms suits and other equipment... they this is to clear up the misconception that haliburton is a oil-roving tool of the govt. and somehow george bush is behind some plot to plan the downfall of american democracy, while making a hefty sum.

Another interesting random fact for the crazy liberals who still arent over the whole kerry for president thing (and i know youre still out there): Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame). Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes (always democrats) obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
thats totally false--Saddam complied with the weapons inspectors and Bush undermined the weapons inspectors because he knew theyd come back with an answer he didnt want to hear--which is that Iraq didnt have any WMDS nor the capability of building any in the near future. Thats why Bush had such a mad rush to invade Iraq -he knew all his official reasons for doing it were all lies lies lies and he continues to lie

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

...sigh.... :eek:

its stupid liberals like this who didnt want to send our troops to europe to fight in WW2, b/c it didnt "affect us". they also wanted the jews to deal with the problem of the holocaust by themselves. you are obviously too clouded with liberal media garbage, and you think the world is full of flowers and peace and love, and think.. "hey, if we leave them alone, then they'll leave us alone".. then when something like sept 11 happens their like "i cant believe they did this to us, god i hate them, anyway, lets go back to being pussies in our little corner and let them deal with their problems"


you cant reason with these kind of people, its just better to let their generation die out slowly, until a more sensical and aware generation is grown. either that or pack them into fenced off areas with pot and guitars, and flowers and scented candles.. theylll amuse themselves to death.
meanwhile the unarmed and totally helpless Iraq was a threat to exactly NO ONE

thats totally false--Saddam complied with the weapons inspectors and Bush undermined the weapons inspectors because he knew theyd come back with an answer he didnt want to hear--which is that Iraq didnt have any WMDS nor the capability of building any in the near future. Thats why Bush had such a mad rush to invade Iraq -he knew all his official reasons for doing it were all lies lies lies and he continues to lie

That's flat out wrong. Bush rigged the intelligence system to get the results he wanted, true, but former Saddam loyalists have said repeatedly that Saddam tried to maintain the illusion of having WMDs, either to try and give himself clout in the region or to try and ward off a US attack.
I don't think we should have invaded, but let's not reinterpret history to make Saddam ut as a victim. The dude was, in every way, a Schmuck.

the sad thing is that if President Bush had decided not to send troops to help the people of iraq gain their freedom, the liberals would be blasting him for not helping Iraq in their time of need.

lmao

they just blindly hate President Bush, and no matter what he does, they'll play devil's advocate.
no liberal I know wouldve criticized Bush for not inventing lies to preemptively invade a country that posed a threat to no one

That's flat out wrong. Bush rigged the intelligence system to get the results he wanted, true, but former Saddam loyalists have said repeatedly that Saddam tried to maintain the illusion of having WMDs, either to try and give himself clout in the region or to try and ward off a US attack.
I don't think we should have invaded, but let's not reinterpret history to make Saddam ut as a victim. The dude was, in every way, a Schmuck.

I agree wholeheartedly. Which is also why I believe the concept that Iraq was a threat to anybody but itself doesn't hold up.

1) wasnt comparing hitler to saddam, just a comparing of situations where liberals dont want to "get involved"
2)i know 9/11 wasnt saddams doing...you really have to learn how to read, it was a comparison, not a direct action. it was a hypothetical situation with an actual postulate.
3)we havent found bin-laden b/c there are thousands of caves on teh afghan/pakistan border... (and also a joke: thousands of taxis in NYC where he can be posing as a driver)
4)and you were right, you cant use the evidence that we went for oil, because there is no evidence. there is no proof, just opinions from bush haters.
5)iraq didnt have to invade anyone, by attacking preemptively, we prevented a future attack... he violated the UN for 12+ years, hes made a fool of the entire world, and Bush gave him an ultimatum to show proof that he has no weapons.... yea saddam wiped his ass with the ultimamtum, so we wiiped his ass out of power... its very simple why we went in, and it makes perfect sense... if you want to wait for us to be attacked rather than take heed of warning signs, and proof and biological weapons and long range missiles, then you are very naive, and im afraid very stupid. better to deal with a problem before it becomes too much of a problem to handle... look @ north korea, they have nukes... so we cant do shit except "talk" with them..and those arent getting anywhere... if saddam was in the position, he could easily take opec over, and we would be in some mess. .... so a resounding: :headbang: : from me to you, and your unsensical mentality.
Learn some history bobby, the conservatives were the isolationists in the 1940's senate. Isolationism tends to be a conservative trait.

Oh, and Saddam, oddly enough, was complying with all UN resolutions. Just we thought that he wasn't. We were wrong.

if it were about oil, woundus, then we made a pretty poor decision, because we're spending money out the yin-yang to depose saddam, bring the iraqis their vote and now try to protect them from the damn insurgents.

the "oil" argument is without, to my knowledge, valid grounds.
if Iraq wasnt an oil producing nation we wouldnt even be having this discussion-its ALL about the oil and reconstruction contracts and big business and really nothing at all to do with democracy at all

meanwhile the unarmed and totally helpless Iraq was a threat to exactly NO ONE

Man, I never thought I would be defending Bush.
Saddam a threat to no one? Whoa. I am a soldier in Iraq, stationed on the green line between populations that are predominately arab and kurd. Saddam was at LEAST a threat to huge segments of his own population.
Further, there was no space of greater than 6 months between the end of the Gulf War and OIF where Saddam didn't violate the no fly zone by targeting coalition planes with anti aircraft batteries.
Saddam sucked. He was a bad dude. Iraq was never unarmed and helpless.

i dont know if this has been said yet, but an internal white house memo has leaked out. it said that bush KNEW that reports op WMD in Iraq were being falsified to justify an invasion of Iraq. if its been said before, im truly sorry.

Some of you need to learn to read and comprehend

I never said the Iraqis didn't want democracy, I said western style democracy, its a fine point I know, but its important.

No matter how you choose to justify the war in Iraq, the invasion was an act of agression. The end result of which is a loss of life. While I feel for the families of every service man and woman who is killed in Iraq, my greatest sympathy must go to the citizens of Iraq killed by, to them, foreign invaders. The US and Britain are the agressors in this case and I personally find this very sad.

Oh and as to my oil comment, who said that money isn't being made by western and especially US companies in Irag. You don't think they are rebuilding all that damage for free do you? It may be costing you and I, the tax payer, a great deal of money, but please try see the big picture. Iraq is making some people a lot of money.

At Jalula re-read my post, I stated a personal opinion on the outcome of the elections and gave a reason for my opinion. Never once did I bash any voters for their views or beliefs or call them stupid for voting as they did. Yes I am clearly a liberal with strong views on the war in Iraq, but I have never and will never bash someone else's views or beliefs. Politicians on the otherhand are fair game.

To the service me and women now serving in Iraq and to the family of those serving in Irag. I hope everyone come home safe and sound

That's right. I said it. Bush was right to go to war with Iraq.

First of all, for you people who say that there was no Al Qaida connection, I pose one question to you: Did there have to be? Are you naive enough to think that the only group of people capable of committing terrorist acts is Al Qaida? This is not the War on Al Qaida that we are engaged in. This is the War on Terror ! Now let's look at it from a common sense standpoint:

The following are undisputed FACTS that even liberal extremist Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) agrees with:
1. Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons at the end of the first Gulf War.
2. Saddam has agressively sought after materials for nuclear weapons.
3. Saddam has financial ties to terrorist networks.
4. Saddam does not like the United States.

Many people forget that the point of weapons inspections is VERIFICATION. Many people get the notion that UN weapons inspectors are kind of like Inspector Gadget, going on a wild goose chase and hoping to find WMD. The UN weapons inspectors were shut out of Iraq and Clinton was fine with that. So when the weapons inspectors recently went back TO VERIFY THAT THE WEAPONS HAD BEEN DESTROYED, NOT TO FIND THEM, and Iraq COULD NOT PROVE that the weapons had been destroyed, what does that mean? That means he is either hiding the weapons or hiding where he sent them! Weapons do not just disappear! Our intelligence now tells us that the WMD are not there, which DOES NOT MEAN they were not there in the first place because THAT is why the inspectors went back! To VERIFY! Therefore, the weapons are in another country.

Now let us look at it from President Bush's standpoint. You know that he had weapons and you know he has not destroyed them. He is defiant and has showed ill will for the United States. So Bush goes to the UN, gets the resolution PASSED because everyone AGREES that Saddam needs to VERIFY the destruction.

So Saddam then remains defiant. We have the resolution. What are we supposed to do? Close our eyes and hope for the best? Well that is good liberal doctrine, but it is not sound doctrine. Bush went to war because it was the right thing to do and it made sense. I would be AFRAID to have a leader who WOULDN'T go to war with such strong evidence staring him in the face!

The fault here is with the intelligence that said the weapons were still inside Iraq. As we know now, they are out there somewhere, but they are not in Iraq. Don't fault President Bush for that. Fault the intelligence.

The war has worked beautifully. It is having a democritization effect on other nations in the region. Yes we have suffered almost 2,000 casualties, but that is a price worth paying to free the Iraqis from that tyranny. It is a far cry from Vietnam where we lost TENS of thousands! Everybody feels greatly disheartened when they think of over 200,000 lost in the tsunami. Well Saddam's oppressive regime killed almost TWICE that many! Where is the justice you bleeding heart liberals??

MY POINTS:
1) This is the war on TERROR, not the war on Al Qaida
2) Bush did not lie.
3) The war was noble and just.

