Forsake The Troops Poll

[MjM]

The Iraqi's are worse of now, so allot of good the US did.

Cut the propaganda. It was a war that shold never have been faught.

Yes the guy at the centre of all of this is a freak, and why was he given the chance to bullshit on TV. Everyone agrees hes a freak, end of discussion?

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1816

 

[CptStern]

One is too many.

free speech

It got four people to show their true colors,

you sound like a McCarthy era stoolie

and I'm sure most forum users have lost all respect for them, it was useful in that aspect.

:upstare: you're quite the little facsist arent you? I on the other hand wont make a judgemetn based on a one-sided poll ...in some faceless forum somewhere on the internet(s)

Are you kidding me? Maybe with the two or three other conservatives besides me here. This forum is by majority very leftist.

no, the majority of people here are just not conservative ..there's a huge difference

Outing is a suitable word I'd guess. Yes, those who voted thumbs up I would try to out. I'd get as many people as possible to know they supported that swine.

who are you to make a judgement like that? ...I could easily call you a child murdering american cuz you try to justify/deny this:


"Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."


....but I dont, so dont be so hypocritical and quick to judge

They don't have to tell me at all what they voted for. But if I asked them after this question and they wouldn't answer, it's pretty clear what they voted for anyway.

you must be telepathic then

Excuse me, I'm the one who said this. Iam the one who knows what I said and meant.

who cares? who cares what you were thinking? I cant read your mind (unlike you) I go by what you've written ...any way you slice it my words ring true:

"that's implied agreement ...you're saying he should be held accountable for what he said, and the punishment should be death

you agree with the people who would kill him because of his opinion ..you're still advocating his death"


implied intent

Do I advocate him being killed? No. Clearly I've said that probably four times already. I would be happy if he was dead and gone though.

You can try to twist and take it however you want, I've made it clear. "implied meaning analyzed the words" <- Or how about you take what I said clearly.

see above, choose your words more carefully next time. Implied intent

How is it possibly biased? There are two options, Thumbs up (support) and Thumbs down (Do not support)

SUPPORT WHAT????? the right to say it? the right to an opinion? the right to have a website devoted to WHATEVER THE **** HE WANTED? did you ask each person who voted their reasons as to why they voted? every nuance, every detail, down to the tiniest minutia? ...until you've asked them their reasons you have no right to put words into their mouths.

You either do or don't, the only way you couldn't have an opinion is if you didn't know anything about what was going on at all.

or couldnt care less?

Then why did you even bring it up, as this discussion was about this Crook character and his forsakethetroops website. I hadn't mentioned any anti war protestors or anything in the text you first quoted me on and said that. You just pulled it out of nowhere with no relevence that we get angry at antiwar activists.

just observing on a pattern

If anyone the left tries to silence voices of dissent.

ya, by using FACTS ..not one of you clowns can stand up to the facts

Protest Warrior is simply a counter voice at protests.

please, dont insult my intelligence...I see right through them

At protests they're regularly assaulted, shouted down, have people try to tear their signs down, and so on.

probably cuz they start crap

The door of free speech goes both ways. Stating an opinion and then whining because it was shot down, berated and rebuttled is silly.

excuse me? "shot down"? "rebuttled"? .. :O you're joking right? facts Rakurai, something your corner lacks

Or it seems you simply don't understand until it happens. This fool believes that every troop killed deserves what they got. He's made that clear, and in all recent news stories that he's posted he's singles out the individual soldiers killed and called them morons.

he's ONE FREAKIN VOICE IN A SEA OF VOICES

That is personal.

because you make it personal

Maybe you don't have people involved or haven't lost anyone close, but if you have you certainly wouldn't feel the same as you do now.

perhaps but I doubt it, I'd just write him off as a looney

If you're going to get into "WMD'S AS A LIE" this is going nowhere

of course

not to mention, if you actually watched the State of the Union address

you mean the speech where he claimed saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa? we all know how that turned out


did you actually read the speech?



this is the extent of what bush said about the iraqi people:

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)





3 LINES, 3 ...just 3 ...how many times did he use the WMD justification?







Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)




what were you saying about equal justifications?

where the reasons were laid out and actual read the bill that congress voted on to authorize the invasion, the freedom of the Iraqi people and the removal of Saddam the tyrant were just as big issues as the WMD.

see above, I call bullshit

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

free speech

Their right to say it doesn't mean they are right. Yes, him having one supporter is too many. That doesn't mean 'go in and shut him down' it means there are one too many douche bag idiots who care nothing for those who died for their freedom.

you sound like a McCarthy era stoolie

Well then don't you sound like quite the little commie. What's with the labels.

:upstare: you're quite the little facsist arent you? I on the other hand wont make a judgemetn based on a one-sided poll ...in some faceless forum somewhere on the internet(s)

no, the majority of people here are just not conservative ..there's a huge difference

Fascist because I disagree and combat what seditious people say. Sorry, free speech allows me to comment on how they voted. It allows them to not tell me, and then allows me to comment on the fact that they wouldn't, too. Some people hate that it goes both ways.

who are you to make a judgement like that? ...I could easily call you a child murdering american cuz you try to justify/deny this:


"Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."


