NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure that he had those atomic bombs, which he used upon his own people; thence the mushroom clouds, craters, and radioactivitiy.

Oh, wait. :eek:
:headbang: No mushroom clouds,but if you had the attention span of high speed lint you would recall the launch of scud missles,that he wasn't supposed to have,at the beginning of the war. wmd doesn't translate to nuclear:upyours:

:headbang: No mushroom clouds,but if you had the attention span of high speed lint you would recall the launch of scud missles,that he wasn't supposed to have,at the beginning of the war. wmd doesn't translate to nuclear:upyours:


amen.

:headbang: No mushroom clouds,but if you had the attention span of high speed lint you would recall the launch of scud missles,that he wasn't supposed to have,at the beginning of the war. wmd doesn't translate to nuclear:upyours:
I hate to be the bringer of bad news but odds are we've more WMD's than they have

(by the way insulting people usually doesn’t give them a high opinion of you :( )

I hate to be the bringer of bad news but odds are we've more WMD's than they have

(by the way insulting people usually doesn’t give them a high opinion of you :( )

I agree that insulting people is not called for. But as far as comparing our WMD's to Iraq's.....let me sum this up simply......WE ARE NOT ON THE SAME PLAYING FIELD AS SADDAM HUSSEIN.

The same old line...Bush is more of a threat than Saddam, the Iraqi people would be better off with Saddam, Saddam is so good......what?

wikipedia. wow.

I agree that insulting people is not called for. But as far as comparing our WMD's to Iraq's.....let me sum this up simply......WE ARE NOT ON THE SAME PLAYING FIELD AS SADDAM HUSSEIN.

The same old line...Bush is more of a threat than Saddam, the Iraqi people would be better off with Saddam, Saddam is so good......what?
Well I'm sorry, but White Phosphorus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus) sound pretty nasty.

and personally for our country claiming to be good and working to help people ever where we do some nasty shit

wikipedia. wow.

Whats wrong with wiki? Its very nearly as accurate as the encycopedia brittanica.

wikipedia. wow.
Yes it's the liberal mieda!!!1111111!!!1! 111!11One one, bias but Usually the effects of WP stay the same whether you right or left winged

Well lets compare the two. Vietnam: 59,000
Iraq : 2500

Not really the same thing huh. Even if you multiply Iraq by 10......
The actual comparison is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and you're well on your way of achieving the same impressive figures.

http://www.fornits.com/wwf/images/smiles/icon_troll.gif

White Phosphorous is being pulled into a very large scandal over there even though it wasn't.

The availiblity of WP rounds in Iraq is very slim. When we requested WP rounds for our 81mm mortars, our requests went all the way up to Brigade supply. Not even our Battalion had WP rounds to dole out - for any caliber or weapon. Also, we asked for one hundred rounds of WP. We only recieved ten. So the likly hood that they used WP on insurgents as an agent is almost nothing.

Normally, you will detonate a WP round at about 100m in the air, and let it burn to the ground illuminating the area. But if it didn't burn out completely, you can guess the effects. That is probably what happened.

Wrong. Primary objective was to secure WMDs, the main reason why we drug into the war in the first place.

I said given enough time, our dead will become comparable. You actually think we need to have 59,000 dead before we can even compare Iraq to Vietnam? As far as I'm concerned a couple thousand dead is horrible enough and is comparable.
No, the main mission was to free the Iraqi people so they could have democracy. When people arent oppressed and are free to decide their fate, they dont become terrorists, which is why we are there to stop terrorists. Allowing Iraq to be a beacon of freedom for the whole world is a noble goal. We must not forget the lessons of Stember 11th, 2001.

No, the main mission was to free the Iraqi people so they could have democracy.

The mass confusion on the reason alone is enough to tell this war is bullshit to the nth degree.

When people arent oppressed and are free to decide their fate, they dont become terrorists, which is why we are there to stop terrorists.

Just like how palestinians freely and democratically elected hamas right?

Allowing Iraq to be a beacon of freedom for the whole world is a noble goal. We must not forget the lessons of Stember 11th, 2001.

What lesson? That America is full of morons?

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?

Perhaps because some of us felt and feel that deviationism is treason.
If Dubyah is so ready to do summat about 911, then how come that there are STILL Saudis left alive, eh?

Just like how palestinians freely and democratically elected hamas right?


The Israel refugees are still being protected by the Israeli protection force so they would claim they arent "free" hence why they vote Hamas. But they arent a real democracy anyway because they arent even a country.

The Israel refugees are still being protected by the Israeli protection force so they would claim they arent "free" hence why they vote Hamas. But they arent a real democracy anyway because they arent even a country.

http://www.blackredyellow.com/bryforums/uploads/av-373.gif

No, the main mission was to free the Iraqi people so they could have democracy. When people arent oppressed and are free to decide their fate, they dont become terrorists, which is why we are there to stop terrorists. Allowing Iraq to be a beacon of freedom for the whole world is a noble goal. We must not forget the lessons of Stember 11th, 2001.

Answer me this riddle: If Iraq has been invaded and liberated, and are free to decide their fate so that they don't become terrorists..

...why are so many fighting Coaliton forces still as terrorists?

http://www.blackredyellow.com/bryforums/uploads/av-373.gif

But he does have a point, you know?
If they vote for a scumbag party, how can they claim to be democrats?

But he does have a point, you know?
If they vote for a scumbag party, how can they claim to be democrats?

It may be a scumbag party to us, but to them Hamas is a party that will give them back Palestine, get revenge on Israel, and also has good education policies. Thus, they were democratically elected.

It may be a scumbag party to us, but to them Hamas is a party that will give them back Palestine, get revenge on Israel, and also has good education policies. Thus, they were democratically elected.

And is their content democratic too, wot?

Either you oppose fundie-terrorism, or you favour it.

Unless you want to do a Galloway, and justify terrorism without justifying it - and flipflop in every interview.

Another way of saying the above is that no decent person wants truce or parley with anyone who shows the slightest hint of Hamas-tolerance.

Either you oppose fundie-terrorism, or you favour it.

They are obviously for it, hence their vote.

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?
Personally, it was not the war against Saddam that was the problem, it was the blatant lying to the public that pissed me off and the fact that there were more urgent issues to be dealt with: Dafur, Zimbabwe, Congos and Burma to name but a few. The simple fact is that Blair used WMD because the whole world knew that Saddam hade them and his back benchers would never accept a war to aquire oil or simply to remove a government that America didn't like - especially Bush who is loathed almost universally. Saddam didn't support Bin ladden, but naive Americans still think that non sense.

And is their content democratic too, wot?

Either you oppose fundie-terrorism, or you favour it.

Unless you want to do a Galloway, and justify terrorism without justifying it - and flipflop in every interview.

Another way of saying the above is that no decent person wants truce or parley with anyone who shows the slightest hint of Hamas-tolerance.

Well, their content must be democratic to an extent - Palestine has a Parliament and government. Whilst Hamas are an extremist terrorist organisation and now party, they have been legally and democratically elected by the people of Palestine. Like it or not, they wanted Hamas in, and it would seem they support terrorism; hardly surprising, given their conditions.

Well, their content must be democratic to an extent - Palestine has a Parliament and government. Whilst Hamas are an extremist terrorist organisation and now party, they have been legally and democratically elected by the people of Palestine. Like it or not, they wanted Hamas in, and it would seem they support terrorism; hardly surprising, given their conditions.

Not really disputing it.
No more than anyone living south of Mason-Dixon around 1850 had good reason to support the ball and chain.
But the thing is:
None of it alters the fact that no decent human being wants truce or parley with that lot.


The slightest sense of sympathy for those people is morally reprehensible.

In other news: I still think that 'our' Iraq-war is reprehensible, and bobo is sort of avoiding the issue.

Yes, he had used them against his own people, but not since before the first Gulf War.