And those of you who are so caught up in the Al Qaida-Saddam connection, don't forget that Bush only claimed that in one MINOR area. When he cited his reasons for war, the primary focus was WMD, not Al Qaida. He mentioned ONE Al Qaida connection that was shaky. So don't go twisting his intentions. A terrorist is a terrorist, and the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

- A Conservative, Rational Voice from Alabama

oh, And Under Bobby, i am not a liberal, i'm just opinionated, just because someone shares views with another type of political party. I also share views with democrats, republicans, and i share religeous beliefs with babtists, catholics, jews, and wiccans, so just because you agree on one aspect with certain people, doesn't make you labeled in that catogory. I'm not saying anythings wrong with any type of belief, whether political or religious, just that it's wrong to label someone you don't know in a specific category without knowing the whole truth about that person

:eek: :headbang: maybe if they had the choice to choose democracy the would... and now they did, since there was elections. the shiites and kurds wwere killed daily for no reasons.... im very ashamed that you would think that they dont want democracy... what else would they want.. another corrupt dictatorship, where the ppl wouldnt be getting any aid, food, fresh water.... ANYTHING (dont get me started on the OIL-FOR FOOD SCANDAL).
anyway, if its about oil, wheres all the oil at sir? have u seen oil prices...skyhigh.. and dont give me that liberal bullshit of how bush schemes to steal all the worlds oil... it really makes no sense at all. the fact that oil prices are high have nothinig to do with bush and blair returning to office... it has to do with OPEC, and their blatant hatred of the US.. since they controll the oil. so cut the shit, learn some facts, and stop jacking off to fahrenheit 911 and michael moores picture.
why would Bush be fighting a war for democracy in Iraq when he does everything in his power to subvert it in America? get real

I agree wholeheartedly. Which is also why I believe the concept that Iraq was a threat to anybody but itself doesn't hold up.
And I agree with you, too - but we didn't know it. The situation is like a cop shooting a kid with a toy gun; bad, but not the cop's fault.
(Granted, here we are talking about a trigger happy cop itching to kill some gang kid and looking for a reason, but still maybe not the cop's fault.)

i dont know if this has been said yet, but an internal white house memo has leaked out. it said that bush KNEW that reports op WMD in Iraq were being falsified to justify an invasion of Iraq. if its been said before, im truly sorry.

you obviously didnt read my post b4 posting that bush was right to go to war with iraq :rolleyes:

if Iraq wasnt an oil producing nation we wouldnt even be having this discussion-its ALL about the oil and reconstruction contracts and big business and really nothing at all to do with democracy at all

iraq only supplied 3% of americas oil

and thanks very much for serving our country and helping the iraqis rebuild theirs
but theyre not rebuilding theirs--Dick Cheney gave all those jobs to Halliburton

4. Saddam does not like the United States.



MY POINTS:
1) This is the war on TERROR, not the war on Al Qaida
2) Bush did not lie.
3) The war was noble and just.

For number 4, whoopidy fucking doo. He doesn't like the US, thats not a valid reasonf or war, if it was then we'd be at war with half the world.
Prove numbers 2 and 3. Noble and just are subjective and whats noble to eyes of some are vile in the eyes of others.

am i the only one who thinks that its stupid that gas costs so much, and america is STILL MAKING CARS LESS EFFICIANT!!??

At Jalula, get off your high horse, re-read my post, I stated a personal opinion on the outcome of the elections and gave a reason for my opinion. Never once did I bash any voters for their views or beliefs or call them stupid for voting as they did. (unlike you and a few others)

Never called anyone stupid - and though you didn't directly, saying that the pres got re-elected by lying to voters is the same as saying that though YOU weren't taken in, all the rest of those poor schmucks who believed the lying politician really fell for some whoppers! Maybe that isn't calling them dumb - just asserting that you are much, much smarter.

i hear the word "lie" thrown around in here and i'll assume you're all referring to WMD.

in order for Bush to have lied, he would have to have KNOWN that there were not WMDs.

being wrong about something is not the same as lying... and the key lies (pun intended.. hehe) with whether or not the person has knowledge of that which he speaks.
Bush KNEW there were no WMDs which is why Bush prevented the weapons inspectors from proving it definitively--Bush LIED

he did no there wer no WMD. the memo pretty much says that

Oh yes, it cost nearly 2,000 American lives so far, but you never mentioned the Irai death toll. Do they not count?

Bush KNEW there were no WMDs which is why Bush prevented the weapons inspectors from proving it definitively--Bush LIED

That's totally unsubstatiated - unless you have some psychic powers we don't know about?

Granted, but this is a WAR, not a police action, so the Congress declared it, not the pres...
Bush had congress approve it under false pretenses

iraq only supplied 3% of americas oil
Which is quite good when one remembers that there was an embargo in place at the time.


This nonsence about getting oil from places really has to stop. Oil is a global market, increased supply will drive down prices no matter who it is sold to.

no, their just unknown peoples, that no one cares about. :rolleyes:


man, im on dail-up. i post, read read the response, post again, and there are already THREE POSTS between my post and the one im responding to.

That's right. I said it. Bush was right to go to war with Iraq.

First of all, for you people who say that there was no Al Qaida connection, I pose one question to you: Did there have to be? Are you naive enough to think that the only group of people capable of committing terrorist acts is Al Qaida? This is not the War on Al Qaida that we are engaged in. This is the War on Terror ! Now let's look at it from a common sense standpoint:

The following are undisputed FACTS that even liberal extremist Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) agrees with:
1. Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons at the end of the first Gulf War.
2. Saddam has agressively sought after materials for nuclear weapons.
3. Saddam has financial ties to terrorist networks.
4. Saddam does not like the United States.

Many people forget that the point of weapons inspections is VERIFICATION. Many people get the notion that UN weapons inspectors are kind of like Inspector Gadget, going on a wild goose chase and hoping to find WMD. The UN weapons inspectors were shut out of Iraq and Clinton was fine with that. So when the weapons inspectors recently went back TO VERIFY THAT THE WEAPONS HAD BEEN DESTROYED, NOT TO FIND THEM, and Iraq COULD NOT PROVE that the weapons had been destroyed, what does that mean? That means he is either hiding the weapons or hiding where he sent them! Weapons do not just disappear! Our intelligence now tells us that the WMD are not there, which DOES NOT MEAN they were not there in the first place because THAT is why the inspectors went back! To VERIFY! Therefore, the weapons are in another country.

Now let us look at it from President Bush's standpoint. You know that he had weapons and you know he has not destroyed them. He is defiant and has showed ill will for the United States. So Bush goes to the UN, gets the resolution PASSED because everyone AGREES that Saddam needs to VERIFY the destruction.

So Saddam then remains defiant. We have the resolution. What are we supposed to do? Close our eyes and hope for the best? Well that is good liberal doctrine, but it is not sound doctrine. Bush went to war because it was the right thing to do and it made sense. I would be AFRAID to have a leader who WOULDN'T go to war with such strong evidence staring him in the face!

The fault here is with the intelligence that said the weapons were still inside Iraq. As we know now, they are out there somewhere, but they are not in Iraq. Don't fault President Bush for that. Fault the intelligence.

The war has worked beautifully. It is having a democritization effect on other nations in the region. Yes we have suffered almost 2,000 casualties, but that is a price worth paying to free the Iraqis from that tyranny. It is a far cry from Vietnam where we lost TENS of thousands! Everybody feels greatly disheartened when they think of over 200,000 lost in the tsunami. Well Saddam's oppressive regime killed almost TWICE that many! Where is the justice you bleeding heart liberals??

MY POINTS:
1) This is the war on TERROR, not the war on Al Qaida
2) Bush did not lie.
3) The war was noble and just.

And those of you who are so caught up in the Al Qaida-Saddam connection, don't forget that Bush only claimed that in one MINOR area. When he cited his reasons for war, the primary focus was WMD, not Al Qaida. He mentioned ONE Al Qaida connection that was shaky. So don't go twisting his intentions. A terrorist is a terrorist, and the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

- A Conservative, Rational Voice from Alabama

My points:
1) Terror does not only exist in Iraq! Every country has terrorists. Why did we choose Iraq over arguably MORE dangerous countries?
2) Regardless of whether Bush lied or not, he rushed us in to war. It was not a thoughtful decision, it was on a whim.
3) Your definition of noble and just is far different than many others. The words "noble" and "just" imply opinion in the first place!

Regarding WMDs, and your quote "So when the weapons inspectors recently went back TO VERIFY THAT THE WEAPONS HAD BEEN DESTROYED, NOT TO FIND THEM, and Iraq COULD NOT PROVE that the weapons had been destroyed, what does that mean? That means he is either hiding the weapons or hiding where he sent them!"

Why is this logic? Could you prove if you destroyed something? The way you prove that somebody destroys something (remember, destroy means it no longer exists) is to prove that they are not there! So, then, they are looking for WMDs.

-A "Liberal does not make me more rational or correct than you, nor does the fact that I'm from Oregon" Voice

The war in Iraq is a justified, offensive war. It is not, however, a war of agression. The word "agression" has implications of injustice. The war WAS just. Many things in this world are meant to have preemptive action. If you are old, are you supposed to wait until you have a heart attack to see the doctor? If you do, it will be too late. You check for signs and use your intelligence to determine if a heart attack is eminent, and if so, you do not wait until the threat materializes, but you attack it right there!

So it is with the war in Iraq. Guess who said this:

"And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. … If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in the footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity—even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

So is that President Bush? No! That is President CLINTON in 1998! Everyone including the Democrats knew that Saddam was a threat, and to ignore that threat would be idiotic (i.e. liberal). The main reason the Democrats became anti-war was to make a power play on the Presidency. The Democrats have lost majorities in all areas of American government. They have lost a majority of the statehouses, the House, the Senate, and they lost the oval office. Their only hope of continuing to indoctrinate America in liberalism is through activist judges. They know that all they can do now to slow down America's conservative march is to OBSTRUCT in an unconstitutional fashion.

It is a far cry from Vietnam where we lost TENS of thousands!


Over 1 million Vietcong civilians were killed in the Vietnam War. It is estimated 0.16% of these civilians deaths are moral and legal. The rest were pointless acts of cold hearted murder.

Do not accuse me of being niave - I have recently been in Vietnam and seen and heard about atrocities from both sides. The intenional murder of civilians as scare tactics is the greatest crime my mind cane summon up, other than pillage and rape afterwards, oh wait, they did that too.

That's flat out wrong. Bush rigged the intelligence system to get the results he wanted, true, but former Saddam loyalists have said repeatedly that Saddam tried to maintain the illusion of having WMDs, either to try and give himself clout in the region or to try and ward off a US attack.
I don't think we should have invaded, but let's not reinterpret history to make Saddam ut as a victim. The dude was, in every way, a Schmuck.
he was a schmuck and for a long time he was our schmuck but he still had no WMDs and no chance of getting any in the short run so Bushs excuses for invading Iraq are still all total fabrications

The war in Iraq is a justified, offensive war. It is not, however, a war of agression. The word "agression" has implications of injustice. The war WAS just. Many things in this world are meant to have preemptive action. If you are old, are you supposed to wait until you have a heart attack to see the doctor? If you do, it will be too late. You check for signs and use your intelligence to determine if a heart attack is eminent, and if so, you do not wait until the threat materializes, but you attack it right there!

So it is with the war in Iraq. Guess who said this:

"And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. … If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in the footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity—even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

So is that President Bush? No! That is President CLINTON in 1998! Everyone including the Democrats knew that Saddam was a threat, and to ignore that threat would be idiotic (i.e. liberal). The main reason the Democrats became anti-war was to make a power play on the Presidency. The Democrats have lost majorities in all areas of American government. They have lost a majority of the statehouses, the House, the Senate, and they lost the oval office. Their only hope of continuing to indoctrinate America in liberalism is through activist judges. They know that all they can do now to slow down America's conservative march is to OBSTRUCT in an unconstitutional fashion.
Oh please, do point out how a 53/47 split is a 'march', and how doing exactly what Conservatives did during Clinton's presidency is unconstitutional?