....but I dont, so dont be so hypocritical and quick to judge

What the hell? I don't justify that. I hate Albright. Her and the Clintonite Reno fiends are some of the people responsible for massacres like Waco

you must be telepathic then

It's called using logic. Two choices, one insanely unpopular and idiotic. The chances they chose that one if they refuse to answer are pretty high.

who cares? who cares what you were thinking? I cant read your mind (unlike you) I go by what you've written ...any way you slice it my words ring true:

"that's implied agreement ...you're saying he should be held accountable for what he said, and the punishment should be death

you agree with the people who would kill him because of his opinion ..you're still advocating his death"


implied intent

It is pretty clear, seems like you just want to make it into something more than it is, and even after I make it even clearer five times and you know that, you say one last time 'implied consent.' Sorry, no. You can't spin and twist that one.

see above, choose your words more carefully next time. Implied intent

I'm not going to choose my words carefully to be PC and unoffending. I WOULD be happy if he was dead. That doesn't mean I call for him to be.

SUPPORT WHAT????? the right to say it? the right to an opinion? the right to have a website devoted to WHATEVER THE **** HE WANTED? did you ask each person who voted their reasons as to why they voted? every nuance, every detail, down to the tiniest minutia? ...until you've asked them their reasons you have no right to put words into their mouths.

It's OBVIOUS the poll wasn't asking if you supported the right to say. It's obvious it was asking if you support what he says. Support it- eg: Approve, agree, etc.

There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.

or couldnt care less?

Someone who doesn't in this situation has no heart.

just observing on a pattern

It was unrelated and just threw in a monkey wrench into what we were talking about.

ya, by using FACTS ..not one of you clowns can stand up to the facts

Oh some facts, name calling and assault. PW videotapes all their events specifically for legal and debate reasons. Go to the website and watch some videos like Eagle Strike. Some 'facts.'

please, dont insult my intelligence...I see right through them

No, I'm afraid you're just making things up. Watch the videos.

probably cuz they start crap

Doing what? Existing?

Posted Jan. 20, 2005. Gil Kobrin Assaulted at Bush Inauguration Demonstration

Gil Kobrin of the Protest Warriors went down "under a hail of black boots" belonging to anti-Bush peace activists. "It wasn't much of a contest. **************'s contingent numbered 13, the other side in the hundreds. If they won any hearts and minds, no one said so." Meanwhile, DC activist group Anarchist Resistance issued their call to action: "There's nothing left to salvage in this empire that is the U.S. government. It's time to bring it down." AR is listed as a resouce by the Internet Liberation Front who Kos reported "hacked and defaced six Republican websites" yesterday.

excuse me? "shot down"? "rebuttled"? .. :O you're joking right? facts Rakurai, something your corner lacks

The left despises facts. That's why it resorts to name calling so quickly. I have handy-dandy www.justfacts.com bookmarked for quick access in most debates. It always helps, because FACTS are always on our side.

he's ONE FREAKIN VOICE IN A SEA OF VOICES

That doesn't make what he said any less sickening, plus he garnered national attention

because you make it personal

HE makes it personal.

perhaps but I doubt it, I'd just write him off as a looney

Well I just hope you don't have to.

did you actually read the speech?



this is the extent of what bush said about the iraqi people:

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

 

[Neo_Kuja]

RakuraiTenjin, I can't *quite* get what you're saying.

I WOULD be happy if he was dead. That doesn't mean I call for him to be.

i.e "If someone shot him, I'd be happy. But I don't want him dead, because I don't hate him that much"

Can you see the contradiction ?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

RakuraiTenjin, I can't *quite* get what you're saying.



i.e "If someone shot him, I'd be happy. But I don't want him dead, because I don't hate him that much"

Can you see the contradiction ?

Stern makes it out to be that I am 'calling for' his death. IE a lynching or something.

No, he has a right to say what he pleases. If I passed him on the street I'd probably have some nasty words for him but I wouldn't bother touching him as he's not worth being arrested over. But if he then crossed the street and got hit by a bus, I'd say it was karma and GOOD RIDDENCE he's gone from this world.

 

[falconwind]

Don't forsake the troops... the war is not their fault. Remember, "Their's is not to reason why, theirs is but to do and die." - Alfred Lord Tennyson

Forsake the administration. The Iraq War was made inside the White House. It's unfortunate that it was not fought in there as well, or else Mr. Bush might have thought twice. Politicians make war, not soldiers.

Incidently, forsake the supporters of the administration, for it is they who grant them power. It is they who suger-coat the war and extol the greatness of this administration. It is they who hide behind the fear of a nation and the flag. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

 

[A True Canadian]

If I passed him on the street I'd probably have some nasty words for him but I wouldn't bother touching him as he's not worth being arrested over.

Isn't there some irony here?

CptStern decides not to vote in the poll because he doesn't think it's worth it (considering the vagueness of the poll), yet you decide not to attack him if you passed him on the street because you don't think it's worth it (assault charges and such).

In both scenarios, you and Stern decide to voice your concerns, but not take action (voting/attacking) because it's not worth it in the end. Hence the irony of what you've been doing for most of this thread.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Isn't there some irony here?

CptStern decides not to vote in the poll because he doesn't think it's worth it (considering the vagueness of the poll), yet you decide not to attack him if you passed him on the street because you don't think it's worth it (assault charges and such).

In both scenarios, you and Stern decide to voice your concerns, but not take action (voting/attacking) because it's not worth it in the end. Hence the irony of what you've been doing for most of this thread.

That comparison doesn't even make sense. Stern's not going to be prosecuted for how he votes, wheras I would be if I assaulted. I do so out of respect for the law, like I said I'd be more than happy to see him be gone.

 

[MjM]

He's an ignorant, angry, little teenager(?). People should have ignored him.

Why did TV humour him with a prime time TV slot? Idiots as well.

In away if he's going to forsake the troops, he should be prepared to forsake everyone in the country, because in the end, it was the 'American people' who elected Bush to office. He ordered the troops to invade Iraq with the support of the people (he was re-elected). So people of the US should be responsible for what ever their troops end up doing, good or bad.