Invading Iraq was a waste of resources and distracted from real threats and important missions, such as North Korea and rebuilding Afghanistan, respectively.
Yeah. I heard that Afghanistan recently got re-classified by the UN as a collapsed state, Joining Zaire, Somalia and The Soloman Islands.

http://www.blackredyellow.com/bryforums/uploads/av-373.gif
I dont see anything. What is that link supposed to be?

The slightest sense of sympathy for those people is morally reprehensible.

Yeah, sympathy for a people whose land was taken from them, whose people have been killed and starved by the Zionist agenda, and whose homes have been bulldozed is absolutely horrible!

I dont see anything. What is that link supposed to be?

Its a gif symbolizing how I would be looking at you in severe confusion after you said the post that I responded to with that link.

Yeah, sympathy for a people whose land was taken from them, whose people have been killed and starved by the Zionist agenda, and whose homes have been bulldozed is absolutely horrible!

Zionist agenda? Oh jesus...don't start that debate here, please.

Zionist agenda? Oh jesus...don't start that debate here, please.

What debate? There is no debate, thats what happened.

geogre bush wants to have fun that is why we are at war

clinton was better

geogre bush wants to have fun that is why we are at war

To be honest, I think that is sort of true. Its not that he wants to have fun, but he wants to be considered a war president. Since he didnt have a war, he started one.

he is a selfish prick who cheated just to be president

that is it

that is it


And I'm sure that explains WHY Iraq was necessary.

Note to one and all:

The war in Iraq was necessary - because slick Willie lied and cheated in Washington.

lying is what our government was built on

In other news: I still think that 'our' Iraq-war is reprehensible, and bobo is sort of avoiding the issue.
Im not avioding the issue, you are. You make crazy claims about how the war is "reprehensible" and then dont back it up.

Im not avioding the issue, you are. You make crazy claims about how the war is "reprehensible" and then dont back it up.


I haven't?
Since the war is supposed to be about 911,
I find it highly odd that the war is not being fought in...
*drum-rolls please*
Saudi-land!

Im not avioding the issue, you are. You make crazy claims about how the war is "reprehensible" and then dont back it up.
What the heck does reprehensible mean :mad:

What the heck does reprehensible mean :mad:


It means: any initiative undertaken by Dubya.

Johnson could have won the war and almost did. Tet broke the Viet Cong the bombing of the North was bleeding their resources and when Khe Sahn didn't fall ... Read Giap's (Giap thanks the anti war movement for winning the war for him) books the will to fight was the only thing we lacked to achieve victory that was WELL within our grasp. We must have the will to finish this. Even if you believe this was done under false pretenses we must no matter how ugly it gets STAY THE COURSE, failure to do so willhave profound reprocusions for the next several decades.



Johnson pulled out because he knew he couldn't win. Then the Reps tagged Humphrey with "A Vote for Humphrey is a Vote for Johnson". By the way, you left out Mcarthy and Bobby Kennedy. Nixon won on "I have a 'secret plan' to end the war." Of course it took him another 5 or six years to follow the plan. The same plan that we are following today.

I agree we could have waited or even not gone and Darfur would have been a better call...Burma would truelly have been a fiasco, ditto Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe would have fall out that that makes what is happening over Iraq look like a sneeze)


Personally, it was not the war against Saddam that was the problem, it was the blatant lying to the public that pissed me off and the fact that there were more urgent issues to be dealt with: Dafur, Zimbabwe, Congos and Burma to name but a few. The simple fact is that Blair used WMD because the whole world knew that Saddam hade them and his back benchers would never accept a war to aquire oil or simply to remove a government that America didn't like - especially Bush who is loathed almost universally. Saddam didn't support Bin ladden, but naive Americans still think that non sense.

Yes it is! especially when you drop 3 rounds he +3rds wp "shake and bake"

Much love to my 0341 brothers!

Bet you will leave the area if I call for fire with WP!


Well I'm sorry, but White Phosphorus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus) sound pretty nasty.

and personally for our country claiming to be good and working to help people ever where we do some nasty shit

Answer me this riddle: If Iraq has been invaded and liberated, and are free to decide their fate so that they don't become terrorists..

...why are so many fighting Coaliton forces still as terrorists?


Because they ( the anti - government / anti - american forces and the Jihadist and taliban and Al Queda types ) have no desire to see Iraq as a democracy. They have stated as their goal the establishment of a Taliban style Islamic Government for not only Iraq but the rest of the Moslem world...some are even crazy enough to demand this for the whole world .
Iraq is just the first battle and for them the most important one . If Iraq ever becomes a stable Democracy there cause has been set back in a major way..they can not afford to fail..almost as much as we cant . They are already set back in Afghanistan and are making a major effort to overcome that problem..if you have been paying attention you would know this also .

The people of Iraq..voted in larger numbers than their western counterparts and are trying in the face of death to form a Democracy ..
They deserve your respect..they are paying for it in blood .
But most of the bleeding hearts and bleaters ..choose to just lump it all on the US...or the devil Bush or its allies ....all in the name of " caring ' for the Iraqi people..
Well if you cared you would support the efforts of those in Iraq brave enough to do what they are doing instead of undermining their efforts or ignoring them completely...


Have you been in a coma for the last few years ? Is that how you missed this ?


BTW.............

Summary of the 15 December 2005 National Assembly of Iraq election results Alliances and parties Votes % Seats Gain/ loss
United Iraqi Alliance 5,021,137 41.2 128 -12
Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan 2,642,172 21.7 53 -22
Iraqi Accord Front 1,840,216 15.1 44 +44
Iraqi National List 977'325 8.0 25 -15
Iraqi National Dialogue Front 499,963 4.1 11 +11
Kurdistan Islamic Union 157,688 1.3 5 +5
The Upholders of the Message (Al-Risaliyun) 145,028 1.2 2 +2
Reconciliation and Liberation Bloc 129,847 1.1 3 +2
Turkmen Front 87,993 0.7 1 -2
Rafidain List 47,263 0.4 1 0
Mithal al-Alusi List 32,245 0.3 1 +1
Yazidi Movement for Reform and Progress 21,908 0.2 1 +1
National Independent Cadres and Elites 0 -3
Islamic Action Organization In Iraq - Central Command 0 -2
National Democratic Alliance 0 -1
Total (turnout 79.6 %) 12,396,631 275

I'll just post this link (http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/7720/liarns2jv.jpg), because as the saying goes "a picture says more than 1000 words". Since 1000 words obviously weren't enough to convince Bobo, I've taken the liberty to add a few.

You are too laughable to continue commenting on.

We had light casualties in Vietnam under Eisenhower? We only had a couple of hundred guys there! The first fatality was not until after he left office! Once again your comparison is awful. Vietnam never had a voting and working government after 3 years. Vietnam had more than 23 times as many America fatalities. Vietnam was similar to Iraq in one way. Liberals made us pull our best punches and gave comfort to the enemy.

Oh yes, I forgot a nuclear weapon solves all the worlds problems (who cares if a few thousand people worldwide die due to the radiation, and thousands more where ever the bomb is dropped):rolleyes: .

I would love to see most of those happen. Iraq is a great starting point because we already had a cease fire being broken. It seems as if the foes of Iraq are so full of negative nay saying that they will not admit to any form of progress that is being made.

Iraq has:
lost its dictator
gained a constitution
gained the ability to vote
gained a democratic government


all of this in 3 years with the least fatalities per day of combat of any American war since that of 1812. 11,500 people have been set free for every American soldier that has been lost. Now the anti-war crowd wants to tell the family's of the heroic fallen that their effort was in vain and ill-concieved from the start. Shame on them.

I wonder how the casualty figures add up if you include our losses with Iraqi civilian/military losses?