-snip-
You are not explaining how it was justified or noble, you are being emotivist. I want to know your justification. And don't play the "well Clinton...." card because I'm not a Democrat.

Any life lost in a war, or anyother circumstance is tragic, but i think the reason names of iraqi people aren't posted in the us is the same reason why us soldiers aren't posted in Iraq, we don't know them, all anyone in another country is to most americans(as in people that don't know everyone that lives in other countries) numbers and statistics. If someone gave you a list of all non americans that died in this war would you sit down and read them and sympathize with each one, or only worry about who effects you. Thats why we get numbers, not names

Man, I never thought I would be defending Bush.
Saddam a threat to no one? Whoa. I am a soldier in Iraq, stationed on the green line between populations that are predominately arab and kurd. Saddam was at LEAST a threat to huge segments of his own population.
Further, there was no space of greater than 6 months between the end of the Gulf War and OIF where Saddam didn't violate the no fly zone by targeting coalition planes with anti aircraft batteries.
Saddam sucked. He was a bad dude. Iraq was never unarmed and helpless.
so your saying America has to be world cop and invade every country in the world where the leaders are bad? Or do we just do this in the oil producing countries that are easily overthrown? What about Americas history of installing undemocratic dictators in power who regularly murdered their own people? wheres the consistency?

The war in Iraq is a justified, offensive war. It is not, however, a war of agression. The word "agression" has implications of injustice. The war WAS just. Many things in this world are meant to have preemptive action. If you are old, are you supposed to wait until you have a heart attack to see the doctor? If you do, it will be too late. You check for signs and use your intelligence to determine if a heart attack is eminent, and if so, you do not wait until the threat materializes, but you attack it right there!

So it is with the war in Iraq. Guess who said this:

"And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. … If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in the footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity—even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

So is that President Bush? No! That is President CLINTON in 1998! Everyone including the Democrats knew that Saddam was a threat, and to ignore that threat would be idiotic (i.e. liberal). The main reason the Democrats became anti-war was to make a power play on the Presidency. The Democrats have lost majorities in all areas of American government. They have lost a majority of the statehouses, the House, the Senate, and they lost the oval office. Their only hope of continuing to indoctrinate America in liberalism is through activist judges. They know that all they can do now to slow down America's conservative march is to OBSTRUCT in an unconstitutional fashion.

Great calling me idiotic really does a good job of getting your point through. Thanks, I appreciate it. :rolleyes:

so your saying America has to be world cop and invade every country in the world where the leaders are bad? Or do we just do this in the oil producing countries that are easily overthrown? What about Americas history of installing undemocratic dictators in power who regularly murdered their own people? wheres the consistency?

Agreed. There have been many cases in which America has overthrown democracy and replaced it with a Dictatorship.

That's right. I said it. Bush was right to go to war with Iraq.

First of all, for you people who say that there was no Al Qaida connection, I pose one question to you: Did there have to be? Are you naive enough to think that the only group of people capable of committing terrorist acts is Al Qaida? This is not the War on Al Qaida that we are engaged in. This is the War on Terror ! Now let's look at it from a common sense standpoint:

The following are undisputed FACTS that even liberal extremist Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) agrees with:
1. Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons at the end of the first Gulf War.
2. Saddam has agressively sought after materials for nuclear weapons.
3. Saddam has financial ties to terrorist networks.
4. Saddam does not like the United States.

Many people forget that the point of weapons inspections is VERIFICATION. Many people get the notion that UN weapons inspectors are kind of like Inspector Gadget, going on a wild goose chase and hoping to find WMD. The UN weapons inspectors were shut out of Iraq and Clinton was fine with that. So when the weapons inspectors recently went back TO VERIFY THAT THE WEAPONS HAD BEEN DESTROYED, NOT TO FIND THEM, and Iraq COULD NOT PROVE that the weapons had been destroyed, what does that mean? That means he is either hiding the weapons or hiding where he sent them! Weapons do not just disappear! Our intelligence now tells us that the WMD are not there, which DOES NOT MEAN they were not there in the first place because THAT is why the inspectors went back! To VERIFY! Therefore, the weapons are in another country.

Now let us look at it from President Bush's standpoint. You know that he had weapons and you know he has not destroyed them. He is defiant and has showed ill will for the United States. So Bush goes to the UN, gets the resolution PASSED because everyone AGREES that Saddam needs to VERIFY the destruction.

So Saddam then remains defiant. We have the resolution. What are we supposed to do? Close our eyes and hope for the best? Well that is good liberal doctrine, but it is not sound doctrine. Bush went to war because it was the right thing to do and it made sense. I would be AFRAID to have a leader who WOULDN'T go to war with such strong evidence staring him in the face!

The fault here is with the intelligence that said the weapons were still inside Iraq. As we know now, they are out there somewhere, but they are not in Iraq. Don't fault President Bush for that. Fault the intelligence.

The war has worked beautifully. It is having a democritization effect on other nations in the region. Yes we have suffered almost 2,000 casualties, but that is a price worth paying to free the Iraqis from that tyranny. It is a far cry from Vietnam where we lost TENS of thousands! Everybody feels greatly disheartened when they think of over 200,000 lost in the tsunami. Well Saddam's oppressive regime killed almost TWICE that many! Where is the justice you bleeding heart liberals??

MY POINTS:
1) This is the war on TERROR, not the war on Al Qaida
2) Bush did not lie.
3) The war was noble and just.

And those of you who are so caught up in the Al Qaida-Saddam connection, don't forget that Bush only claimed that in one MINOR area. When he cited his reasons for war, the primary focus was WMD, not Al Qaida. He mentioned ONE Al Qaida connection that was shaky. So don't go twisting his intentions. A terrorist is a terrorist, and the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

- A Conservative, Rational Voice from Alabamaall the weapons inspectors agreed before the war that there were no WMDs in Iraq-but Bush only cherrypicked the manufactured fake Intel that he wanted to hear and totally ignored all the facts because he was obsessed with having a war with Iraq since DAY ONE

I can't stand reading any more of these posts, but let me weigh in with my opinion. I kind of stand with both opinions, Bush sucks, there's definintly some underhandedness going on with Cheney and haliburton (this "pension" someone talked about was something like 30 million dollars.), we probably shouldn't have rushed into this war the way we did, and it was, in part, about oil. Now we've spent 160 billion dollars on iraq, money that definintly would have been better spent at home. However, the war was not without merit. Saddam was removed from power. He was an evil man, killed thousands of his own citizens. He had chemical weapons, and was trying to get nuclear weapons. If Bush had just left that little part out of his reasons for invading, it definintly would have gone over better. If he had said, they are attempting to build them, even though we told him not to, thats one thing. But he said there WERE wmd's there. That was a plain lie, and wrong. Democracy is 100% better than what they had in Iraq. Saddam did whatever he wanted. And we did let the people vote on the democracy. The first election was to elect a group of people to decide what they wanted to do. To write a constitution and the such. Then they elected a prime minister, something america doesn't have. They went a different route than we did with democracy. Thats not forcing it down their throats.

And there have been ties in Iraq to Al Quida. One of Saddams top advisers was a member of Al Quida, or was at least sympathetic and kept in touch with high up members. I can't quite remember.

And I agree with you, too - but we didn't know it. The situation is like a cop shooting a kid with a toy gun; bad, but not the cop's fault.
(Granted, here we are talking about a trigger happy cop itching to kill some gang kid and looking for a reason, but still maybe not the cop's fault.)
its more like a cop shooting an unarmed kid then planting a toy gun in his hand after the fact--thats a better analogy in this case

so your saying America has to be world cop and invade every country in the world where the leaders are bad? Or do we just do this in the oil producing countries that are easily overthrown? What about Americas history of installing undemocratic dictators in power who regularly murdered their own people? wheres the consistency?

ok, i do somewhat agree, but disagree at the same time. Yes, the US is worried about the US, but that breaks down to each individual cares only about what enadvertantly effects them in the long run. Jalula is effected by this war because he's in it, i am because my husband is in it( in it as in a us soldier or any other type involved) i also have other family and friends in the military. But you also inadvertantly stated that once the us gets what it wants it leaves the other countries alone. we try to fix other governments, so we don't have to concentrate on our own....sorry if i made no sence, i lose myself sometimes...

your right. housing troops in iraq, killing peopple who we say are terrorists, constantly patrolling their country, they obviously set up democracy because they wanted to. i mean, im sure we wouldnt have stopped them from setting up an Empire.

iraq only supplied 3% of americas oil
it doesnt matter--Bush wants to control the oilwells in the mideast

I can't stand reading any more of these posts, but let me weigh in with my opinion. I kind of stand with both opinions, Bush sucks, there's definintly some underhandedness going on with Cheney and haliburton (this "pension" someone talked about was something like 30 million dollars.), we probably shouldn't have rushed into this war the way we did, and it was, in part, about oil. Now we've spent 160 billion dollars on iraq, money that definintly would have been better spent at home. However, the war was not without merit. Saddam was removed from power. He was an evil man, killed thousands of his own citizens. He had chemical weapons, and was trying to get nuclear weapons. If Bush had just left that little part out of his reasons for invading, it definintly would have gone over better. If he had said, they are attempting to build them, even though we told him not to, thats one thing. But he said there WERE wmd's there. That was a plain lie, and wrong. Democracy is 100% better than what they had in Iraq. Saddam did whatever he wanted. And we did let the people vote on the democracy. The first election was to elect a group of people to decide what they wanted to do. To write a constitution and the such. Then they elected a prime minister, something america doesn't have. They went a different route than we did with democracy. Thats not forcing it down their throats.

And there have been ties in Iraq to Al Quida. One of Saddams top advisers was a member of Al Quida, or was at least sympathetic and kept in touch with high up members. I can't quite remember.


This is one of the most sane posts I have seen in this thread. I believe everyone needs to take a break and read this post. It may have a couple inaccuracies, but it is mostly correct, and an (I believe) accurate view on things.


This still, however, supports the idea of us not invading (in my opinion). Saddam was not the only evil dictator in power, and as has been mentioned before, the US has done its share in instating cruel dictators in other regions of the world for easier political control.