Its just wrong to lump all the blame on troops, they have to do the horrible things required of them by the government(people) in order to maintain a status quo, i.e. keep terrorism in the middle east and away from the US. Then for them to face being forsaken because they are doing what the citizens have asked of them?? Absurd.


He should feel angry. But he should find better ways of voicing his disapproval, rally for reforms, point out legitimate faults, but to forsake the troops, that just shows his immaturity imo.

Change the systems that allowed for an adventure east that has shown to be pure folly and a total farce!

And don't get started with sedition. Its a law that has no place in the 21st century!

 

[CptStern]

Their right to say it doesn't mean they are right. Yes, him having one supporter is too many. That doesn't mean 'go in and shut him down' it means there are one too many douche bag idiots who care nothing for those who died for their freedom.

died for their freedom? what? please explain how the war in iraq is "protecting america's freedom"?

I'm sure he got the response he wanted: anger, outrage, attention

Well then don't you sound like quite the little commie. What's with the labels.

it's an accurate label ..you admitted to wanting to "out" dissenters ...the description fits. Oh and the "commie" tag is not appropriate here, I've never supported communism

Fascist because I disagree and combat what seditious people say.

seditious ..heheh there! right there! ...you call anyone who didnt vote thumbs down a traitor ..sorry but you're a fascist in the same way Mccarthey was. Whistle blower, stoolie, rat, what have you

Sorry, free speech allows me to comment on how they voted. It allows them to not tell me, and then allows me to comment on the fact that they wouldn't, too. Some people hate that it goes both ways.

bullshit, you cant quantify what makes a person a traitor, you are not qualified and the circumstances are wholly unwarrented and more than a little, for lack of a better label: idiotic, basing a persons allegiance based on a poll in a gaming forum

What the hell? I don't justify that.

sure you do: you support the war do you not? you said:

<on justifiying the war> "the freedom of the Iraqi people and the removal of Saddam the tyrant "

if you're saying you cant justify the deaths of 500,000 children at US hands then it's is hypocritical to say that you supported bush's contention that the invasion of iraq was on humanitarian grounds

It's called using logic. Two choices, one insanely unpopular and idiotic. The chances they chose that one if they refuse to answer are pretty high.

that's not logic that's called "jumping to conclusions" ..you're a fool if you believe that you know my reasons for not voting ...especially after I've already explained why I abstained in the first place, yet you still cling to what you believe

It is pretty clear, seems like you just want to make it into something more than it is, and even after I make it even clearer five times and you know that, you say one last time 'implied consent.' Sorry, no. You can't spin and twist that one.

I'm running out of ways of explaining this to you. It didnt matter what you thought, it doesnt matter how you feel, all that matters (here in this forum) is WHAT YOU WRITE ..I took it for implied constent, I'm sure others did as well, therefore my assertation is correct

I'm not going to choose my words carefully to be PC and unoffending.

has nothing to do with being PC, it has to do with clarity of thought. If you cant clearly express your meaning you're comments are rendered meaningless

"I said this but I meant this" ...it cancels itself out

I WOULD be happy if he was dead. That doesn't mean I call for him to be.

that's how I took, that's all that matters

It's OBVIOUS the poll wasn't asking if you supported the right to say. It's obvious it was asking if you support what he says. Support it- eg: Approve, agree, etc.

nope, the thread starter said:


"Good site or bad site"


not whether anyone supports it, he could have been asking if the site design was good or bad for all you know

Someone who doesn't in this situation has no heart.

you accuse me of not having a heart? it's funny how selective your sympathies are ..americans to you are above everyone else, who cares about all the hundreds of thousands of iraqi children rotting in shallow graves, your ire, your indignation is only raised when an american is killed, you could care less about anyone else ...that sentiment sickens me. It is YOU sir who have a disturbing moral code, it is YOU who needs an ethical re-evaluation

Oh some facts, name calling and assault. PW videotapes all their events specifically for legal and debate reasons. Go to the website and watch some videos like Eagle Strike. Some 'facts.'

what facts? you mean like the war in iraq? please, you dont have a leg to stand on, any fool can see that ..there's NOT one justification that has been able to stand up to scrutiny

No, I'm afraid you're just making things up. Watch the videos.

I have, you're a bunch of malcontents that use your voice to try to drown a legitamate protest. The "facts" you bring to the protests are laughable at best, pitiful at worst ..why not do something constructive and support the troops instead of wasting your time drowning out other people? ...bunch of self-righteous hypocritical wankers

Doing what? Existing?

Posted Jan. 20, 2005. Gil Kobrin Assaulted at Bush Inauguration Demonstration

Gil Kobrin of the Protest Warriors went down "under a hail of black boots" belonging to anti-Bush peace activists. "It wasn't much of a contest. **************'s contingent numbered 13, the other side in the hundreds. If they won any hearts and minds, no one said so." Meanwhile, DC activist group Anarchist Resistance issued their call to action: "There's nothing left to salvage in this empire that is the U.S. government. It's time to bring it down." AR is listed as a resouce by the Internet Liberation Front who Kos reported "hacked and defaced six Republican websites" yesterday.

meh the anarchists have their own agenda ...one could rightfully say the PW are rightfully matched in extremism by the anarchists.

The left despises facts. That's why it resorts to name calling so quickly. I have handy-dandy www.justfacts.com bookmarked for quick access in most debates. It always helps, because FACTS are always on our side.

you mean like the justifications behind the war? you call that facts? ...you're seriously deluded

That doesn't make what he said any less sickening, plus he garnered national attention

the media fed into. YOU feed into it, ignore it and he has no audience

HE makes it personal.

and so do you, congratulations: you've now stooped to the level of an insane person

Well I just hope you don't have to.