What the heck does reprehensible mean :mad:
it means bad

Because they ( the anti - government / anti - american forces and the Jihadist and taliban and Al Queda types ) have no desire to see Iraq as a democracy. They have stated as their goal the establishment of a Taliban style Islamic Government for not only Iraq but the rest of the Moslem world...some are even crazy enough to demand this for the whole world .
Not really. That would be one group: The Shi'a Extremists. The Shi'a themselves are broken into over a dozen different groups, from the extremists to Shi'ite moderates, to secular Shi'ites, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, the main insurgency isn't in Shi'a lands...it's in Sunni lands. One of the primary reasons for this is fear: Not fear of democracy itself, but fear of its repercussions. The Sunnis have controlled Iraq for centuries despite being a minority group. Should Iraq ever become a democracy, they face heavy repercussions both politically, religiously, and possibly socially as well. They will not give up power without a fight. Another cause of conflict is Kurdish aims. The Kurds want independance, they want Kirkuk, and they want oil. The other groups don't want them independant, they want Kirkuk to remain in the status quo (even after Arabization threw out many of the original inhabitents), and they want the oil to remain in national hands. That's not going to be resolved without bloodshed in all likelihood. Simplification is a tool for the ignorant.


Iraq is just the first battle and for them the most important one . If Iraq ever becomes a stable Democracy there cause has been set back in a major way..they can not afford to fail..almost as much as we cant . They are already set back in Afghanistan and are making a major effort to overcome that problem..if you have been paying attention you would know this also .

What cause? Who's cause? The Islamist cause? Hell, the Islamist cause is all over the Middle East, they exist politically (or as military groups) in every middle east nation. Iraq is probably third in the Islamist priority network behind Egypt and Palestine/Lebanon. The Islamists, who are typically SUNNIS, don't give a flaming fuck about Iraq for the most part. Iraq is almost unique in the Middle East as the only country where an active Shi'a Islamist group exists. They draw support from Iran...and nowhere else. Understanding this regional dynamic is key. Only Iran supports the Iraqi majority of Shi'a. The rest of the Middle East supports the Sunnis and their bid to keep themselves in power, or at least stop themselves from being badly overpowered.

And as for Afghanistan...that's effectively unrelated for the Islamists. Middle Eastern Islamists typically don't give much of a shit about non-Arab Islamist movements. That's why you don't see a great deal of cooperation between groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Indonesian Islamist groups. They link through extremists, but not political groups (although clearly the separation is hazy in some cases).


The people of Iraq..voted in larger numbers than their western counterparts and are trying in the face of death to form a Democracy ..
Not really...I mean, the vast majority of Iraqis voted not out of individual desire, but because local leaders told them to (and in most cases told them who to vote for). Iraq is not like America, or Western culture. Iraqis for the most part are subservient to local leaders, whether they be Mullahs, or for some very rural groups, clan elders. Few Iraqis voted for the candidate they personally wanted...they voted for who was endorsed by the local leader.


They deserve your respect..they are paying for it in blood .
But most of the bleeding hearts and bleaters ..choose to just lump it all on the US...or the devil Bush or its allies ....all in the name of " caring ' for the Iraqi people..
Well if you cared you would support the efforts of those in Iraq brave enough to do what they are doing instead of undermining their efforts or ignoring them completely...
If you want to support Iraqi democracy, you have to understand it. You don't. The regional dynamics are far, far more complicated than you give credit to (hell, I didn't even mention how much influence Turkey is swinging in this entire ordeal). The internal dynamics...well, you barely even skimmed the surface. Religious strife, ethnic strife, clan strife, economic strife...you name it, Iraq's got it.

Don't Feed The Damned Troll!

We're hoping to make him explode from overfeeding.

They cant vote in Lebanon, Jordan has a monarchy(cant vote) neither in Egypt and Turkey aint apart of the Middle east. Yemen and Iran can only vote for a few pre-approved people, its not real voting.
Oh, you mean like in the USA? Like during the elections when the Republicans and the Democrats parade out their freaks of nature and try and give the voters the seemingly less respulsive of the bunch? :rolleyes:

We're hoping to make him explode from overfeeding.

I'm starting to loose confidence that it is even possible to make him explode (or knock down that titanium block he has in place of a brain).

Oh, you mean like in the USA? Like during the elections when the Republicans and the Democrats parade out their freaks of nature and try and give the voters the seemingly less respulsive of the bunch? :rolleyes:

I think that he digests' the brainwashing propoganda we are fed so, he will probably deny what you said (in other words he is too trollish to know any better:p ).

Oh, you mean like in the USA? Like during the elections when the Republicans and the Democrats parade out their freaks of nature and try and give the voters the seemingly less respulsive of the bunch? :rolleyes:
I understand how that can relate to democrats but lets be honest, the Republicans only offer up rightous, morally sound candidates which makes elections easy. They are guided by christ which makes them ideal to lead.

I understand how that can relate to democrats but lets be honest, the Republicans only offer up rightous, morally sound candidates which makes elections easy. They are guided by christ which makes them ideal to lead.

Hahahaha you're kidding right? I seem to remember several prominant Republicans who got caught accepting bribes; but other then that sure, if you don't mind "Big Brother" listening to you're phone conversations that is.

We're hoping to make him explode from overfeeding.

That's why we don't feed the trolls people food.

Hahahaha you're kidding right? I seem to remember several prominant Republicans who got caught accepting bribes; but other then that sure, if you don't mind "Big Brother" listening to you're phone conversations that is.
No, your kidding. Cynitha McKey, William Jefferson, William jefferson Clinton, Duke Cunningham, Braney Frank, these are all Democratic congress people who broke the law or were involved in a scadal.

Why should I care who listening to my calls? Its not like Im talking to terrorists so it doesnt affect me. If the government wants to listen to my calls to my preacher, fine. Maybe some of them will find Jesus.

No, your kidding. Cynitha McKey, William Jefferson, William jefferson Clinton, Duke Cunningham, Braney Frank, these are all Democratic congress people who broke the law or were involved in a scadal.

Why should I care who listening to my calls? Its not like Im talking to terrorists so it doesnt affect me. If the government wants to listen to my calls to my preacher, fine. Maybe some of them will find Jesus.

One small problem you're assuming that I like any of the afforementioned people... I don't. In fact I would run out into the streets profusely weeping teers of joy if political parties were abolished and the US became a real democracy.

No, your kidding. Cynitha McKey, William Jefferson, William jefferson Clinton, Duke Cunningham, Braney Frank, these are all Democratic congress people who broke the law or were involved in a scadal.

Why should I care who listening to my calls? Its not like Im talking to terrorists so it doesnt affect me. If the government wants to listen to my calls to my preacher, fine. Maybe some of them will find Jesus.You're boring.

I understand how that can relate to democrats but lets be honest, the Republicans only offer up rightous, morally sound candidates which makes elections easy. They are guided by christ which makes them ideal to lead.
So then by that logic, Americans can only vote for one person; it's nothing more than a rotating dictatorship, with the occassional sham election to appease the masses. They're easy to placate; just toss 'em a bone every four years.

So then by that logic, Americans can only vote for one person; it's nothing more than a rotating dictatorship, with the occassional sham election to appease the masses. They're easy to placate; just toss 'em a bone every four years.
No, they can vote for a long list of honorable republican canidates.

I understand how that can relate to democrats but lets be honest, the Republicans only offer up rightous, morally sound candidates which makes elections easy. They are guided by christ which makes them ideal to lead.


I seriously laughed at that. Like for a second I was like "There's no way he can mean this." But he's serious! Oh my God wake me up when America becomes good again.

1076 years later, Kassad still sleeps.

No, they can vote for a long list of honorable republican canidates.
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,H a,Ha,Ha!

Honrable rebulicans, HA!

No, they can vote for a long list of honorable republican canidates.

At least you're good at comic relief.