Oh yes, it cost nearly 2,000 American lives so far, but you never mentioned the Irai death toll. Do they not count?
24,000 and counting

That's totally unsubstatiated - unless you have some psychic powers we don't know about?
a memo was just released recently that does substantiate it

My points:
1) Terror does not only exist in Iraq! Every country has terrorists. Why did we choose Iraq over arguably MORE dangerous countries?
2) Regardless of whether Bush lied or not, he rushed us in to war. It was not a thoughtful decision, it was on a whim.
3) Your definition of noble and just is far different than many others. The words "noble" and "just" imply opinion in the first place!

Regarding WMDs, and your quote "So when the weapons inspectors recently went back TO VERIFY THAT THE WEAPONS HAD BEEN DESTROYED, NOT TO FIND THEM, and Iraq COULD NOT PROVE that the weapons had been destroyed, what does that mean? That means he is either hiding the weapons or hiding where he sent them!"

Why is this logic? Could you prove if you destroyed something? The way you prove that somebody destroys something (remember, destroy means it no longer exists) is to prove that they are not there! So, then, they are looking for WMDs.

-A "Liberal does not make me more rational or correct than you, nor does the fact that I'm from Oregon" Voice



Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists. If it was such a lovely place, my friend, why was there such a strong insurgency? And it's not mainstream Iraqi PEOPLE who are committing these attacks. They have shown outstanding courage with protesting these attacks. Iraq WAS the next best choice after Afghanistan.

A rush to war??? How can you call it a rush? A preemtive war with Saddam would have been JUSTIFIED in 1999 ... over five years ago! So how long are we supposed to wait for Saddam to comply? Is FOURTEEN YEARS not long enough? That is purely irrational of you to call it a rush. That's just another liberal talking point.

Since you are a liberal, you are most likely a moral relativist. But there IS a such thing as JUSTICE and right and wrong in this world. Justice is not anyone's opinion. Justice is truth.

I recommend you read up on the UN weapons inspectors verification process. Destruction is provable. Why is it provable? Here is a little science lesson: MATTER IS NEITHER CREATED NOR DESTROYED. When you destroy a weapon, you don't just shoot it out into the Atlantic and say, "So long!" When you destroy a weapon, you have very specific byproducts from dismantling/destroying it, therefore, you can prove it. That is how the UN instructed Iraq to destroy its weapons back in 1992.

We have destroyed nuclear weapons here in the United States. Does that mean that they just go away? No! We actually have used that nuclear material as fuel for nuclear power plants! If you look at graph of amount of nuclear fuel used vs. the amount of nuclear fuel used from purchases, you will find that many countries have been destroying their nukes for fuel.

My friend, all you have done is reinforce my point. You basically said, "yes the war was justified," when you said there were other countries we could have taken offensive action against! So right now, your point is that there are more dangerous countries, which is far from a proven point.

Better luck next time

-Your good pal in Alabama

The war in Iraq is a justified, offensive war. It is not, however, a war of agression. The word "agression" has implications of injustice. The war WAS just. Many things in this world are meant to have preemptive action. If you are old, are you supposed to wait until you have a heart attack to see the doctor? If you do, it will be too late. You check for signs and use your intelligence to determine if a heart attack is eminent, and if so, you do not wait until the threat materializes, but you attack it right there!

So it is with the war in Iraq. Guess who said this:

"And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. … If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in the footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity—even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

So is that President Bush? No! That is President CLINTON in 1998! Everyone including the Democrats knew that Saddam was a threat, and to ignore that threat would be idiotic (i.e. liberal). The main reason the Democrats became anti-war was to make a power play on the Presidency. The Democrats have lost majorities in all areas of American government. They have lost a majority of the statehouses, the House, the Senate, and they lost the oval office. Their only hope of continuing to indoctrinate America in liberalism is through activist judges. They know that all they can do now to slow down America's conservative march is to OBSTRUCT in an unconstitutional fashion.Bush is losing his trillion dollar war for oil in Iraq cause it was entirely based on lies. I think those are far more destructive losses for America and the world then how a political party in America fared during the last election cycle

lets see. i posted something, then posted right away again, and there were at least 5 posts in between my post any what i was responding to. because of that, im just going to say one thing and then leave.


Bsuh knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. he invaded for 2 reasons


1)he needed to tae the attention off out horrible screwup in afghanistan for not finding bin-laden
2)he was finishing 'daddy's war'

nuff said

Agreed. There have been many cases in which America has overthrown democracy and replaced it with a Dictatorship.
Bush created total chaos in haiti by kidnapping their President and overthrowing their democracy and Bush has been actively trying to overthrow Venezuelas democracy as well--so it kinda puts a huge dent in the theory that Bush invaded Iraq for "democracy" doesnt it

ok, i do somewhat agree, but disagree at the same time. Yes, the US is worried about the US, but that breaks down to each individual cares only about what enadvertantly effects them in the long run. Jalula is effected by this war because he's in it, i am because my husband is in it( in it as in a us soldier or any other type involved) i also have other family and friends in the military. But you also inadvertantly stated that once the us gets what it wants it leaves the other countries alone. we try to fix other governments, so we don't have to concentrate on our own....sorry if i made no sence, i lose myself sometimes...
no it makes sense and I hope everything goes well for your husband--but I think US foreign policy is not geared for whats best for the American people. It seems to be run on whats best for a handful of genocidal greedy corporations that have no allegiance to any country

Ok. I only read the first and last page: The middle is drek that I can't read. But here is what really happened, and what SHOULD be obvious.

A. A civil war? Nice piece of trollwork. A civil war means that the Sunnis and Shiites are going at it. This is just an escalated insurgency. As long as that's the case, it can be detained.

B. Saddam was a threat. He began violating his treaties, as previously stated, within 6 months. He gassed his own citizens. He had chemical weapons, and he never, from the first war to when we invaded him, officially destroyed them.

This means one of two things: One is that he may have hid them in the desert. A much more likely scenario is that he sold them to other countries when he realized he was going to be invaded. This is MUCH WORSE then anything else, because other rogue nations have what he had now.

C. He had two sons, one which was just as bad as him, another which was much worse. America didn't want Iraq to turn into some sort of Monarchy of Tyranny.

D. He hated America in general, and had financial connections to various terrorist organizations--- Al Qaida or not, it's enough.

E. As a continuation for the War on Terror, George Bush needed a new battleground. He actually believed something like this would happen--- "Mission Complete" was just P.R. Unfortunately, it's gone on way too long. Ideally, everything would have wrapped up 3 months ago or so.

F. Saddam's beret just didn't work for him. Seriously.

A rush to war??? How can you call it a rush? A preemtive war with Saddam would have been JUSTIFIED in 1999 ... over five years ago! So how long are we supposed to wait for Saddam to comply? Is FOURTEEN YEARS not long enough? That is purely irrational of you to call it a rush. That's just another liberal talking point.


It was a rush because it wasn't properly organised. They waited and waited, but didn't prepare.

Ok. I only read the first and last page: The middle is drek that I can't read. But here is what really happened, and what SHOULD be obvious.

A. A civil war? Nice piece of trollwork. A civil war means that the Sunnis and Shiites are going at it. This is just an escalated insurgency. As long as that's the case, it can be detained.

B. Saddam was a threat. He began violating his treaties, as previously stated, within 6 months. He gassed his own citizens. He had chemical weapons, and he never, from the first war to when we invaded him, officially destroyed them.

This means one of two things: One is that he may have hid them in the desert. A much more likely scenario is that he sold them to other countries when he realized he was going to be invaded. This is MUCH WORSE then anything else, because other rogue nations have what he had now.

C. He had two sons, one which was just as bad as him, another which was much worse. America didn't want Iraq to turn into some sort of Monarchy of Tyranny.

D. He hated America in general, and had financial connections to various terrorist organizations--- Al Qaida or not, it's enought.

E. As a continuation for the War on Terror, George Bush needed a new battleground. He actually believed something like this would happen--- "Mission Complete" was just P.R. Unfortunately, it's gone on way too long. Ideally, everything would have wrapped up 3 months ago or so.

F. Saddam's beret just didn't work for him. Seriously.nice foxnews spin but in reality Saddam was a threat to no one and Al Queda and him were arch-enemies--Iraq NOW is more of a terrorist threat then they were before Bush made up 101 lies to invade iraq for his own devious and selfish personal reasons

F. Saddam's beret just didn't work for him. Seriously.

Or his moustache. That was just lame.

Saddam was a threat to no one
He was a threat to the Kurds, so you can't say no one.

iraq only supplied 3% of americas oil

That's past tense. America needs more oil every day, and if Iraq's in their back pocket they're going to get it cheaper and faster. Hopefully the Iraqi PM will have more spine than the British.

Or his moustache. That was just lame.

I rather liked his beard though. In a strange way, it worked for him.

He was a threat to the Kurds, so you can't say no one.
yeah well since when did the kurds mean anything to the Bush crime syndicate?

I concede that Bush had some personal reasons. But a THREAT TO NO-ONE? Are you insane? He was actively searching for nuclear material, he didn't care about his own citizens.

Iraq isn't more of a terrorist threat now, because Iraq can't attack anything but things in Iraq any more. When Saddam was in power, he could have attacked Israel, or chartered a flight to New York for a few of his friends in the Islamic Jihad (Didn't I tell you Al Queda wasn't the issue?).

Nice try, but that post was sloppy.

Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists. If it was such a lovely place, my friend, why was there such a strong insurgency? And it's not mainstream Iraqi PEOPLE who are committing these attacks. They have shown outstanding courage with protesting these attacks. Iraq WAS the next best choice after Afghanistan.

A rush to war??? How can you call it a rush? A preemtive war with Saddam would have been JUSTIFIED in 1999 ... over five years ago! So how long are we supposed to wait for Saddam to comply? Is FOURTEEN YEARS not long enough? That is purely irrational of you to call it a rush. That's just another liberal talking point.

Since you are a liberal, you are most likely a moral relativist. But there IS a such thing as JUSTICE and right and wrong in this world. Justice is not anyone's opinion. Justice is truth.

I recommend you read up on the UN weapons inspectors verification process. Destruction is provable. Why is it provable? Here is a little science lesson: MATTER IS NEITHER CREATED NOR DESTROYED. When you destroy a weapon, you don't just shoot it out into the Atlantic and say, "So long!" When you destroy a weapon, you have very specific byproducts from dismantling/destroying it, therefore, you can prove it. That is how the UN instructed Iraq to destroy its weapons back in 1992.

We have destroyed nuclear weapons here in the United States. Does that mean that they just go away? No! We actually have used that nuclear material as fuel for nuclear power plants! If you look at graph of amount of nuclear fuel used vs. the amount of nuclear fuel used from purchases, you will find that many countries have been destroying their nukes for fuel.

My friend, all you have done is reinforce my point. You basically said, "yes the war was justified," when you said there were other countries we could have taken offensive action against! So right now, your point is that there are more dangerous countries, which is far from a proven point.