I do all the time, I've had a few people banned cuz of death threats





oh my mistake I didnt include the entire Bush justification for war ...lets see: this was what he said that wasnt about WMD in his State of the Union:


And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.




2 paragraphs





here's the segment of the same speech where Bush mentioned WMD:



Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)





what were you saying about equal justifications behind the war? Seems one sided to me, he barely mentioned the other justifications... again I call REVISIONIST BULLSHIT. WMD was the ONLY justification, all else was window dressing

 

[MjM]

Wow you guys. You do realise this is going to go around in circles FOREVER, muahahahaha

 

[Tr0n]

I'm not gonna even attempt to read that post...cliff notes please stern.

 

[CptStern]

which part? :E

 

[Tr0n]

Mmmmm...the last part?

 

[CptStern]

that's Bush's state of the Union speech a few months before the invasion of iraq. In it he outlines his justifications for going to war. the first paragraph that's bolded is bush saying "here are the other reasons we're going into iraq" ..the next big paragraph with red highlights is where Bush talks about WMD. The Right would now have you believe that WMD was not the main issue, that it was equally split between WMD, spread of democracy, and humanitarianism


you just have to compare the 2 paragraphs to see that WMD was the main justifcation at the time


they're trying to rewrite history

 

[CptStern]

cant u both find common ground? i mean stern, i know u dont honestly think that the lower ranking officers of the army who are out their fighting are bad people? they have the courage to do what we dont, whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter. B/c their not the ones making the decision... blame the people that actually control the army, not the people that just do the clean up work of a faulty gov't.

and i dont really know where rakurai stands on this issue, are u for the bush gov't? if so i hope u find the errors in ur ways soon...

believe it or not these last 2 pages have been on why I didnt vote in this poll. It has nothing to do with how I feel about the military

 

[iyfyoufhl]

died for their freedom? what? please explain how the war in iraq is "protecting america's freedom"?

I'm sure he got the response he wanted: anger, outrage, attention




it's an accurate label ..you admitted to wanting to "out" dissenters ...the description fits. Oh and the "commie" tag is not appropriate here, I've never supported communism








seditious ..heheh there! right there! ...you call anyone who didnt vote thumbs down a traitor ..sorry but you're a fascist in the same way Mccarthey was. Whistle blower, stoolie, rat, what have you




bullshit, you cant quantify what makes a person a traitor, you are not qualified and the circumstances are wholly unwarrented and more than a little, for lack of a better label: idiotic, basing a persons allegiance based on a poll in a gaming forum





sure you do: you support the war do you not? you said:

<on justifiying the war> "the freedom of the Iraqi people and the removal of Saddam the tyrant "

if you're saying you cant justify the deaths of 500,000 children at US hands then it's is hypocritical to say that you supported bush's contention that the invasion of iraq was on humanitarian grounds






that's not logic that's called "jumping to conclusions" ..you're a fool if you believe that you know my reasons for not voting ...especially after I've already explained why I abstained in the first place, yet you still cling to what you believe





I'm running out of ways of explaining this to you. It didnt matter what you thought, it doesnt matter how you feel, all that matters (here in this forum) is WHAT YOU WRITE ..I took it for implied constent, I'm sure others did as well, therefore my assertation is correct




has nothing to do with being PC, it has to do with clarity of thought. If you cant clearly express your meaning you're comments are rendered meaningless

"I said this but I meant this" ...it cancels itself out




that's how I took, that's all that matters





nope, the thread starter said:


"Good site or bad site"


not whether anyone supports it, he could have been asking if the site design was good or bad for all you know




you accuse me of not having a heart? it's funny how selective your sympathies are ..americans to you are above everyone else, who cares about all the hundreds of thousands of iraqi children rotting in shallow graves, your ire, your indignation is only raised when an american is killed, you could care less about anyone else ...that sentiment sickens me. It is YOU sir who have a disturbing moral code, it is YOU who needs an ethical re-evaluation




what facts? you mean like the war in iraq? please, you dont have a leg to stand on, any fool can see that ..there's NOT one justification that has been able to stand up to scrutiny




I have, you're a bunch of malcontents that use your voice to try to drown a legitamate protest. The "facts" you bring to the protests are laughable at best, pitiful at worst ..why not do something constructive and support the troops instead of wasting your time drowning out other people? ...bunch of self-righteous hypocritical wankers





meh the anarchists have their own agenda ...one could rightfully say the PW are rightfully matched in extremism by the anarchists.




you mean like the justifications behind the war? you call that facts? ...you're seriously deluded




the media fed into. YOU feed into it, ignore it and he has no audience




and so do you, congratulations: you've now stooped to the level of an insane person




I do all the time, I've had a few people banned cuz of death threats





oh my mistake I didnt include the entire Bush justification for war ...lets see: this was what he said that wasnt about WMD in his State of the Union:


And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.




2 paragraphs





here's the segment of the same speech where Bush mentioned WMD:



Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)





what were you saying about equal justifications behind the war? Seems one sided to me, he barely mentioned the other justifications... again I call REVISIONIST BULLSHIT. WMD was the ONLY justification, all else was window dressing

that's what i call a Stern_Attack

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

died for their freedom? what? please explain how the war in iraq is "protecting america's freedom"?