No, your kidding. Cynitha McKey, William Jefferson, William jefferson Clinton, Duke Cunningham, Braney Frank, these are all Democratic congress people who broke the law or were involved in a scadal.
Oh, I didn't know Richard Nixen (Watergate) was a democrat, or that Reagan (Iran-Contra Affair), Donald Keyser ('Gone to Taiwan'), Tom DeLay (use of corperate funds for reelection) or any number of 'morally upright' Republicans were really democrats in sheep's clothing.

Republican Scandel Sheet (http://www.ecolivingcenter.com/board/politics/messages/73.html) - and this is just during this administration.

No, they can vote for a long list of honorable republican canidates.
I didn't know that the average American could vote for the next Republican presidential candidate at the GOP Convention.

None of what you are talking about has to do with the question as to the merits of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I believe that Bill Clinton was right when he called Hussein's regime a threat and signed a bill that made the official U.S. policy regime change in Iraq. I believe that John Kerry was right when he said that Saddam " is and has acted like a terrorist". It think that we are better off without Saddam's big thumb over the middle east. I am glad that our brave soldiers have fought the terrorists so that millions of Iraqis could vote in free elections for the first time ( and beat our turnout). And I do not believe that we would be more safe today if we surrendered to the insurgents and ran back home after 2500 fatalities ( the lowest rate per day since the war of 1812).

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?

It's easy to be against the war in Iraq - it was absolutely unnecessary. Iraq no longer had any wmds, had no way of making or aquiring any, and was no threat at all to us.

None of what you are talking about has to do with the question as to the merits of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I believe that Bill Clinton was right when he called Hussein's regime a threat and signed a bill that made the official U.S. policy regime change in Iraq. I believe that John Kerry was right when he said that Saddam " is and has acted like a terrorist". It think that we are better off without Saddam's big thumb over the middle east. I am glad that our brave soldiers have fought the terrorists so that millions of Iraqis could vote in free elections for the first time ( and beat our turnout). And I do not believe that we would be more safe today if we surrendered to the insurgents and ran back home after 2500 fatalities ( the lowest rate per day since the war of 1812).
I believe Bill Clinton refused to take Bin Laden from the sudan because, I dont why, maybe he hates freedom or something.

I understand how that can relate to democrats but lets be honest, the Republicans only offer up rightous, morally sound candidates which makes elections easy. They are guided by christ which makes them ideal to lead.

Nonsense, everyone knows the Republican party is a front for the Masons in their efforts to pave the way for the Anti-Christ by feeding tree sprites from national parks to Yog-Soggoth, Devourer of Worlds, who is secretly being housed in an underground bunker below the Pentagon, right next to the fusion reactor.:eek:

Edit: Hey, it made as much sense as what he said.

None of what you are talking about has to do with the question as to the merits of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I believe that Bill Clinton was right when he called Hussein's regime a threat and signed a bill that made the official U.S. policy regime change in Iraq. I believe that John Kerry was right when he said that Saddam " is and has acted like a terrorist". It think that we are better off without Saddam's big thumb over the middle east. I am glad that our brave soldiers have fought the terrorists so that millions of Iraqis could vote in free elections for the first time ( and beat our turnout). And I do not believe that we would be more safe today if we surrendered to the insurgents and ran back home after 2500 fatalities ( the lowest rate per day since the war of 1812).
They were, but, it broke down because rational dicussion because an ideal of the pass when Bobo decided it was beneath him to listen to reason, or at least consider the merits contained in the points the anti-invasion group has been making.

This same group would have listened to reason, but, we were fed up heaps of propoganda, spam and the same damn speel for years about how it's good for democracy, while back in America, the heartland of 'freedom', democracy seemed to be imploding on itself with each wiretap and each action that has been linked to justify the War on Terror, and subsequently the War on Iraq.

The reasoning for the war would've held water if the inspections had been allowed and the UN had decided that a certain line of action was warranted in order to bring Iraq and other threats under control. But, the UN and NATO each spoke out against the action because of the ramications that would result because of various factors, such as the lack of a fundamental rebuilding plan, as well as a strategic turn-over plan, which would have included a well-structured exit strategy.

People are against war because we've been conditioned to be diplomatic and regard such violent action as a primitive last restore if we can't resolve problems through diplomacy and other strong-armed peace time tactics.

What ever happened to the Cold War era CIA? Honestly, Hussein could've been taken out by a CIA hitman and the US could have moved in to plant its puppet without creating the feared and chaos that did result because of the short-sightedness.

Of course, America wouldn't have to surrender to insurgents if:
1) it didn't invade Iraq in the first place, and hence, the insurgents would be just in Afghanistan and nowhere else.
2) and it had a strong backing force that would've helped it achieve its agenda.

Nonsense, everyone knows the Republican party is a front for the Masons in their efforts to pave the way for the Anti-Christ by feeding tree sprites from national parks to Yog-Soggoth, Devourer of Worlds, who is secretly being housed in an underground bunker below the Pentagon, right next to the fusion reactor.:eek:

Edit: Hey, it made as much sense as what he said.
No, it actually makes more sense. His is just good old fashion neo-con blowin' out the ass stupidity justified by "Jesus loves me and hates you".

I believe Bill Clinton refused to take Bin Laden from the sudan because, I dont why, maybe he hates freedom or something.

He does not hate freedom. I bet he wishes he had some from Hillary. Still, he did screw up getting Bin Laden.

They were, but, it broke down because rational dicussion because an ideal of the pass when Bobo decided it was beneath him to listen to reason, or at least consider the merits contained in the points the anti-invasion group has been making.

This same group would have listened to reason, but, we were fed up heaps of propoganda, spam and the same damn speel for years about how it's good for democracy, while back in America, the heartland of 'freedom', democracy seemed to be imploding on itself with each wiretap and each action that has been linked to justify the War on Terror, and subsequently the War on Iraq.

The reasoning for the war would've held water if the inspections had been allowed and the UN had decided that a certain line of action was warranted in order to bring Iraq and other threats under control. But, the UN and NATO each spoke out against the action because of the ramications that would result because of various factors, such as the lack of a fundamental rebuilding plan, as well as a strategic turn-over plan, which would have included a well-structured exit strategy.

People are against war because we've been conditioned to be diplomatic and regard such violent action as a primitive last restore if we can't resolve problems through diplomacy and other strong-armed peace time tactics.

What ever happened to the Cold War era CIA? Honestly, Hussein could've been taken out by a CIA hitman and the US could have moved in to plant its puppet without creating the feared and chaos that did result because of the short-sightedness.

Of course, America wouldn't have to surrender to insurgents if:
1) it didn't invade Iraq in the first place, and hence, the insurgents would be just in Afghanistan and nowhere else.
2) and it had a strong backing force that would've helped it achieve its agenda.

Why are people on your side of the equation always reviewing the past in Iraq instead of saying what should be done now? Its like the left is still trying to stop Bush from invading Iraq. It already happened. I am proud it did. Low fatalities. High turnout in the Iraqi elections. A government in only 3 years. By the way, Jimmy Carter made it illegal to assassinate foreign leaders. Too bad huh.

And for the hell of it... (and because somewhere back on page 2 or 3 someone mentioned that even the Bushivieks have stopped spouting the antiquated lines about war support).

I dug up some sites that are based on: REPUBLICANS AGAINST BUSH

Republicans Against Bush (http://www.thoughtfulpolitics.citymaker.com/page/page/1322728.htm)
Republicans Against Bush Meetups (http://repagainstbush.meetup.com/)
Republicans Against Bush (http://republicansagainstbush.info/)
Republicans Against Bush: Google search results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=republicans+against+bush&btnG=Google+Search)

Oh now I can know if Iraq was worth it.......thanks for the links.......not relevant.