Better luck next time

-Your good pal in Alabama

First, the insurgency is from terrorist training after the invasion. Not a large terrorist base prior to it. I'm not saying Iraq was a lovely place (it was horrible, actually), I'm saying there are many horrible places all over the Earth. And it is incorrect to assume that Iraq was the "most" horrible at the time. I could argue that Sudan was worse because of the genocides. Iraq was NOT the next best choice after Afghanistan, it was what Bush wanted, for whatever reason.

I call it a rush because the reports Bush had just recieved said that Iraq had WMDs, and before that idea could leave the minds of Americans (due to the inaccuracies of the reports) he used it as a reason to invade Iraq.

Justice exists because ethics exist. Ethics are necessary, but many fights have arisen just because of different ideas of "what is ethical." Justice is not truth, justice is what we today consider truth because we decided it to be that way.

I'm not ignorant when it comes to science. In fact, I'd much rather have a science debate than a political one, because as you have probably figured by now, I haven't done all my political research. In fact, one reason I'm arguing is to find out why others have their opinions.

Nevertheless, I do know that matter cannot be destroyed. But, if you just casually throw the waste of a weapon somewhere, can it "disappear?" I of course don't mean literally disappear, but could it biodegrade? Could it be covered by sand?


If you burned some of it, how could you prove the ashes were at one time weapons?

I'm sure there are answers, I'm just not aware of them.


And in no way did I say the war was justified. I said there are places that were more of a danger than Iraq. Why is it that we invaded Iraq when we could have invaded a more threatening country? Not to say we SHOULD.


Good luck!

~You're good friend in Oregon. :p

yeah well since when did the kurds mean anything to the Bush crime syndicate?
Absolutely nothing. I was just correcting your statement.

I concede that Bush had some personal reasons. But a THREAT TO NO-ONE? Are you insane? He was actively searching for nuclear material, he didn't care about his own citizens.
Funny since they found no evidence of any nuclear program there post-invasion. Truth be told, the containment policy that had been in place for the decade previous had worked well.

Iraq isn't more of a terrorist threat now, because Iraq can't attack anything but things in Iraq any more. So now its just a terrorist target. Good job. :rolleyes:

I concede that Bush had some personal reasons. But a THREAT TO NO-ONE? Are you insane? He was actively searching for nuclear material, he didn't care about his own citizens.

Iraq isn't more of a terrorist threat now, because Iraq can't attack anything but things in Iraq any more. When Saddam was in power, he could have attacked Israel, or chartered a flight to New York for a few of his friends in the Islamic Jihad (Didn't I tell you Al Queda wasn't the issue?).

Nice try, but that post was sloppy.
prior to Bushs invasion Iraq was 100% contained and de-fanged. Now Iraq is on the brink of civil war and chaos is the order of the day-Just like Bush created total chaos in Haiti.

Absolutely nothing. I was just correcting your statement.
ok :)

I recommend you read up on the UN weapons inspectors verification process. Destruction is provable. Why is it provable? Here is a little science lesson: MATTER IS NEITHER CREATED NOR DESTROYED. When you destroy a weapon, you don't just shoot it out into the Atlantic and say, "So long!" When you destroy a weapon, you have very specific byproducts from dismantling/destroying it, therefore, you can prove it. That is how the UN instructed Iraq to destroy its weapons back in 1992.


You don't store stockpiles of waste byproduct, you dump them into your nearest river. That's what the US army does.

Give it up, there is no WMD in Iraq. The question is now was their enough evidence at the time that the decision was made to envade to justify the invasion.

so your saying America has to be world cop and invade every country in the world where the leaders are bad? Or do we just do this in the oil producing countries that are easily overthrown? What about Americas history of installing undemocratic dictators in power who regularly murdered their own people? wheres the consistency?

Friends, are you forgetting what President Roosavelt and Winston Churchill claimed was the role of the United Nations back in the 1940s? They did not say it was to establish a new world order or to bring peace to the four corners of the earth. They simply said it to be a body to decide if there was a threat to the world, and then take police action. They used those exact words! FDR and Churchill said we are to take "police action." So if you are against police action, you are against FDR and Churchill.

Where did the UN go bad? Early on. The UN became awashed in the wave of moral relativism, so who were they to say was right and wrong? It has been irrelevant ever since.

And you liberal liberal liars. You Michael Moore interns! Your Al Frankenesque attempt to say that the United States has ever REPLACED democracy is a lie out of Hell (which does exist by the way). Now the United States may have fought a greater evil with a lesser evil, and removed dictators only to install new ones, but the US has NEVER removed a democracy. Name one if you can. Name a democracy.

The war was justified. If you act based upon what you very solidly believe is truth, then how is that a lie? Bush as well as most all American politicians and American citizens were convinced that the intelligence was correct. Was there any reason to doubt our intelligence? It is not approved to be sent to the President unless the CIA feels ABSOLUTELY SURE that it is correct. The CIA put their rubber stamp on it. So it was far from a lie.

I get a kick out of you liberals. You think if you keep telling each other your propoganda that it will eventually become truth! I make these points and you come firing back with, "well, bush sucks." Or Bush is a terrorist. Or America is imperialist.

I'll tell you liberals something right now. Kerry sucks, and here are FACTS for why I don't like him:
1.) He believes the UN has soverignity over the United States and he has stated this clearly.
2.) He says he believes that life begins at conception, but it's OK to kill the babies anyway.
3.) He is immensely hypocritical.
4.) When Kerry was asked by his cheif advisor what his position on an issue was, Kerry said, "Well what do the polls say? Let's do a poll."
5.) He authored a book with the American flag hung upside down on the cover.
6.) He is liberal.
7.) He is a protectionist that will sink our economy.

By the way, please recall that Bush DID finish his term in the plus column with regard to jobs created/lost. Also keep in mind that Bush has created OVER 1 MILLION JOBS since January. Our economy is roaring along.

Well I have quite enjoyed venturing into one of the popular bastions of liberal thought: the message boards. Even worse, the UK message boards! It has been great hearing your irrationality, because that just brings me more assurance that you will not be taking a majority in any part of the government any time soon! The Loony Left is alive and well in Europe and around the world, but America is Right (in more than one way).

Unfortunately, I will not be able to read the myriad of replies I'm sure I will get. I'm going to go eat a great dinner and enjoy my evening. Maybe I'll catch up with you liberals in a few days, but it has been fun!

Matt Romney in 2008!
Bush Rules! Democrats drool!

- A proud Republican from Alabama

P.S. It's good to be from America, and it's even better to be from the South. (I will check back in a few hours to see a copious amount of insensitive jokes concerning trailers and incest. Just what I expect from you Northerners who claim to be so caring and tolerant! Hah! Hypocrites.)

... Bush created chaos in Haiti?

You're just eating up what those liberals tell you, aren't you? Chaos has exhisted in Haiti for a DECADE. It's the POOREST NATION IN THE WORLD.

100% controlled and defanged? Where do you get that, Sherlock?

the US has NEVER removed a democracy. Name one if you can. Name a democracy.


Allende, Chile, 1970s. Democratically elected.

I am against the war and maintain a largelt non-interventionist foreign policy. I dislike Kerry because he's Statist in my view. I am not a liberal, I am a libertarian. When sparks fly labels do as well. I am seeing spin from both the anti's and the pro's. Lets try to make this a civil converation.

Well, a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein has been found. :p

Also, a link between Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and 9/11 has been found. :p


Amongst the two groups, no link has been found. Well, that's not technically true, because now Al-Qaeda is involved in Iraq. But that's purely because of the war, i.e. it wasn't a pre-war connection.

I will correct you. Yes, there is a link between Saddam and Osama. However, it involved Saddam trying to kill Osama.

Allende, Chile. 1970s. Would have probably alligned with Russia and become a hard-line communist government within 2 years. Sent Chile's economy into the dumper within 6 months anyway. We did what we thought was right.

Allende, Chile, 1970s. Democratically elected.
Mohammed Mossadeq, Iran, 1953

it was more of the fact that even after he didn't find any, he kept trying to find reasons to invade, like he was pulling things out of the air

My father recently returned from Iraq.

You want reasons?

1) Mass Murder
2) Human Right Violations
3) Violations of 17 UN Resolutions
4) Violation of a UN Approved Cease-fire

You want more reasons?

That's past tense. America needs more oil every day, and if Iraq's in their back pocket they're going to get it cheaper and faster. Hopefully the Iraqi PM will have more spine than the British.

Wow. You liberals like to promote illogical thinking on most all topics! Let's think for a minute. Let's pretend like we DID invade Iraq for oil. What effect would that have on the price America is paying per barrel of oil? It would drive the price down! SO WHY THE HELL IS THE PRICE OF OIL THROUGH THE ROOF? Our demand in the world oil market is UP, so WHERE THE HELL IS THE OIL THAT WE KILLED ALL OF THOSE IRAQIS FOR?

You liberals, I just employed a technique called sarcasm. Here is the fact: OIL PRICES WOULD NOT BE RISING IF WE INVADED IRAQ FOR OIL!!! So the only way you can even propose such a silly, far-left idea is if the price of oil had dropped! That's the way corporations thrive! Production costs go down, and profits go up when the price of oil is down.

Next liberal question please.

-Bama man

Allende, Chile. 1970s. Would have probably alligned with Russia and become a hard-line communist government within 2 years. Sent Chile's economy into the dumper within 6 months anyway. We did what we thought was right.

True, but it was a democracy at the time and that was what East Memphrica was asking for.

Wow. You liberals like to promote illogical thinking on most all topics! Let's think for a minute. Let's pretend like we DID invade Iraq for oil. What effect would that have on the price America is paying per barrel of oil? It would drive the price down! SO WHY THE HELL IS THE PRICE OF OIL THROUGH THE ROOF? Our demand in the world oil market is UP, so WHERE THE HELL IS THE OIL THAT WE KILLED ALL OF THOSE IRAQIS FOR?

You liberals, I just employed a technique called sarcasm. Here is the fact: OIL PRICES WOULD NOT BE RISING IF WE INVADED IRAQ FOR OIL!!! So the only way you can even propose such a silly, far-left idea is if the price of oil had dropped! That's the way corporations thrive! Production costs go down, and profits go up when the price of oil is down.

Next liberal question please.

-Bama man

Because we can't pump any of it. Production has been below pre-war levels for a bit because of the insurgency.

meanwhile the unarmed and totally helpless Iraq was a threat to exactly NO ONE

They weren't unarmed and they are not totally helpless. If they were, the Saddam wouldn't have gotten into Kuwait in 1991. BTW: That was your oil war.