The War in Iraq, not so much so, but on a small level through the elimination of terrorists. The War in Afghanistan very much so. Any other battles and instances also. This man's website isn't about Iraq, it's about "Forsaking the Troops." I actually read through his site and his postings on his forum.

it's an accurate label ..you admitted to wanting to "out" dissenters ...the description fits. Oh and the "commie" tag is not appropriate here, I've never supported communism

seditious ..heheh there! right there! ...you call anyone who didnt vote thumbs down a traitor ..sorry but you're a fascist in the same way Mccarthey was. Whistle blower, stoolie, rat, what have you

You need to reevaluate what fascism is, then. Making information public legally is not 'fascism.' The government shutting you down for saying it is fascism.

bullshit, you cant quantify what makes a person a traitor, you are not qualified and the circumstances are wholly unwarrented and more than a little, for lack of a better label: idiotic, basing a persons allegiance based on a poll in a gaming forum

Through judgement and what I decide I surely can. And mass American opinion on this one agrees with me on this issue against this man and anyone who'd support what he has to say. Any of his supporters if they're US citizens are in my and their minds, traitors. Perhaps not in the eye of law, but to public opinion surely so. Anyone not an American who does is anti-American.

sure you do: you support the war do you not? you said:

<on justifiying the war> "the freedom of the Iraqi people and the removal of Saddam the tyrant "

if you're saying you cant justify the deaths of 500,000 children at US hands then it's is hypocritical to say that you supported bush's contention that the invasion of iraq was on humanitarian grounds

I'm pretty sure Albright was trying to justify the foolish continued UN lollygagging that were the sanctions that killed the Iraqi children. 12 years, that's a tragedy, the Iraqi people forced to live under the tyrant who wouldn't even use the money for their survival. That WAS NOT right. Action should have been taken MUCH sooner on their behalf.

that's not logic that's called "jumping to conclusions" ..you're a fool if you believe that you know my reasons for not voting ...especially after I've already explained why I abstained in the first place, yet you still cling to what you believe

No, I wasn't clear on why you didn't vote. With your history on issues like this one it's the reasn I asked and called you out on your views towards it. And now that has spurred many more debates within this one.

I'm running out of ways of explaining this to you. It didnt matter what you thought, it doesnt matter how you feel, all that matters (here in this forum) is WHAT YOU WRITE ..I took it for implied constent, I'm sure others did as well, therefore my assertation is correct

I've written the same thing over and over. The second post after you accused me of calling for that I made it clear in writing on here. This sin't 4 weeks later where I changed something. This is where it was immediately made clear in the same thread in the next reply, yet you keep ONLY using what you incorrectly assumed and refusing to let go.

has nothing to do with being PC, it has to do with clarity of thought. If you cant clearly express your meaning you're comments are rendered meaningless

"I said this but I meant this" ...it cancels itself out

I said it (which it was right in it's original form of being written, too. You just pulled something else out of it and then later tried to justify it)

Then you accused me of something.

Then I said no, and wrote the same thing, and gave an example of that (the him getting run over one)

If he died, I'd be happy. Simple as that.

that's how I took, that's all that matters

Well it's not my problem if you refuse to accept the truth.

nope, the thread starter said:


"Good site or bad site"


not whether anyone supports it, he could have been asking if the site design was good or bad for all you know

Anyone who couldn't figure out thumbs up for supporting it, and thought it meant something else, should probably avoiding posting in the forum because they're certainly not very bright.

you accuse me of not having a heart? it's funny how selective your sympathies are ..americans to you are above everyone else, who cares about all the hundreds of thousands of iraqi children rotting in shallow graves, your ire, your indignation is only raised when an american is killed, you could care less about anyone else ...that sentiment sickens me. It is YOU sir who have a disturbing moral code, it is YOU who needs an ethical re-evaluation

Funny, I never accused you (unless you're one of the people who doesn't care in this situation at all about what's being said to and about these young men and women)
I certainly care about those children. Do you think I'd support the danger our soldiers are in over there every moment if not?

what facts? you mean like the war in iraq? please, you dont have a leg to stand on, any fool can see that ..there's NOT one justification that has been able to stand up to scrutiny

you mean like the justifications behind the war? you call that facts? ...you're seriously deluded

I have, you're a bunch of malcontents that use your voice to try to drown a legitamate protest. The "facts" you bring to the protests are laughable at best, pitiful at worst ..why not do something constructive and support the troops instead of wasting your time drowning out other people? ...bunch of self-righteous hypocritical wankers

As if the war in Iraq is the only issue in politics at all. And yes, facts regarding the war are brought up in debate.

Most ************** protests are against the ANSWER group. ANSWER is truly a communist organization. This isn't just a label or slam on them- they actually are. The yellowvested ANSWER shocktroops regularly assault ans shout down protest warriors. Seen the video where the pregnant woman is assaulted by the ANSWER activist? It's sickening.

meh the anarchists have their own agenda ...one could rightfully say the PW are rightfully matched in extremism by the anarchists.

No, PW are not extremist like that. PW doesn't go around group assaulting those it disagrees with politically.

the media fed into. YOU feed into it, ignore it and he has no audience

It's probably better this way, as his face is well known now, his name, he has lost all credibility for life. No self respecting person would employ him if they knew what he's done.

I do all the time, I've had a few people banned cuz of death threats

I was talking about losing someone close to you like this and having a ****er like Crook say these things about them. Not someone threatening you.

oh my mistake I didnt include the entire Bush justification for war ...

No, you didn't. And you continue to disregard the rest of it.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Let's look at the actual things from the speech that come from US intelligence that mention the weapons. You mention and use things the UN and IAEA have told us that were said in the speech, not things we said. The paragraph about the munitions I've no idea why you left there. Hell they were fired at our troops in Kuwait.




Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. - Strangely enough troops have found artillery shells about with Sarin and Mustard gas.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them. Strangely enough I remember our troops finding one of these


The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

what were you saying about equal justifications behind the war? Seems one sided to me, he barely mentioned the other justifications... again I call REVISIONIST BULLSHIT. WMD was the ONLY justification, all else was window dressing

Perhaps you don't view American media. But in the run up to the war the plight of the Iraqi people was a major issue. You act as if the war was not even talking about and debated, and the issues looked at. YOU are playing the Monday morning quarterback here.

cant u both find common ground? i mean stern, i know u dont honestly think that the lower ranking officers of the army who are out their fighting are bad people? they have the courage to do what we dont, whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter. B/c their not the ones making the decision... blame the people that actually control the army, not the people that just do the clean up work of a faulty gov't.

and i dont really know where rakurai stands on this issue, are u for the bush gov't? if so i hope u find the errors in ur ways soon...

I support the administration's foreign policy but domestic policy (aside from Social Security reform, which is one Bush plan I approve and like) Bush sucks. ESPECIALLY THE BORDER.

Bush has a responsibility to do something about the border problem. A million illegals a year, 10% of the population of Mexico is now in the United States :/

Not to mention the security. If an Al Qaeda attack comes in via Mexico Bush will be one of the presidents at blame for not taking care of this problem which he has the power to do.

One of the problems is though that the last other candidate aside from a Republican to do well that I support is Ross Perot. If a few Libertarians could get into Congress it'd be great. They're elected locally all the time but not at national offices.

Another problem is if I criticize Bush on these issues, a lot of liberals will jump on the bandwagon and assume me a "BUSH HATER BUSH = NAZI" type. No, I don't support all his things but overall there's more that I do than don't. So he was my candidate in 2000 and 2004, but he damn well better do the job he promised his supporters.

 

[CptStern]

The War in Iraq, not so much so,

that's as close to an admission of wrong-doing as I'm going to get out of you, isnt it?

but on a small level through the elimination of terrorists.

that has had the opposite effect

You need to reevaluate what fascism is, then. Making information public legally is not 'fascism.' The government shutting you down for saying it is fascism.

fas-cist

A reactionary or dictatorial person.

Through judgement and what I decide I surely can. And mass American opinion on this one agrees with me on this issue against this man and anyone who'd support what he has to say. Any of his supporters if they're US citizens are in my and their minds, traitors.

fascist

Perhaps not in the eye of law, but to public opinion surely so. Anyone not an American who does is anti-American.

says who? you? half a million fox"news" viewers? hannity and dimwit?


you are so quick to judge, so ready to pin a label on anyone not adhereing to your sense of "patriotism" and your code of ethics as "unamerican" : lacking characteristics of someone who embodies what it means to be "american" ..well, i submit this to you ; if you are to truely look thru those "patriot" glasses of yours you need look no further than the white house ...they are the ones that least embody what it means to be "american"

Do I denounce you as a supporter of tyranny and human rights abuses? do I personally hold you accountable for every innocent death caused by the US? ...the short answer is "no". Why must you then paint me in the same broad stroke as "what'shisface"?

to you anyone who speaks out against the government is anti-american ..I've given you no reason to believe that I would ever "support" what's-his-face, yet you made up your mind before I even posted in this thread ..the only logical conclusion that I can come up with is: "since you are anti-american, you must support what's-his-face"

I'm pretty sure Albright was trying to justify the foolish continued UN lollygagging that were the sanctions that killed the Iraqi children.

nope:

"Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the 18 contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. Government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment.

"...I support the Administration's decision to maintain sanctions on Iraq," he added. "However, in the absence of compelling security information, I cannot in good conscience back a policy of contract holds that inflicts so much suffering on innocent people."

Rep. Tony P. Hall, (D-Ohio)

12 years, that's a tragedy, the Iraqi people forced to live under the tyrant who wouldn't even use the money for their survival. That WAS NOT right. Action should have been taken MUCH sooner on their behalf.

hypocrite. YOU created the situation! Saddam was/is a madman ...what the hell is your excuse?

No, I wasn't clear on why you didn't vote. With your history on issues like this one it's the reasn I asked and called you out on your views towards it.

yes:

only logical conclusion that I can come up with is: "since you are anti-american, you must support what's-his-face"

I've written the same thing over and over.

as have I: "it's stupid" "he's insane" yet you still think I support him because I abstained from voting altogether

The second post after you accused me of calling for that I made it clear in writing on here. This sin't 4 weeks later where I changed something. This is where it was immediately made clear in the same thread in the next reply, yet you keep ONLY using what you incorrectly assumed and refusing to let go.

I said it (which it was right in it's original form of being written, too. You just pulled something else out of it and then later tried to justify it)

Then you accused me of something.