Why are people on your side of the equation always reviewing the past in Iraq instead of saying what should be done now? Its like the left is still trying to stop Bush from invading Iraq. It already happened. I am proud it did. Low fatalities. High turnout in the Iraqi elections. A government in only 3 years. By the way, Jimmy Carter made it illegal to assassinate foreign leaders. Too bad huh.
Because it's too depressing to review what's going on now...

And yes, too bad Carter was such a pansey, eh? It would've solved a lot of problems if they could've plug Hussein. Though, if an executive order can legalise wiretaps...

Oh now I can know if Iraq was worth it.......thanks for the links.......not relevant.
I said it is in relation to what someone had said about Bushivieks not being onboard.

Because it's too depressing to review what's going on now...

And yes, too bad Carter was such a pansey, eh? It would've solved a lot of problems if they could've plug Hussein. Though, if an executive order can legalise wiretaps...

way to dodge and duck. It think that we are better off without Saddam's big thumb over the middle east. I am glad that our brave soldiers have fought the terrorists so that millions of Iraqis could vote in free elections for the first time ( and beat our turnout). And I do not believe that we would be more safe today if we surrendered to the insurgents and ran back home after 2500 fatalities ( the lowest rate per day since the war of 1812). If you work the numbers 1 US soldier died for every 11,600 Iraqis who now live in a land without Saddam where they can vote and chart their own future, whatever that may be. This, in my opinion. Makes it worth it ( the point of the thread). I would lay down my life to set 11,600 people from anywhere free.

No, it actually makes more sense. His is just good old fashion neo-con blowin' out the ass stupidity justified by "Jesus loves me and hates you".

Let the Church of anti-war apparent anit-christ's say "Amen" or whatever the hell you want to, to show an affirmative!

Why must the left defame and name call on these forums all of the time?

By the way, Jimmy Carter made it illegal to assassinate foreign leaders. Too bad huh.

Bush hasn't shown any sqeumishness when it comes to braking the law so why would that stop him now? No, it's just the fact that US intelligence has grown complacent over the past 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the KGB.

Why must the left defame and name call on these forums all of the time?

Just to clarify this...
I am NOT a "leftist" I am a moderate libertarian. So please dont try to assume that I am some sort of Socialist (no offense intended towards any liberals/socialists' who are taking part in this).

Why must the left defame and name call on these forums all of the time?

Why must the Right do and say things that deserve a good name-calling?

Bush hasn't shown any sqeumishness when it comes to braking the law so why would that stop him now? No, it's just the fact that US intelligence has grown complacent over the past 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the KGB.


Once again you assume guilt. George W. Bush has never been found guilty of any crime that relates to his Presidency ( I can't speak for the 1970's haha).

Guilty until proven innocent.

Soldiers
The President

Innocent until proven guilty
Everyone else.

Why must the Right do and say things that deserve a good name-calling?

Sad. Cheapen the debate. Devalue the expression of veiws that differ from your own.

Once again you assume guilt. George W. Bush has never been found guilty of any crime that relates to his Presidency ( I can't speak for the 1970's haha).

Guilty until proven innocent.

Soldiers
The President

Inncocent until proven guilty
Everyone else.

So we shall forget about the illegal wiretapps shall we, well alrighty then, you're soooo right he is sooooo innocent.

Sad. Cheapen the debate. Devalue the expression of veiws that differ from your own.
That implies there was value to the initial observation, while clearly there was little, if any.

Sad. Cheapen the debate. Devalue the expression of veiws that differ from your own.

You cheapened the debate by suggesting that criticism of the President and Republicans amounted to name-calling. I merely responded in kind in a more humorous and witty way.

I know, I know, if you accuse a Righty of throwing stonmes in glass houses, he'll claim it was a crystal hounse and what he was throwing were bricks, so that changes everything.

You call them illegal. That does not make them so. Short of declaring yourself your own personal Senate Judiciary committee, having a trial, or appointing a jury, I believe that you do not have the authority to declare the President guilty. Yet you do. If it was a child molester or a murderer you would be careful to say " alleged" and " possibly". No fair due process for soldiers or the President though. Oh no not them.

You call them illegal. That does not make them so. Short of declaring yourself your own personal Senate Judiciary committee, having a trial, or appointing a jury, I believe that you do not have the authority to declare the President guilty. Yet you do. If it was a child molester or a murderer you would be careful to say " alleged" and " possibly". No fair due process for soldiers or the President though. Oh no not them.

Sorry did I say illegal, I clearly meant "unwarrented" i'm so sorry about that mixup.

You sir are one to throw around things like "Cheapening the debate" when you accuse me of not following due process, because I refer to the man as performing illegal... excuse me "allegedly" illegal acts and abusing his power as President. I can call the man whatever the **** I want to since I believe we still have freedom of speech in this country (though for how much longer I don't know with people like you running around).

So you feel the debate is cheapened it shure has now!

Sorry did I say illegal, I clearly meant "unwarrented" i'm so sorry about that mixup.

You sir are one to throw around things like "Cheapening the debate" when you accuse me of not following due process, because I refer to the man as performing illegal... excuse me "allegedly" illegal acts and abusing his power as President. I can call the man whatever the **** I want to since I believe we still have freedom of speech in this country (though for how much longer I don't know with people like you running around).

So you feel the debate is cheapened it shure has now!

woah, hold up. You can say he "may have" done somthing illegal.
You can hold the opinion that they were unwarrented.
You cannot call a man guilty who has not been found guilty of the crime of which you accuse him. To do that would be to deny due process and automaticly assume guilt. That is wrong.. I am not one of those who makes the ASSUMPTION OF GUILT just by seeing the word " marine" or "Bush" I do not question your patriotism. I do not question your motives. I question your jumping to conclusions for political purposes.

You call them illegal. That does not make them so. Short of declaring yourself your own personal Senate Judiciary committee, having a trial, or appointing a jury, I believe that you do not have the authority to declare the President guilty. Yet you do. If it was a child molester or a murderer you would be careful to say " alleged" and " possibly". No fair due process for soldiers or the President though. Oh no not them.

Well, then I guess we should have found Saddam guilty before invading and causing supposedly acceptable collateral damages while trying to execute a poorly planned war.

The thing is, we're entitled to our opinion because the worst our opinion can do is spark debate that may cause someone to change their mind about the President. Innocent until proven guilty is fine in a courtroom. When it comes to public opinion, there's not much direct action a citizen can take to hurt or penalize the President. We the people are not the court of law. You're acting as if a poll can lock someone away.

What you're really trying to say is that a President is innocent until proven guilty so we might as not seriously invvestigate or demand more transparency if things seem fishy. That's not innocent until proven guilty. That's innocent forever no matter what.

woah, hold up. You can say he "may have" done somthing illegal.
You can hold the opinion that they were unwarrented.
You cannot call a man guilty who has not been found guilty of the crime of which you accuse him. To do that would be to deny due process and automaticly assume guilt. That is wrong.. I am not one of those who makes the ASSUMPTION OF GUILT just by seeing the word " marine" or "Bush" I do not question your patriotism. I do not question your motives. I question your jumping to conclusions for political purposes.


He can say whatever he wants. His judgement does not entail punishment. I can call you a purple peacock if I want to. Then we debate the merits of my assertion. It's only when a person's opinion carries real consequences that what they can and cannot say is curtailed.

woah, hold up. You can say he "may have" done somthing illegal.
You can hold the opinion that they were unwarrented.
You cannot call a man guilty who has not been found guilty of the crime of which you accuse him. To do that would be to deny due process and automaticly assume guilt. That is wrong. This thread was created by a person who did just that. The marines were called guilty before their court martial. They may very well be guilty. If they are I hope they hang. I am not one of those who makes the ASSUMPTION OF GUILT just by seeing the word " marine". Oh, and between you and me.....your freedom of speech is somthing that is important to me. I do not question your patriotism. I do not question your motives. I question your jumping to conclusions for political purposes.