If Iraq was unarmed and Helpless, we wouldn't have had troops in Saudi Arabia. Remember that we were invited by the Saudi Royal Family to defend Saudi Arabia from Hussien. If Iraq was helpless, we wouldn't have been there :rolleyes:

Friends, are you forgetting what President Roosavelt and Winston Churchill claimed was the role of the United Nations back in the 1940s? They did not say it was to establish a new world order or to bring peace to the four corners of the earth. They simply said it to be a body to decide if there was a threat to the world, and then take police action. They used those exact words! FDR and Churchill said we are to take "police action." So if you are against police action, you are against FDR and Churchill.

Where did the UN go bad? Early on. The UN became awashed in the wave of moral relativism, so who were they to say was right and wrong? It has been irrelevant ever since.

And you liberal liberal liars. You Michael Moore interns! Your Al Frankenesque attempt to say that the United States has ever REPLACED democracy is a lie out of Hell (which does exist by the way). Now the United States may have fought a greater evil with a lesser evil, and removed dictators only to install new ones, but the US has NEVER removed a democracy. Name one if you can. Name a democracy.

The war was justified. If you act based upon what you very solidly believe is truth, then how is that a lie? Bush as well as most all American politicians and American citizens were convinced that the intelligence was correct. Was there any reason to doubt our intelligence? It is not approved to be sent to the President unless the CIA feels ABSOLUTELY SURE that it is correct. The CIA put their rubber stamp on it. So it was far from a lie.

I get a kick out of you liberals. You think if you keep telling each other your propoganda that it will eventually become truth! I make these points and you come firing back with, "well, bush sucks." Or Bush is a terrorist. Or America is imperialist.

I'll tell you liberals something right now. Kerry sucks, and here are FACTS for why I don't like him:
1.) He believes the UN has soverignity over the United States and he has stated this clearly.
2.) He says he believes that life begins at conception, but it's OK to kill the babies anyway.
3.) He is immensely hypocritical.
4.) When Kerry was asked by his cheif advisor what his position on an issue was, Kerry said, "Well what do the polls say? Let's do a poll."
5.) He authored a book with the American flag hung upside down on the cover.
6.) He is liberal.
7.) He is a protectionist that will sink our economy.

By the way, please recall that Bush DID finish his term in the plus column with regard to jobs created/lost. Also keep in mind that Bush has created OVER 1 MILLION JOBS since January. Our economy is roaring along.

Well I have quite enjoyed venturing into one of the popular bastions of liberal thought: the message boards. Even worse, the UK message boards! It has been great hearing your irrationality, because that just brings me more assurance that you will not be taking a majority in any part of the government any time soon! The Loony Left is alive and well in Europe and around the world, but America is Right (in more than one way).

Unfortunately, I will not be able to read the myriad of replies I'm sure I will get. I'm going to go eat a great dinner and enjoy my evening. Maybe I'll catch up with you liberals in a few days, but it has been fun!

Matt Romney in 2008!
Bush Rules! Democrats drool!

- A proud Republican from Alabama

P.S. It's good to be from America, and it's even better to be from the South. (I will check back in a few hours to see a copious amount of insensitive jokes concerning trailers and incest. Just what I expect from you Northerners who claim to be so caring and tolerant! Hah! Hypocrites.)

Well, not that you're going to read this, because you're going away, but...


It is you who have not responded to my posts. All you have to say for yourself is that liberals are always wrong and America is always right. You also assume that you know exactly how liberals will reply, when not once have I done anything that you claim a liberal would do.

Nor do I claim conservatives are loonies. Nor do I claim conservatives are wrong. In fact, I like to hear exactly what makes them conservative.

From the looks of it, the only thing that seems to make you conservative is your hate and distrust of liberals. Well, I'm not going to sink to that level.


You made some good points in your arguments. I feel I did as well. If you can't see that, I personally believe it is you who are blind.

SO WHY THE HELL IS THE PRICE OF OIL THROUGH THE ROOF?

The price of oil is up for several reasons. One is that Iraq's output has been quite slow to come back, in no small part due to the invasion and ensuing insurgency. Another much larger factor is that there is rapidly increasing demand for oil, especially on the part of China.

Mohammed Mossadeq, Iran, 1953.

Britain helped too. Don't hear anyone blaming them.

Mohammed Mossadeq, Iran, 1953.

Britain helped too. Don't hear anyone blaming them.
Oh honestly.

Fine, the british and the US overthrew a democratically elected government in favor of a dictator who tourtured and killed many. Happy?

Because we can't pump any of it. Production has been below pre-war levels for a bit because of the insurgency.

Pardon me! I stand corrected! What convincing evidence you have presented! And what a great deal of logical sense that makes! We stole his fields but we can't pump it!

That's hilarious. I'm going to tell my friends that one!

i dont know if this has been said yet, but an internal white house memo has leaked out. it said that bush KNEW that reports op WMD in Iraq were being falsified to justify an invasion of Iraq. if its been said before, im truly sorry.

Nope and do you have proof of such because this is the first I've heard of it. If the report was true, the mainstream press would've been all over it and nothing was said on ANY network TV station.

Wow. You liberals like to promote illogical thinking on most all topics! Let's think for a minute. Let's pretend like we DID invade Iraq for oil. What effect would that have on the price America is paying per barrel of oil? It would drive the price down! SO WHY THE HELL IS THE PRICE OF OIL THROUGH THE ROOF? Our demand in the world oil market is UP, so WHERE THE HELL IS THE OIL THAT WE KILLED ALL OF THOSE IRAQIS FOR?

You liberals, I just employed a technique called sarcasm. Here is the fact: OIL PRICES WOULD NOT BE RISING IF WE INVADED IRAQ FOR OIL!!! So the only way you can even propose such a silly, far-left idea is if the price of oil had dropped! That's the way corporations thrive! Production costs go down, and profits go up when the price of oil is down.

Next liberal question please.

-Bama man
What the fuck is up with you and liberals, you act is if they are the only ones against the war and any anti-War person is a liberal...crawl out of your box of conspiracies.

why would Bush be fighting a war for democracy in Iraq when he does everything in his power to subvert it in America? get real

You get real.

Prove that he is subverting it here!

Pardon me! I stand corrected! What convincing evidence you have presented! And what a great deal of logical sense that makes! We stole his fields but we can't pump it!

That's hilarious. I'm going to tell my friends that one!
http://www.economist.com/images/20050507/CSF817.gif

Enjoy.

Bush KNEW there were no WMDs which is why Bush prevented the weapons inspectors from proving it definitively--Bush LIED

Prove the lie.

PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

The term "Conservatism" has changed a lot. In recent years, it has split into 3 different definitions--- "Neo-Conservatism", "Bush-Age Conservatism", and "Classical Conservatism".

Neo-Conservatives are generally former Democrats--- Southerners and Jews, mostly--- who jump ship to the Republicans for economic reasons. They are conservative economically, and moderate socially.

Bushites... I don't have to explain.

Classical Conservatives are generally old-style republicans who are trying to get through the age of Bush without changing their views. They are somewhat like libertarians, but with somewhat different social values.

You get real.

Prove that he is subverting it here!

Ooh, ooh, I can take this one!

The Patriot Act.

The price of oil is up for several reasons. One is that Iraq's output has been quite slow to come back, in no small part due to the invasion and ensuing insurgency. Another much larger factor is that there is rapidly increasing demand for oil, especially on the part of China.

You are right that China has contributed to rising prices in all markets and shifted the demand curve a bit, but one nation's increased production does NOT increase the price of oil per barrel by $20! If we had aquired oil in Iraq it would have at least retarded the process. We haven't seen that drastic of a spike in other markets, such as the coal market where China is demanding just as much proportionally!

Iraq's output has been slow. That's all you've got? Let's use statistics here! Iraq is responsible for a measly 3% of the world's oil supply. They are still producing, and even if it is at a lower level, it would hardly put a dent it production. Russia and Saudi Arabia own most of the world's oil reserves and adjusting their production would be quite significant.

Roll tide.

What the fuck is up with you and liberals, you act is if they are the only ones against the war and any anti-War person is a liberal...crawl out of your box of conspiracies.

Agreed! He makes some good points, but then he turns and blames everything wrong on liberals.

I may have more of an inkling to converse with him if he was not so utterly biased and prejudiced.

24,000 and counting

Compared to hundreds of thousands under Saddam?

it doesnt matter--Bush wants to control the oilwells in the mideast

If this was true then why is America paying 2.00+ a gallon? If your statement held any gram of truth then why aren't we in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait for that matter?

What is with you... people... (See? I didn't say liberals.) and the patriot act? (And don't you dare paraphrase the message there.) Before the patriot act, the intelligence agencies WEREN'T INTELLIGENCING. Now they are. Ends/Means, this sort of thing is nessicary in our current world.

a memo was just released recently that does substantiate it

Prove the memo!

Compared to hundreds of thousands under Saddam?
so are we gonna invade China next? they kill far more of their own people

You are right that China has contributed to rising prices in all markets and shifted the demand curve a bit, but one nation's increased production does NOT increase the price of oil per barrel by $20! If we had aquired oil in Iraq it would have at least retarded the process. We haven't seen that drastic of a spike in other markets, such as the coal market where China is demanding just as much proportionally!

Iraq's output has been slow. That's all you've got? Let's use statistics here! Iraq is responsible for a measly 3% of the world's oil supply. They are still producing, and even if it is at a lower level, it would hardly put a dent it production. Russia and Saudi Arabia own most of the world's oil reserves and adjusting their production would be quite significant.

Roll tide.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

Iraq has the second largest amount of proven oil reserves. About half that of Saudi Arabia, and far in excess of Russia.

And yes, China, India, and the US, along with the 'terror premium' have been messing with the markets badly.

You are right that China has contributed to rising prices in all markets and shifted the demand curve a bit, but one nation's increased production does NOT increase the price of oil per barrel by $20! If we had aquired oil in Iraq it would have at least retarded the process. We haven't seen that drastic of a spike in other markets, such as the coal market where China is demanding just as much proportionally!

Iraq's output has been slow. That's all you've got? Let's use statistics here! Iraq is responsible for a measly 3% of the world's oil supply. They are still producing, and even if it is at a lower level, it would hardly put a dent it production. Russia and Saudi Arabia own most of the world's oil reserves and adjusting their production would be quite significant.

Roll tide.

So wait, are you supporting the liberals now? Iraq is responsible for only 3% of the worlds oil supply. So if we were doing it for our own good, of course the oil prices wouldn't fall here in America. Especially when China's usage has drastically increased (it is the most populated country on earth BY FAR)!

so are we gonna invade China next? they kill far more of their own people
No. Because they might actually beat us. Don't be naive.