Then I said no, and wrote the same thing, and gave an example of that (the him getting run over one)

you know, you babble on and on about my "misinterpretation " of your motives and then you end it by proving my point:

If he died, I'd be happy. Simple as that.

implied intent "if he died I'd be happy" ...eariler you said something about him meeting a vilent end, therefore you are in fact saying that his murder would be justified therefore you approve of his murder and sanction it ...in other words by supporting his death you are "calling" calling for his death ....this is truely a frustrating excercise in futility as you're too boiled down in semantics to understand the concept

Funny, I never accused you (unless you're one of the people who doesn't care in this situation at all about what's being said to and about these young men and women)

whens the last time you went to anti-racist rally? when the last time you went to a gay pride day in support? why does this one raving lunatic earn so much outrage? your own administration sends 1500 of those you SUPPORT and care about to their deaths for nothing ...yet not a peep out of you

I certainly care about those children.

that's a crock, you have no sympathy for any iraqi dead or alive ..if you did you'd be at the front steps of the white house right now demading that the troops come home. How can you not see the hypocrasy in your words? Those children died for NOTHING ..you invaded anyways, you've taken more lives and you will continue to take more lives for generations to come ..so spare me your false sympathy

Do you think I'd support the danger our soldiers are in over there every moment if not?

that makes no sense whatsoever ...the troops are the reason they're dying at such alarming rates. No US invasion means no dead civilains

As if the war in Iraq is the only issue in politics at all. And yes, facts regarding the war are brought up in debate.

dont side step the issue ...the right has no facts to support it's justification behind the war

It's probably better this way, as his face is well known now, his name, he has lost all credibility for life. No self respecting person would employ him if they knew what he's done.

meh, who cares, he's an idiot anyways

I was talking about losing someone close to you like this and having a ****er like Crook say these things about them. Not someone threatening you.

I think mine is far worse ..a threat is a threat ..it's personal ..whathisface wasnt specifically talking your loved one

snip

stop trying to cloud the issue ...just look at the damn speech: clearly the part where he drones on about wmd is 10 times that of the other justifications. How can you say that the justifications were equal? this is the speech that was pivotal in swaying the american people that war was justified! dont make me compare the 2 sections again

Perhaps you don't view American media.

yes I do, I live an hour or so from the border

But in the run up to the war the plight of the Iraqi people was a major issue.

no not a major issue, a minor one

You act as if the war was not even talking about and debated, and the issues looked at.

you didnt, you were too gripped by the fear of another 9/11 to pay attention to facts. Besides anyone who even has a passing interest in foreign policy knows of Saddam and the US exploits over the years ...that alone would be enough to raise some eyebrows ...but since you were too pre-occupied with anthrax in your mail, phantom terrorists with briefcases full of nukes, confusing warning systems, and media overload preaching doom and gloom at the hands of some crazed arab ...saddam was doomed the instant that first plane shattered the silence of an otherwise normal september moring

I support the administration's foreign policy

that in itself once again disproves the notion that you care for iraqis

Another problem is if I criticize Bush on these issues, a lot of liberals will jump on the bandwagon and assume me a "BUSH HATER BUSH = NAZI" type. No, I don't support all his things but overall there's more that I do than don't. So he was my candidate in 2000 and 2004, but he damn well better do the job he promised his supporters.

see above ...as long as not as many mexicans get into the border you're fine ...who cares that he invaded a country illegally, who cares if he's responsible for the deaths of 10's of thousands in iraq ...again you prove me right:



you could care less about those 500,000 dead iraqi children

 

[15357]

my eyes hurt from reading both of you guys' posts.

don't you see that this will continue forever?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

that's as close to an admission of wrong-doing as I'm going to get out of you, isnt it?

There isn't 'wrong-doing.' You seem to think there is. It isn't going anywhere and that's not even what this discussion was originally about.

that has had the opposite effect

When the terrorists come out to fight (IE: Most in Iraq are foreigners, Jordanians, Syrians, etc) the number of incidents is going to rise. The number of terrorists is decreasing, as they are being blown off the face of this earth.

fas-cist

A reactionary or dictatorial person.

No, that would just be a reactionary.

Fascism: A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

fascist

Oh yes I'm a fascist for holding an opinion of someone.

says who? you? half a million fox"news" viewers? hannity and dimwit?


you are so quick to judge, so ready to pin a label on anyone not adhereing to your sense of "patriotism" and your code of ethics as "unamerican" : lacking characteristics of someone who embodies what it means to be "american" ..well, i submit this to you ; if you are to truely look thru those "patriot" glasses of yours you need look no further than the white house ...they are the ones that least embody what it means to be "american"

Do I denounce you as a supporter of tyranny and human rights abuses? do I personally hold you accountable for every innocent death caused by the US? ...the short answer is "no". Why must you then paint me in the same broad stroke as "what'shisface"?

to you anyone who speaks out against the government is anti-american ..I've given you no reason to believe that I would ever "support" what's-his-face, yet you made up your mind before I even posted in this thread ..the only logical conclusion that I can come up with is: "since you are anti-american, you must support what's-his-face"

You need to stop taking examples personally. That one wasn't even directed at you. Some have been, this one you have taken just out of nowhere.

Yes- I know you don't support what he said. I knew that from the point I explained why I asked you. Then you called me a fascist.

Anyone who does support Crook and what he's saying IS a traitor in my eyes and most American's. It should be well known what this man has said.

nope:

"Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the 18 contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. Government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment.

"...I support the Administration's decision to maintain sanctions on Iraq," he added. "However, in the absence of compelling security information, I cannot in good conscience back a policy of contract holds that inflicts so much suffering on innocent people."

Rep. Tony P. Hall, (D-Ohio)

I have no idea who Tony Hall is. The Sanctions were highly ineffective, abused, not adhered to by companies, and punished the people rather than the government. Saddam should have been taken out in 1991, and I've always said and held to that.

hypocrite. YOU created the situation! Saddam was/is a madman ...what the hell is your excuse?