May I ask where a marine comes into this? I have never said nor implied anything regarding to whatever you are talking about in that regard (i have no idea what you are talking about there).

You don't understand I can "assume" the man is guilty I just can't have him convicted without due process (not that it really matters because this issue will most likely never arise in a court of law). As of right now there are no "political purposes" in what I have said (if so then I would have been just a bit more tactful) this is merely a thread regarding politics. I am allowed to assume he is guilty I just cannot allow that assumption to affect how I respond if I was ever in an actual political debate. I was merely pointing out that though the man may have never been convicted (and probably never will) of this crime, it seems fairly apparent to me that he has allowed the NSA to listen to our phone conversations without a warrent. I would not mind had he obtained a warrent from the special panal of judges (who almost never reject a request to wire tap someone so that leads me to ask why he didn't ask for permission, but thats a whole different story), it is just how he went and, at best abused his position, and at worst commited treason.

Well, then I guess we should have found Saddam guilty before invading and causing supposedly acceptable collateral damages while trying to execute a poorly planned war.

The thing is, we're entitled to our opinion because the worst our opinion can do is spark debate that may cause someone to change their mind about the President. Innocent until proven guilty is fine in a courtroom. When it comes to public opinion, there's not much direct action a citizen can take to hurt or penalize the President. We the people are not the court of law. You're acting as if a poll can lock someone away.

What you're really trying to say is that a President is innocent until proven guilty so we might as not seriously invvestigate or demand more transparency if things seem fishy. That's not innocent until proven guilty. That's innocent forever no matter what.

You have misjudged my point. You are entitled to your opinon! So is the public! I am not acting like a poll can lock someone away! Investigate the President! Set up an impeachment trial! Serve him papers! Just don't call him a criminal if he has not been convicted of a crime. You may say that you " believe him to be" a criminal. But to go around saying that a man is a criminal (who has not been convicted of a crime) is obvious double-standardship for political reasons.

May I ask where a marine comes into this? I have never said nor implied anything regarding to whatever you are talking about in that regard (i have no idea what you are talking about there).

it is just how he went and, at best abused his position, and at worst commited treason.

My apologies about the marine comment. I don't know why I put that.

At best the President is guilty of no crime. At worst he is guilty of many crimes. But if it was sombody else than Bush, like say.....an accused rapist, would you be so quick to assume guilt?

At best the President is guilty of no crime. At worst he is guilty of many crimes. But if it was sombody else than Bush, like say.....an accused rapist, would you be so quick to assume guilt?

If there was as much "evidence" against him as there is against Mr. Bush, then yes I would. Don't assume that I think the President is the only one who should be accused of crimes as vehemently.

Well if giving 50 million people Democracy and wire tapping al-queda is impeachment material I say lets impeach!

Well if giving 50 million people Democracy and wire tapping al-queda is impeachment material I say lets impeach!

If the only people he was wiretapping were known Al-Queda operatives then I might be a little more willing to allow it, might. But, when the NSA sets up a list of key words that whenever anyone says them in a phone conversation their phone is tapped is not only tapping people who are known members of Al-Queda like President Bush had stated until this came out. Which by the way is lying to the American people.

If the only people he was wiretapping were known Al-Queda operatives then I might be a little more willing to allow it, might. But, when the NSA sets up a list of key words that whenever anyone says them in a phone conversation their phone is tapped is not only tapping people who are known members of Al-Queda like President Bush had stated until this came out. Which by the way is lying to the American people.
So, what key word are they listening for? One in English or one in Arabic or Farsi?

So, they must've hired bilingual evasdroppers, eh?!

(I'm not attacking you; I'm just asking in general).

If the only people he was wiretapping were known Al-Queda operatives then I might be a little more willing to allow it, might. But, when the NSA sets up a list of key words that whenever anyone says them in a phone conversation their phone is tapped is not only tapping people who are known members of Al-Queda like President Bush had stated until this came out. Which by the way is lying to the American people.

Please source the following in a credible way ( unless I have read you wrong)

1) the NSA has tapped lines that do not involve at least one suspected member of al-qaeda
2) Bush has claimed that it was only tapping of conversations in which one member was a suspected member of al-qaeda.

also, could you explain how on Earth this relates to why you believe that Iraq was not worth it?

So, what key word are they listening for? One in English or one in Arabic or Farsi?

So, they must've hired bilingual evasdroppers, eh?!

(I'm not attacking you; I'm just asking in general).

Unfortunately they dont release the words they pickup on in the US, or in the world (for obvious reasons). However, I might suggest you go here for more info (just so I don't have to summerise a massive article).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

also, could you explain how on Earth this relates to why you believe that Iraq was not worth it?

We do seem to have gotten just a bit off topic hugh:D .

Unfortunately they dont release the words they pickup on in the US, or in the world (for obvious reasons). However, I might suggest you go here for more info (just so I don't have to summerise a massive article).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

ah wikipedia, the source that you can edit yourself! Its like magic! I am not saying that you did, but trusting wikipedia is a leap of faith.

We do seem to have gotten just a bit off topic hugh:D .


it happens. Its funny how it does. :D

ah wikipedia, the source that you can edit yourself! Its like magic! I am not saying that you did, but trusting wikipedia is a leap of faith.
Then use the pages which they have CITED as sources for what they said if you dont trust wiki. Even if it was proven to be almost as accurate as Encycolapedia Brittanica.

it happens. Its funny how it does. :D

Nevertheless it is an important topic to discuss anyway.

Then use the pages which they have CITED as sources for what they said if you dont trust wiki. Even if it was proven to be almost as accurate as Encycolapedia Brittanica.

Did you read that on wikipedia? I'm sorry I could not resist. I mean no insult. :D

Well, the point really though, is there is nothing in that wikipedia link that explains why you think that Iraq is not worth it?

Well I'll continue this tommorrow right now I'm going to sleep.:D

have a good night.

Did you read that on wikipedia? I'm sorry I could not resist. I mean no insult. :D

Well, the point really though, is there is nothing in that wikipedia link that explains why you think that Iraq is not worth it?

True :D , but we were talking about George W. at the time so... I got a little sidetracked.

I believe that John Kerry was right when he said that Saddam " is and has acted like a terrorist".
This brings up one of the greatest consequences of the war. The trust of the world in the US and the trust of Congress and people in the word of the President.

When Kennedy sent information to France about Cuba, the French President said he didn't need to look at the evidence because the US would never use deception in such a matter. Never again will any country (including the UK) ever trust the word of a US President.

When the President told Congress that he had information about Saddam and WMD's, both parties in Congress trusted his word and did their best to rally the nation to the cause of the war. Now their words are being used against them as Barry did using this quote. Never again will Congress trust the word of the President when it comes to something as serious as war. Never again will the opposition do their best to rally the nation with only the word of the President as their guide.

What delays will this cause in the future when a real crisis happens and the Congress needs to fund war and the people need to be rallied? Could this be the ultimate mistake? Could this selling of the trust cause massive loss in the future?

We tell our children that a good reputation is hard to get, easy to lose, and impossible to recover. The same can be said about a nation and the leader of a nation.

This brings up one of the greatest consequences of the war. The trust of the world in the US and the trust of Congress and people in the word of the President.

When Kennedy sent information to France about Cuba, the French President said he didn't need to look at the evidence because the US would never use deception in such a matter. Never again will any country (including the UK) ever trust the word of a US President.

When the President told Congress that he had information about Saddam and WMD's, both parties in Congress trusted his word and did their best to rally the nation to the cause of the war. Now their words are being used against them as Barry did using this quote. Never again will Congress trust the word of the President when it comes to something as serious as war. Never again will the opposition do their best to rally the nation with only the word of the President as their guide.

What delays will this cause in the future when a real crisis happens and the Congress needs to fund war and the people need to be rallied? Could this be the ultimate mistake? Could this selling of the trust cause massive loss in the future?