Bush created total chaos in haiti by kidnapping their President and overthrowing their democracy and Bush has been actively trying to overthrow Venezuelas democracy as well--so it kinda puts a huge dent in the theory that Bush invaded Iraq for "democracy" doesnt it

That's Aristad's story and not very believable considering he asked us to help him leave. And yes that's a fact.

Ends/Means, this sort of thing is nessicary in our current world.
Is it now? Surely not in all cases.

... Bush created chaos in Haiti?

You're just eating up what those liberals tell you, aren't you? Chaos has exhisted in Haiti for a DECADE. It's the POOREST NATION IN THE WORLD.

100% controlled and defanged? Where do you get that, Sherlock?
Bush kidnapped Haitis President

Iraq's output has been slow. That's all you've got? Let's use statistics here! Iraq is responsible for a measly 3% of the world's oil supply. They are still producing, and even if it is at a lower level, it would hardly put a dent it production. Russia and Saudi Arabia own most of the world's oil reserves and adjusting their production would be quite significant.

Roll tide.

Firstly, Iraq has the largest oil fields outside of Saudi Arabia, with Kuwait close behind. The assumption that Russia owns a large amount of oil reserves is horrendously misguided; they have oil fields, but nowhere near on par with the three countries listed above.
Secondly, prices fly up when demand outpaces supply. Basic economics. Now, there was just enough oil production to match demand beforehand. However, the invasion essentially halted Iraq's output for over a year. The other oil-exporting nations, especially Saudi Arabia, have responded by increasing output but cannot keep up with demand as many developing nations (China is the largest but still is but one of many) are increasing their demands for oil. This all works together as a sum of its parts as to why oil prices are skyrocketing.

Allende, Chile. 1970s. Would have probably alligned with Russia and become a hard-line communist government within 2 years. Sent Chile's economy into the dumper within 6 months anyway. We did what we thought was right.
but it ended up being wrong as usual

Bush kidnapped Haitis President
Ok. Yeah. Look back a page and see Cornilia's rebuttle to read exactly what I'd say.

What is with you... people... (See? I didn't say liberals.) and the patriot act? (And don't you dare paraphrase the message there.) Before the patriot act, the intelligence agencies WEREN'T INTELLIGENCING. Now they are. Ends/Means, this sort of thing is nessicary in our current world.

Simple. The Patriot Act cancels the fourth amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


It is not the new connection between the FBI, CIA, etc that we are against. It is the rights that the Patriot Act takes away in the name of safety that irritates us.

My father recently returned from Iraq.

You want reasons?

1) Mass Murder
2) Human Right Violations
3) Violations of 17 UN Resolutions
4) Violation of a UN Approved Cease-fire

You want more reasons?
yes and please give us some REAL reasons next
Bush hates the UN and doesnt give a crap about UN resolutions NEXT...

Simple. The Patriot Act cancels the fourth amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


It is not the new connection between the FBI, CIA, etc that we are against. It is the rights that the Patriot Act takes away in the name of safety that irritates us.
No it doesn't.


The fourth amendment overrules the patriot act, barring an amendment.

Bush has now plunged Iraq into a civil war
Huh?
They don't seem to be being very civil to each other at all...

but it ended up being wrong as usual
Are you just now getting around to "rebutting" my arguments? And "as usual"? Oy. Anyway, this was the Cold War. Allende was a Socialist, leaning much farther left then the "nice" socialists we have today. He was having conversations with the Kremlin already. We didn't want another Cuba, so we tried to stop it before it grew out of control.

No it doesn't.


The fourth amendment overrules the patriot act, barring an amendment.

That doesn't stop the FBI and CIA from using the Patriot Act to do just that.

No it doesn't.


The fourth amendment overrules the patriot act, barring an amendment.
If you read the last bit, you both mean the same thing, that the PATRIOT Act is bad. It's just that s/he misstated 'violates' or somthing as 'cancels'.

That doesn't stop the FBI and CIA from using the Patriot Act to do just that.
Last I checked, the FBI and CIA can't sign bills into exhistance.

Are you just now getting around to "rebutting" my arguments? And "as usual"? Oy. Anyway, this was the Cold War. Allende was a Socialist, leaning much farther left then the "nice" socialists we have today. He was having conversations with the Kremlin already. We didn't want another Cuba, so we tried to stop it before it grew out of control.
Yes, gotta love how the US marched all over Central and South America removing legitimate governments and installing puppet dictators who were far worse than the governments they replaced in the name of fighting the evil commie scurge, that makes it all justified. :rolleyes:

Ooh, ooh, I can take this one!

The Patriot Act.

How is it subverting it when you still need a W-A-R-R-E-N-T? How is it taking away from our election practices? WHat rights have been taken away with this act?

Answer:

N-O-N-E!

They weren't unarmed and they are not totally helpless. If they were, the Saddam wouldn't have gotten into Kuwait in 1991. BTW: That was your oil war.

If Iraq was unarmed and Helpless, we wouldn't have had troops in Saudi Arabia. Remember that we were invited by the Saudi Royal Family to defend Saudi Arabia from Hussien. If Iraq was helpless, we wouldn't have been there :rolleyes:
the containment of Iraq was a vast success--invading them was gross overkill that could destablize the entire region. Btw it was our troop presence in saudi arabia that made Osama target us for attack on 911. The Bush familys sleazy mideast oil politics is the roots of the terrorism against us

How is it subverting it when you still need a W-A-R-R-E-N-T? How is it taking away from our election practices? WHat rights have been taken away with this act?

Answer:

N-O-N-E!

First of all, to Pyrostan, did I say the FBI or CIA signed bills in to existance? If so, when?

You do not still need a warrent. That's my point!

Unless I misunderstand the Patriot Act, which is quite possible.

Yes, gotta love how the US marched all over Central and South America removing legitimate governments and installing puppet dictators who were far worse than the governments they replaced in the name of fighting the evil commie scurge, that makes it all justified. :rolleyes:
Good sarcasm, by the way. Anyway: I never said it was justified. Just the most justified of the governments we DID take out during the cold war.

Prove the lie.

PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT!
aside from all the former republican conservative eyewitness Bush administration members saying its true a recent memo was just released further confirming what should be obvious to all

No it doesn't.


The fourth amendment overrules the patriot act, barring an amendment.


That doesn't stop the FBI and CIA from using the Patriot Act to do just that.

---

This post strongly implies you saying that the FBI and CIA would use the Patriot act to amend the Fourth Amentment.

so are we gonna invade China next? they kill far more of their own people

I wish someone would deal with China. They need to be taken out.

If this was true then why is America paying 2.00+ a gallon? If your statement held any gram of truth then why aren't we in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait for that matter?
Bush likes high oil prices--he is in the industry afterall--Bush is tightly connected to the brutal and undemocratic regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

I wish someone would deal with China. They need to be taken out.
Take China out?


Honestly, they aren't that bad. When all is said and done it could be a lot worse. Democracy will come in time.

Bush kidnapped Haitis President

Hmmm no he didn't.

He asked us to help him get out and we obliged him. Sorry but only Aristad has said this and no one else.

Prove the memo!
try cracking a newspaper

I wish someone would deal with China. They need to be taken out.

Yes they should- if you want a nuclear holecaust. :rolleyes:

That doesn't stop the FBI and CIA from using the Patriot Act to do just that.

---

This post strongly implies you saying that the FBI and CIA would use the Patriot act to amend the Fourth Amentment.

No, no, no... sorry I wasn't more clear.

By "just that" I meant search and seizure without warrant.

That's Aristad's story and not very believable considering he asked us to help him leave. And yes that's a fact.
he disagrees and said he was definitely kidnapped and exiled against his will

yes and please give us some REAL reasons next

Mass Murder: Hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam and his hinchmen.

Human Rights Violations: Listen to those that were tortured under Saddam. Look at the Rape and torture rooms that we've found.

UN Resolution violations: If he didn't violate the 1st Resolution then why did he have 16 additional tacked on?

UN Cease-Fire: Kicking inspectors out, didn't prove that he destroyed his WMD. Had Duel use facilities, and didn't dismantle his nuclear program as stated by the IAEA recently.

Huh?
They don't seem to be being very civil to each other at all...

Touche

That doesn't stop the FBI and CIA from using the Patriot Act to do just that.

They still need a warrent. If they don't have a warrent then by law, it is inadmissable in court.

I wish someone would deal with China. They need to be taken out.
The only way that would happen is...

A. If the U.S. finished up with the War on Terror, Iraq, ect., and didn't engage in anything else for another 3 years or so.

B. If the U.S. waited for China to do something stupid (Not that hard. They do something nationally stupid about once every year and a half. Then again, this is the case for every big nation.) and then criticize them in the U.N.

C. The U.S. formed a Desert Storm I-esque Coalition--- except that the donating nations would be giving not just a small portion of their armies, but about half each.

D. We pre-emptively tactically nuke China, land, and take hold of several key cities (Hong Kong, Shanghei, and a few other ports come to mind)

E. We wait them out, cutting off their supplies. It'd be very bloody and very long, but we'd eventually reach Beijing. Soon after we'd reach surrender agreements.

It won't happen, though. China is too big, too militaristic, and too almost-democratic to be invaded.

Huh?
They don't seem to be being very civil to each other at all...
:D :D :D

First of all, to Pyrostan, did I say the FBI or CIA signed bills in to existance? If so, when?

You do not still need a warrent. That's my point!

Unless I misunderstand the Patriot Act, which is quite possible.

Which you are because you still need warrents for everything that is in the Patriot Act.

Are you just now getting around to "rebutting" my arguments? And "as usual"? Oy. Anyway, this was the Cold War. Allende was a Socialist, leaning much farther left then the "nice" socialists we have today. He was having conversations with the Kremlin already. We didn't want another Cuba, so we tried to stop it before it grew out of control.
by replacing him with a genocidal nazi

aside from all the former republican conservative eyewitness Bush administration members saying its true a recent memo was just released further confirming what should be obvious to all

Prove the memo.

You haven't stated proof of the memo you said was out there. Prove the memo.

Bush likes high oil prices--he is in the industry afterall--Bush is tightly connected to the brutal and undemocratic regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

Then why is he pushing for legislation to LOWER GAS PRICES????!!!!!

They still need a warrent. If they don't have a warrent then by law, it is inadmissable in court.

Well, I did just search through the Patriot Act, and here's what I found:

"Law enforcement officers designated or authorized by the Board or a reserve bank under paragraph (1) or (2) are authorized while on duty to carry firearms and make arrests without warrants for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States committed or being committed within the buildings and grounds of the Board or a reserve bank if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony. Such officers shall have access to law enforcement information that may be necessary for the protection of the property or personnel of the Board or a reserve bank"



It's not the power that I mistakenly believed the Patriot Act gave to the government, but hey, what do I know? ;)


By the way, here's (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html) where it is, if you are curious.

try cracking a newspaper

Wasn't in any paper either. So where's your proof.