I've never defended the 12 years of inaction. It's a tragedy he wasn't taken out in 1991, and all 12 years after was a waste of innocent life that was let to happen.

yes:

as have I: "it's stupid" "he's insane" yet you still think I support him because I abstained from voting altogether

Most people would vote, so in posting in the thread and showing you had an opinion, yet not voting in the poll, it was suspicious. When you answered after I brought it up, you then made it clear that you don't support him. Then you attacked my reason for bringing it out and it's led us this far.

you know, you babble on and on about my "misinterpretation " of your motives and then you end it by proving my point:


implied intent "if he died I'd be happy" ...eariler you said something about him meeting a vilent end, therefore you are in fact saying that his murder would be justified therefore you approve of his murder and sanction it ...in other words by supporting his death you are "calling" calling for his death ....this is truely a frustrating excercise in futility as you're too boiled down in semantics to understand the concept

There is no "implied intent" You are reading too far into six words. If he died, tomorrow, I would be happy.

Tomorrow. Bus hits him. Me = Happy.

Man kills him, man goes to prison. You can't murder someone for what they say.

I'd be happy he's dead though. You do things by the book and the law though. Ever seen Crimson Tide? COB has Gene Hackman confined to quarters even though he agrees with him and thinks Denzel Washington is dead wrong, because it's by the book.

whens the last time you went to anti-racist rally? when the last time you went to a gay pride day in support? why does this one raving lunatic earn so much outrage? your own administration sends 1500 of those you SUPPORT and care about to their deaths for nothing ...yet not a peep out of you

A: I've never heard of an anti-racist rally
B: I don't support gay pride parades. If they're gay, that's fine, no reason to parade sexual things into the street, that's obscene.
C: It isn't for nothing.

that's a crock, you have no sympathy for any iraqi dead or alive ..if you did you'd be at the front steps of the white house right now demading that the troops come home. How can you not see the hypocrasy in your words? Those children died for NOTHING ..you invaded anyways, you've taken more lives and you will continue to take more lives for generations to come ..so spare me your false sympathy

Oh how DARE you? Could you stoop any lower?

Withdrawing the troops now would put the Iraqis at serious risk, it'd fall into chaos.

Do you not understand what would be going on had we not entered Iraq? Do the mass graves with indexed names and crimes such as "opposing the baathists" mean nothing?

that makes no sense whatsoever ...the troops are the reason they're dying at such alarming rates. No US invasion means no dead civilains

Yeah, everything was perfect before we arrived. *cue Michael Moore footage of Iraqi child with kite in a free happy Iraq*

dont side step the issue ...the right has no facts to support it's justification behind the war

We've gone through this hundreds of times, you just don't want to accept them.

meh, who cares, he's an idiot anyways

I care to see he gets what's coming to him: being so well known for this that wherever he goes people will scorn him for it. I hope no company will hire him and he leads a lonely life leading into severe depression.

I think mine is far worse ..a threat is a threat ..it's personal ..whathisface wasnt specifically talking your loved one

I said: I hope you don't have to experience losing someone like this and having to deal with a guy like this saying these things about them.

You said: I do, I've had many people banned for death threats.

I'm not arguing a death threat is not bad or something, but your reply doesn't have anything to do with what I said. What he's saying is personal. In the articles he mentions the soldiers individually. He's just sickening.

stop trying to cloud the issue ...just look at the damn speech: clearly the part where he drones on about wmd is 10 times that of the other justifications. How can you say that the justifications were equal? this is the speech that was pivotal in swaying the american people that war was justified! dont make me compare the 2 sections again

I remember watching the speech in class that day. Huge discussion. Mr. Skowrownek's history class, taped, he did it specifically so we could debate it in class. The people who were swayed were not because of weapons. They were because of the humans rights abuses.

I was all over news sources , etc, debate sites and such in the run up to the war, and that was just as big an issue of any.

You can think it wasn't a big issue here in the people's choice if you want, obviously nothing is going to change your mind on that, but that doesn't make it a worthless reason. It's just as important, and is a justified reason on it's own for intervention.

yes I do, I live an hour or so from the border

I live here.

no not a major issue, a minor one

Major.

you didnt, you were too gripped by the fear of another 9/11 to pay attention to facts. Besides anyone who even has a passing interest in foreign policy knows of Saddam and the US exploits over the years ...that alone would be enough to raise some eyebrows ...but since you were too pre-occupied with anthrax in your mail, phantom terrorists with briefcases full of nukes, confusing warning systems, and media overload preaching doom and gloom at the hands of some crazed arab ...saddam was doomed the instant that first plane shattered the silence of an otherwise normal september moring

Sorry, no, I wasn't full of fear from those in making my personal decision to support the war. It was a shitty decision to support Hussein against the Iranians. Both sides were horrid, we should've stayed neutral, just because I support our actions now doesn't mean I think every single past action ever is right.

Saddam was doomed the moment he gassed the Kurds. It took too long for us to try to make things right.

that in itself once again disproves the notion that you care for iraqis

No, it doesn't.

see above ...as long as not as many mexicans get into the border you're fine ...who cares that he invaded a country illegally, who cares if he's responsible for the deaths of 10's of thousands in iraq

First of all, it's not me being upset about too many Mexicans. Anyone who enters legally is welcome here with open arms. Illegal immigrants coming in, abusing the system, etc, is a slap in the face to those who DID make the journey here legally though. Bush is doing a TERRIBLE job on the border, I'm not happy with him at all about it.

Second, Bush is not resonsible for their deaths. It's despicable to say that, the car bombers, masked gunmen, and the rest of those terrorists are the ones responsible.

you could care less about those 500,000 dead iraqi children

Once again how dare you? If I didn't care I would oppose the war for the reason of it costing us so damn much. But it's worth it.

 

[Absinthe]

The war is a sham. The reason some people still vehemently support it is because they want to keep face and ignore the fact that they actually swallowed Bush's brand of puree bullshit.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

dude, change your aviator, it's way too freaky

 

[bliink]

Off topic.

Locked