We tell our children that a good reputation is hard to get, easy to lose, and impossible to recover. The same can be said about a nation and the leader of a nation.

heres the sticky part. The members of the congress were able to see the same intelligence that Bush had without the executive branch as a filter. Bill Clinton was not tricked by Bush into bombing Iraq in the 1990's. he had intelligence sources too. Going back to 1991.... are you aware that the gulf war resolution passed the Senate 52 to 48? Iraq has always been a political football. I have a serious question:

When you were fooled by Bush into thinking that Iraq had WMD's did you support the war? If not why not?

Why are people on your side of the equation always reviewing the past in Iraq instead of saying what should be done now? Its like the left is still trying to stop Bush from invading Iraq. It already happened. I am proud it did. Low fatalities. High turnout in the Iraqi elections. A government in only 3 years. By the way, Jimmy Carter made it illegal to assassinate foreign leaders. Too bad huh.

I think I put in my idea:

For every Iraqi police or soldier trained we commit to pulling out one yankee or one limey. You want us out, volunteer and get trained and we guarantee one less westerner in your country.

I would comment on assassinate but I'm sure that's one of the words that triggers the NSA gestapo who works hard to preserve our first amendment rights.

I think I put in my idea:

For every Iraqi police or soldier trained we commit to pulling out one yankee or one limey. You want us out, volunteer and get trained and we guarantee one less westerner in your country.

I would comment on assassinate but I'm sure that's one of the words that triggers the NSA gestapo who works hard to preserve our first amendment rights.

First of all I think that your opinion is valid and sound. I disagree but I will not attack your view because it is not very far off from my own opinion.

And yeah, better watch those NSA guys, they'l get ya every time ;)

When you were fooled by Bush into thinking that Iraq had WMD's did you support the war? If not why not?
I was for finding out if there were WMD's. If there were I was in favor of taking them out. BUT it became very obvious very fast that war was the "last option"----of course it was also the first option, the middle option, and the ONLY option being considered by the president. He headed that direction and didn't waver an inch. The inspectors were in. The more information they could gain the better. We had all the time in the world. All we had to do was sit and wait. Either we would find them or inspectors would stay forever gaining intelligence every day, or Saddam would throw them out which the world would take as an admission of guilt. But not of that was considered---ONLY war was considered.

Do you honestly think congress has all of the information that the president has? NO. Up until now they didn't consider the possibility that the president would lead them to war without the goods.

As I just posted----That--That loss of trust in the word of the President may prove to be the greatest loss suffered by this nation.

So we shall forget about the illegal wiretapps shall we, well alrighty then, you're soooo right he is sooooo innocent.
They arent illegal. What part of special war time powers do you not quite get?

I was for finding out if there were WMD's. If there were I was in favor of taking them out. BUT it became very obvious very fast that war was the "last option"----of course it was also the first option, the middle option, and the ONLY option being considered by the president. He headed that direction and didn't waver an inch. The inspectors were in. The more information they could gain the better. We had all the time in the world. All we had to do was sit and wait. Either we would find them or inspectors would stay forever gaining intelligence every day, or Saddam would throw them out which the world would take as an admission of guilt. But not of that was considered---ONLY war was considered.

Do you honestly think congress has all of the information that the president has? NO. Up until now they didn't consider the possibility that the president would lead them to war without the goods.

As I just posted----That--That loss of trust in the word of the President may prove to be the greatest loss suffered by this nation.


The debate over a President leading us into war without "the goods" was very notable in :
The war of 1812 ( Federalists attacked Madison's claims of the need for war)
The mexican war ( Polk said the Mexican army attacked us. We might have actualy been on their soil when they attacked.....)
The spanish american war ( the battleship maine was actualy sunk by a coal bunker explosion)
world war one ( hundreds were jailed when it became apparent that economics played a role in our entry...the opposition party took Congress after a damning report)
vietnam ( gulf of tonkin)
the gulf war ( 48 senators saw no threat to our national security.

what exactly is new here? There are almost ALWAYS large blocks of people who spend the entire war fretting over why we got into it. THIS HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE RESULTS OF THE WAR. The results of the war determines its merit.

The debate over a President leading us into war without "the goods" was very notable in :
The war of 1812 ( Federalists attacked Madison's claims of the need for war)
The mexican war ( Polk said the Mexican army attacked us. We might have actualy been on their soil when they attacked.....)
The spanish american war ( the battleship maine was actualy sunk by a coal bunker explosion)
world war one ( hundreds were jailed when it became apparent that economics played a role in our entry...the opposition party took Congress after a damning report)
vietnam ( gulf of tonkin)
the gulf war ( 48 senators saw no threat to our national security.

what exactly is new here? There are almost ALWAYS large blocks of people who spend the entire war fretting over why we got into it. THIS HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE RESULTS OF THE WAR. The results of the war determines its merit.
Unfortunatly you are right about history. I guess the difference is others were smart enough to cover their tracks for enough years after the war that history was already written.

Still---What you are arguing is "The Ends Justify the Means". A rather immoral justification for a "christian" president.

Unfortunatly you are right about history. I guess the difference is others were smart enough to cover their tracks for enough years after the war that history was already written.

Still---What you are arguing is "The Ends Justify the Means". A rather immoral justification for a "christian" president.

The ends justify the means if and when they do.

The ends justify the means if and when they do.
Still immorality has cosequences.

Spanish War---Gave us Cuba and the Phillipines. Not the greatest examples of freedom and a thorn in the side and foot of the nation since.

Vietnam--Need I say more

Gulf War--While not totally supported by Congress was supported by the people because they could see the reasoning. The ends????? Well....Hard to say the ends justified the means.

Don't have enough knowledge of 1812.

The arguement "The ends justify the means" gives license to every leader in the world to do whatever is necessary in their own mind.

Look at every evil leader in the world. How would they justify their actions? How did Saddam justify mass murder?

If you really believe in the ends justify the means get ready for continous war. Continous deciet. Continous loss of freedom.

GW said what nearly every leader in every age has thought---"This would be easier in a dictatorship, as long as I was the dictator."

Barry--Got to go. Really drug ___ after our late night last night. Catch you tomorrow.

Unfortunately they dont release the words they pickup on in the US, or in the world (for obvious reasons). However, I might suggest you go here for more info (just so I don't have to summerise a massive article).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
:eek: Dude!! What have you been smoking? Do you actually expect someone to read that textbook? On a more serious note, that is a long article and it's well written. I just think I ought to put my glasses on first - this squintin' is kinda hurtin' my eyes.

I can vote and I will vote, it is my right. It is my right as an American, I right given to me by the men and women in the armed services who fought and died to protect my rights and freedoms in places like Iraq. For that I am internally grateful.

George Bush is our president and our commander-in-chief and he is a wise man. He is no idiot and I remind you, he recieved more votes than anyone who ran for president in history. That should tell you something about him.

What about Nixon vs. McGovern?

What happened to "don't blame me, I'm from Massachusets"?

They arent illegal. What part of special war time powers do you not quite get?
War was never declared.

They arent illegal. What part of special war time powers do you not quite get?

So should we declare him dictator for life now as one of those "special war time powers?"

:eek: Dude!! What have you been smoking? Do you actually expect someone to read that textbook? On a more serious note, that is a long article and it's well written. I just think I ought to put my glasses on first - this squintin' is kinda hurtin' my eyes.

It's probably more prudent just to read the relevent sections, as much of it is background info.

It's probably more prudent just to read the relevent sections, as much of it is background info.
I was doing that. But honestly, it's very extensive and Britannica isn't even that indepth...

Most of you are stupid. Iraq was meant to be a killing ground, where the terrorists will come and get killed from all over the world. See, that's logic. You have to think, liberal dumbasses. Now I have to go wash my hands of this liberal filth.

These trolls are being fed very well, it seems.

These trolls are being fed very well, it seems.