How is it subverting it when you still need a W-A-R-R-E-N-T? How is it taking away from our election practices? WHat rights have been taken away with this act?

Answer:

N-O-N-E!
they can search your house without informing you-thats quite a breach

by replacing him with a genocidal nazi
Dammit, DP. I'm DONE with the Chile argument. Didn't you read that I didn't think it was a good thing, but the best of the worst of our removal of democratic states? STOP DREDGING.

he disagrees and said he was definitely kidnapped and exiled against his will

You have been brainwashed! I am done with you on this issue.

Still waiting for proof on your memo comment.

They still need a warrent. If they don't have a warrent then by law, it is inadmissable in court.
No, not really. Some parts of the USA PATRIOT act (yes, that's an acronym) do allow for wiretapping without a warrent when you needed one before, and roving wiretaps that can theoretically be abused to track just about everyone in contact with a suspect. Also the government can now subpoena any record without a warrent or any oversight at all, just at a whim. Not exactly comforting, no?

then can search your house without informing you-thats quite a breach
They can't arrest you without a warrent. If they could, we would officially be a police state.

"Hey, look! A muslim with shifty eyes! Git 'em!"

Do you see this happening, people?

That doesn't stop the FBI and CIA from using the Patriot Act to do just that.

---

This post strongly implies you saying that the FBI and CIA would use the Patriot act to amend the Fourth Amentment.
the Patriot Act most definitely does subvert the 4th Amendment-hes right

they can search your house without informing you-thats quite a breach

They still need a warrent. It may not be public but they still need a warrent.

You have been brainwashed! I am done with you on this issue.

Still waiting for proof on your memo comment.
Heh. We both ended arguments with Skullclique two posts in a row. Coincidence?

the Patriot Act most definitely does subvert the 4th Amendment-hes right

It DOES NOT subvert the 4th Amendment.

They still need a warrent. It may not be public but they still need a warrent.

Yep, that's what I found. They need a warrant, though it doesn't have to be "delivered" to the accused person in a "timely" manner.

Heh. We both ended arguments with Skullclique two posts in a row. Coincidence?

I think we think alike on some things but not others. Hope to catch ya in other threads. I like your style.

Yep, that's what I found. They need a warrent, though it doesn't have to be "delivered" to the accused person in a "timely" manner.

But they have a warrent thus it is not unconstitutional.

Score one for me! :D

Heh. We both ended arguments with Skullclique two posts in a row. Coincidence?

Lol, not even I agree with most of what BonePosse is saying... :rolleyes:

But they have a warrent thus it is not unconstitutional.

Score one for me! :D

Yep, as I already said, I was quite mistaken.

Lol, not even I agree with most of what BonePosse is saying... :rolleyes:

I think very few people do.

"Hey, look! A muslim with shifty eyes! Git 'em!"
*Runs*

But they have a warrent thus it is not unconstitutional.

Score one for me! :D
I declare the argument about the constitutionality of the Patriot Act OVER.

We won't get any further then this.

Let's move on. How about... the weather... in... uh... *thinks.* Canada, right now? Huh?

Yep, as I already said, I was quite mistaken.

Its rare when someone can. I'm glad we debated without the insults. Hope to debate you again soon.

I declare the argument about the constitutionality of the Patriot Act OVER.

We won't get any further then this.

Let's move on. How about... the weather... in... uh... *thinks.* Canada, right now? Huh?
Not that bad - sunny and warm but the wind is making it seem cold.

I wish someone would deal with China. They need to be taken out.
I agree

Hmmm no he didn't.

He asked us to help him get out and we obliged him. Sorry but only Aristad has said this and no one else.
only Bush said he was helping him and Bush is the only established serial liar in tha pic

I declare the argument about the constitutionality of the Patriot Act OVER.

We won't get any further then this.

Let's move on. How about... the weather... in... uh... *thinks.* Canada, right now? Huh?

Ah, the weather. By far my favourite subject (see the name? Cumulonimbus? ;) )

Which part of Canada, precicely? :p

I agree
Actually, a very funny theory about the end of the world involves the US making the first nuclear move by attacking China, then there's mass global nuclear war involving US, France, UK, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, and China.

Mass Murder: Hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam and his hinchmen.

Human Rights Violations: Listen to those that were tortured under Saddam. Look at the Rape and torture rooms that we've found.

UN Resolution violations: If he didn't violate the 1st Resolution then why did he have 16 additional tacked on?

UN Cease-Fire: Kicking inspectors out, didn't prove that he destroyed his WMD. Had Duel use facilities, and didn't dismantle his nuclear program as stated by the IAEA recently.
Saddam complied Bush lied and besides Bush hates the UN and doesnt recognize their authority--what are the REAL reasons? None of these reasons are even remotely belieavble

Ah, the weather. By far my favourite subject (see the name? Cumulonimbus? ;) )

Which part of Canada, precicely? :p

I couldn't tell!

Speaking of weather, we're about to get some major thunderbumpers here in PA.

They still need a warrent. If they don't have a warrent then by law, it is inadmissable in court.
they can still search our premises behind our backs which makes a warrent kinda moot

Prove the memo.

You haven't stated proof of the memo you said was out there. Prove the memo.
its all over the news--informed people know about it

I couldn't tell!

Speaking of weather, we're about to get some major thunderbumpers here in PA.

Ah, I see. Well, unfortunately, we don't get many thunderstorms here in Oregon. But that just makes them so much more fun when we do get them. Same with snow.

Then why is he pushing for legislation to LOWER GAS PRICES????!!!!!
prolly cause his poll numbers are in the tank

its all over the news--informed people know about it

*is irritated* Then the least you can do is provide a link, instead of runnig a circular argument.

My god.

its all over the news--informed people know about it

Obviously it hasn't been all over the news if I'm asking you about it. I watch the news all the time and receive breaking news in my email box. Nothing of the sort of thing that you have stated has crossed the lines that I follow. It also NOT in the local papers. That should tell you something.

Please tell me where you heard it and where is it linked too.

Ah, I see. Well, unfortunately, we don't get many thunderstorms here in Oregon. But that just makes them so much more fun when we do get them. Same with snow.

I'd love some thunderstorms right about now. Virginia is lacking in them, but I'll be flying back to Tokyo in a bit and there are usually some strong ones there during the summer.

prolly cause his poll numbers are in the tank

Try a different reason.

Here's a tip. ANWAR!!!!

they can still search our premises behind our backs which makes a warrent kinda moot
BP, I ENDED that topic.

Here's the point of a warrent, in case you don't know. The main purpose of a warrent is NOT to tell you that the government is about to start searching you. It's to be submitted to an unbiased judging board, and it may or may not be accepted as feasable. The warrents aren't moot: They... bah, I can't phrase this.

Anyway, just to freak you all out: They've probably been doing a lot of this secretly for years. You just now know about it.

do you people honestly believe that saddam didnt have the capability to make nuclear weapons, if not already having them. Are you that naive to believe that he has turned UN weapons inspectors back at the border hundeds of times in the past 12 or so years, that he has failed to show proof of the destruction of the weapons, and has been known to already posses chemical weapons and long range missiles?

Do you honestly believe that Saddam could make these weapons? In Desert Storm we sent Iraq back into the stone age, there was no possible way Saddam could produce such weapons in the state his country was in, no money no honey(or WMDs). Ask anyone in Desert Storm how Iraqi ended up being, they'll probably tell you the same thing I did. It's not obvious at all that he was capable of making these weapons, the only thing you can hold to him is that he probably wanted to hold such weapons. I'd quote on your other comments but I simply don't have the time at the moment, but it's obvious your just a hot headed one sided over-zealous defender of blind sided beliefs.

BP, I ENDED that topic.

Here's the point of a warrent, in case you don't know. The main purpose of a warrent is NOT to tell you that the government is about to start searching you. It's to be submitted to an unbiased judging board, and it may or may not be accepted as feasable. The warrents aren't moot: They... bah, I can't phrase this.

Anyway, just to freak you all out: They've probably been doing a lot of this secretly for years. You just now know about it.
Actually, the supreme court has generally held that the 4th amendment requires, within a set of circumstancesm, under the reasonableness clause of that amendment that you must be notifed of the warrent, and you must refuse to allow them to search before being served.

I'd love some thunderstorms right about now. Virginia is lacking in them, but I'll be flying back to Tokyo in a bit and there are usually some strong ones there during the summer.

Is that so? Am I allowed to speak a different language on these here forums?

僕は日本語を四年勉強しました。

Is that right?

Wasn't in any paper either. So where's your proof.
your prolly reading some rightwing rag--try listening to AirAmerica (airamericaradio.com) it was on the O'Franken show just this afternoon

Is that so? Am I allowed to speak a different language on these here forums?

僕は日本語を四年勉強しました。

Is that right?

I'd love to say it is, but right now i am on a public computer which seems to be lacking the software to handle kanji.

your prolly reading some rightwing rag--try listening to AirAmerica (airamericaradio.com) it was on the O'Franken show just this afternoon

I don't consider the Pittsburgh Post Gazette a right wing rag. Even the Trib isn't a right wing rag either.

As for Air America! Sorry there is only so much bs from the left I can take in one day.

I hope you listen to other sources outside of the left wing radio station that you listen too.

I'd love to say it is, but right now i am on a public computer which seems to be lacking the software to handle kanji.

Ah, well, does it handle the hiragana?

They can't arrest you without a warrent. If they could, we would officially be a police state.

"Hey, look! A muslim with shifty eyes! Git 'em!"

Do you see this happening, people?
yes--I see people being held for years without charges and ghost detainees

Ah, well, does it handle the hiragana?
No, all it will show are empty boxes.

Anyways, i'm off to get dinner. Good luck to you guys.

It DOES NOT subvert the 4th Amendment.
ok then it at least molests it

No, all it will show are empty boxes.

Ok, well, here's the roomaji:

Boku wa nihongo o yonen benkyoushimashita.

Wow, it looks so bad in roomaji :p

Actually, a very funny theory about the end of the world involves the US making the first nuclear move by attacking China, then there's mass global nuclear war involving US, France, UK, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, and China.
Yes Bush will end the world but he'll do it thru fullscale regional war in the mideast not China--but Im not saying China wont make a move at some point

*is irritated* Then the least you can do is provide a link, instead of runnig a circular argument.

My god.
I was waiting for someone else to--thanks :)