He has yet to explode though:( .

He has yet to explode though:( .
You can do it Bautzen!
The kittens are counting on you!
:p

Most of you are stupid. Iraq was meant to be a killing ground, where the terrorists will come and get killed from all over the world. See, that's logic. You have to think, liberal dumbasses. Now I have to go wash my hands of this liberal filth.

That is so idiotic I shouldn't even respond to it. However, I'm bored so......

Well since that's the logic it only reenforces the point that it is an idiotic war. Or maybe you haven't realised that the US' credability has disappeared in light of Iraq, and the lines at al-Queda training camps are growing longer while those at police volunteer stations grow ever shoorter. So if, and I mean if, you are right then the plan seems to have screwed up big time. Shooting them only reenforces what al-Queda is saying about the US being oppressive and giving al-Queda credability (at least in the Muslim world). Killing someone only gives them a martyr to remember, the true victory lies in not having to fight the battle.

You can do it Bautzen!
The kittens are counting on you!
:p

How about I kick the kittens and just do it for myself?:D
And also to rid the world of one more idiot.:D

Most of you are stupid. Iraq was meant to be a killing ground, where the terrorists will come and get killed from all over the world. See, that's logic. You have to think, liberal dumbasses. Now I have to go wash my hands of this liberal filth.
The one that wins is the last one to quit fighting. Look at the culture. The Jews said "next year in Jersalem" for 2000 years. The Palistinians have fought for 60 years. Which culture will leave the battlefield first, The Middle East Culture--Or The American Culture.

I'll bet anyone on this one.

Most of you are stupid. Iraq was meant to be a killing ground, where the terrorists will come and get killed from all over the world. See, that's logic. You have to think, liberal dumbasses. Now I have to go wash my hands of this liberal filth.

Well, that's totally logical. Send in the troops as gunfodder to inflame thousands of muslims who, if we had not invaded, would have done nothing at all! Very smart, can't see why I didn't see this before.

I have to comment...Bautzen

you lamented how someone who trolled had not exploded yet....and than in your very next post went on a name calling-insult rant. Nice.

@Bautzen

You're quite correct, and in fact, our troops have many safeguards set in place to try and prevent the deaths of many terrorists. As you can tell, they don't really work, but we'd much rather have a captured insurgent than a dead insurgent.

We have instructions from the SecDef to the following, for instance for any vehicle attempting/has blown past a checkpoint:

1. Fire a warning salvo into the road.
2. Fire into the engine block to try and disable the engine.
3. Eliminate the vehicle in any way possible.

I have to comment...Bautzen

you lamented how someone who trolled had not exploded yet....and than in your very next post went on a name calling-insult rant. Nice.
1. That was a coment not a rant, rants are much longer
2. he was doing at as a joke (to feed the troll)
3. like your posts are much better :rolleyes:

Ahhh, how utterly cute... Yet another "Iraq had WMDs, Saddam was a threat, Bush is God on Earth and thus can do no wrong" thread... Well, you forgot about ME! *Snikt*

Shall we dance, neocons? Should I play, for your benefit, a requiem? I'll enjoy this, like an angel without a sense of mercy, yes, I will.

However, I find myself in doubt as to which style should I use to bring about your doom...

Shakespeare? Beautiful, yes, but I have used it twice...

Our friend the Riddler? Nah... You don't understand rhetorical questions.

Maybe some haikus? Mmm... No... I'm not feeling that much poetry in my veins today...

Ah! I have it! The narrative style! Yes, yes. It should be a show not to be forgotten!

NSers, do watch me as I beat the crap out of these idiots in arguing, with a little story, a little story I like to call...

Little Dubya's Trip to Iraq.

There once was a boy named Little Dubya Bush. He wanted to go to Iraq and get its magical petroleum-flavored cookies. At all costs. So he told Ms. and Mr. America that Iraq still had those WMDs he had given them a while ago, and now he wanted them back. After much insistence, the Americas gave in and let Bush and his faithful dog, Pentagon, go to Iraq. Bush got the oil-flavored cookies, then had Pentagon pretend to search for the WMDs, but - surprise! - as Uncle UN had said, they weren't there anymore! Then Little Dubya left Pentagon there to guard Iraq for more cookies, and explained to the Americas that Mr. Saddam, the owner of Iraq that was put there by Dubya's friends, was a very, very mean man and had to be stopped. But Pentagon was making a much bigger mess in Iraq than mean mr. Saddam. Bush kept whining and, at home, the Americas were losing patience over Bush's antics, such as attacking opponents of the war, outing his nice neighbor mrs. Plame, and eavesdropping on every conversation he could. Yet Jiminy the Neocon Cricket was always there to tell Dubya it's all okay and to attack Little Dubya's parents whenever they questioned him. Now Iraq is a mess and the Americas are getting more and more annoyed at Little Dubya, all the while Jiminy Neocon tells him he's a god.

The moral of the story I told you?

DON'T VOTE FOR STUPID!

And now that I told you this story, neocons, you can go to bed and dream of Bush and his cousin Cheney demolishing the house while you all goad him on...

Sleep tight, my precious nests of vipers...

Snip

The hell was that?

The hell was that?

Call it "The Iraq war made into a bedtime story".

:D

Edit: However, if you referred to the preparation, call it STYLE! :D

Ahhh, how utterly cute... Yet another "Iraq had WMDs, Saddam was a threat, Bush is God on Earth and thus can do no wrong" thread... Well, you forgot about ME! *Snikt*

Shall we dance, neocons? Should I play, for your benefit, a requiem? I'll enjoy this, like an angel without a sense of mercy, yes, I will.

However, I find myself in doubt as to which style should I use to bring about your doom...

Shakespeare? Beautiful, yes, but I have used it twice...

Our friend the Riddler? Nah... You don't understand rhetorical questions.

Maybe some haikus? Mmm... No... I'm not feeling that much poetry in my veins today...

Ah! I have it! The narrative style! Yes, yes. It should be a show not to be forgotten!

NSers, do watch me as I beat the crap out of these idiots in arguing, with a little story, a little story I like to call...

Little Dubya's Trip to Iraq.

There once was a boy named Little Dubya Bush. He wanted to go to Iraq and get its magical petroleum-flavored cookies. At all costs. So he told Ms. and Mr. America that Iraq still had those WMDs he had given them a while ago, and now he wanted them back. After much insistence, the Americas gave in and let Bush and his faithful dog, Pentagon, go to Iraq. Bush got the oil-flavored cookies, then had Pentagon pretend to search for the WMDs, but - surprise! - as Uncle UN had said, they weren't there anymore! Then Little Dubya left Pentagon there to guard Iraq for more cookies, and explained to the Americas that Mr. Saddam, the owner of Iraq that was put there by Dubya's friends, was a very, very mean man and had to be stopped. But Pentagon was making a much bigger mess in Iraq than mean mr. Saddam. Bush kept whining and, at home, the Americas were losing patience over Bush's antics, such as attacking opponents of the war, outing his nice neighbor mrs. Plame, and eavesdropping on every conversation he could. Yet Jiminy the Neocon Cricket was always there to tell Dubya it's all okay and to attack Little Dubya's parents whenever they questioned him. Now Iraq is a mess and the Americas are getting more and more annoyed at Little Dubya, all the while Jiminy Neocon tells him he's a god.

The moral of the story I told you?

DON'T VOTE FOR STUPID!

And now that I told you this story, neocons, you can go to bed and dream of Bush and his cousin Cheney demolishing the house while you all goad him on...

Sleep tight, my precious nests of vipers...

Reading such a beatifully phrased story brought a tear to my eye. We should read this to all of Mr. and Mrs. America's children to teach them a lesson.

Reading such a beatifully phrased story brought a tear to my eye. We should read this to all of Mr. and Mrs. America's children to teach them a lesson.

Quod erat demonstrandum...