"Social Security Will Go Broke in 1988" - Bush

[No Limit]

Yes, things change. You and I have no access to the intelligence that Bush and everyone else on the top looked at. and what they believed and the rest of the world believed to be true.

Wait, didn't you say Bush saw the same intelligence as everyone else???

And for the 1000000th time the world did NOT BELIEVE IT WAWS TRUE! The world was investigating it by having inspectors on the ground, Bush blocked that investigation after just a couple months.

Why then did when we had inspectors on the ground int he 90s did saddam kick them out and defied them every way he could? Are you trying to ignore these points?

Lets not side track. The inspectors were there to see if what Bush was saying was true; Bush blocked that mission. Show me one example of where Saddam defied the inspectors this time around.

And I suppose you think that is fact right? You have no way of knowing what is going to happen over there for better or for worse.

If you don't speak out agains the war, like you are saying we shouldn't (you call it complaining) Bush will feel he has the right to invade every country he wishes. Did you miss his mendate speech?

Given that I would have to take off my shoes to count how many points of mine you have failed to address I don't see how me failing to address your points matters.

Please, show me where I failed to address anything from you and I will right away.

And you are the voice of the American people now? You aren't my voice. I knew perefectly well what we were going to war for in 2002-2003 and it wasn't just WMDs.

Oh pleeeease... You just said the media didn't report anything on humantiarian reasons before the war. If the media doesn't report on it that means the MAJORITY of the people don't know about it. Or are you going to say this isn't fact and I am getting this from my crystal ball?

And you and stern are the ones repeating the same old Democrat/anit-war talking points. I suppose you are going to call me an idiot next and say you are realist and you are capable of independant thought, huh?

Me and stern have been able to discredit everything you said. You are down to where you point is that shit happens and that we made a lot of mistakes and that we went in to Iraq for humanitarian issues. Please, give me a break.

 

[Bodacious]

I just have to look at 9/11 as an example ..up until then almost all of the attacks on americans were military targets. the gloves came off when you bombed training camps in afghanistan that killed many women and children in retribution for the USS cole bombing

Oh yah, WTC1 was a military target as well as embassys in Africa.

it doesnt matter, you are still responsible for those deaths

And? What is us being responsible for those deaths going to change?

who? members of the coalition? why didnt canada join? because they didnt believe saddam had WMD ..in fact every single country outside of the coalition didnt believe it either

Source? France and germany, the ones who would have vetoed the UN resolution, believe Saddam had WMD, they just wanted more time.

so I should shut up and tow the line? please, if no one complains they'll get away with it, and it will continue

Of course you shouldn't shut up, but there is a lot more you could do about it than holding a grudge. Be like your hero Noam and write a book or something. Join the Peace Corps. Grab a gun and fight for what you believe. Sitting in front of a monitor isn't acomplishing anything.

how? by agreeing to disarm? he was doing just that when you invaded ..you said he was lying ..turns out he wasnt

That doesn't change the fact that we are there does it?

hahahahahaha that brought a tear to my eye ..is that why the urrent PM is a terrorist and murderer? how is he any better than saddam ..mark my words you'll never control iraq, you will never bring your brand of "democracy" to iraq

What are my lucky numbers? Will I be successful in my career? What does my love life have in store?

come on, how can they flip-flop so much on such a huge issue?

Beats me, but they did and we are in Iraq for the long haul.

your justification doesnt hold up to scrutiny

And your denunciations don't either.

so it's ok to needlessly put americans at risk just so a chosen few can make tons of $ on fat oil contracts?

That is assuming they are at risk. How do you know they are at risk? Under the assumption that we are making all of them angry and they are going to come over here and get us? OH NOES! Assumptions for the win.

he was doing that when he was an ally and friend ...what's the difference? funny how I have no problem admitting that saddam was a lunatic and tyrant responsible for the deaths of thousands, yet when your own government admits responsibility in the deaths of 500,000 children you sweep it under the carpet

Read this

sorry but not a valid source: this in itself proves that:

"British P.M. Tony Blair 1998 - 2003
Malnutrition among children under 5. 400,000"


"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

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


seems to me that they're admitting responsibility

this document proves that the US knew what it would do to the civilian populace if they destroyed the water treatment plants in iraq

Blah blah blah. Saddam should have never given America a reason to put sanctions on them. Saddam should have taken care of his populace instead of building palaces. Saddam should have use the money given to him for the oild for food program instead of taking care of his greedy ass.

really? then why does this document support that assertion? here's a summary

it's pretty clear from the video ..I'll send it to you when I get home

Ty

doesnt matter ...you sold the war to americans using WMD as a justification ..man that's all anyone ever said "wmd this" and "wmd that" ...how is it that I knew without a doubt that thetre were no WMD but all of congress didnt? because they wanted someone to gun for after 9/11

It does matter.

how am I brainwashed? because I see the truth? you cant dispute most of my facts ..because they're facts

In my belief you don't see the truth and you are the one who ignores facts. It is a two way street.

btw I find it extremely disturbing and hypocritical that you're willing to sacrifice your fellow countrymen for the profit of a few ..god I look like a patriot in comparison

That is what you think, not me. You can't prove any of that. All you say is the the US is a hipocrit, we shouldn't be there in the first place war is for oil, and we are sewing the seeds of our own destruction. None of what you say is fact with the exception of the US being hypocritical.

 

[Tr0n]

Hmmmmm...funny no one addressed my post yet.

Maybe because......it's true? :O

 

[No Limit]

And? What is us being responsible for those deaths going to change?

Nothing now, but it is important for people to know that those people died because of Bush's mistake.

That doesn't change the fact that we are there does it?

No but it proves Bush was wrong to go in there, that is what we are discussing.

Beats me, but they did and we are in Iraq for the long haul.

Beats me? that is your response to a legitimate point that shows they didn't really think they had WMDs?

And your denunciations don't either.

Oh yes, they do. There WERE NO WMDs.

That is assuming they are at risk. How do you know they are at risk? Under the assumption that we are making all of them angry and they are going to come over here and get us? OH NOES! Assumptions for the win.

Our soldiers are at risk each day, what the hell are you talking about? I think you are taking this crystal ball argument a little too far.

Blah blah blah. Saddam should have never given America a reason to put sanctions on them. Saddam should have taken care of his populace instead of building palaces. Saddam should have use the money given to him for the oild for food program instead of taking care of his greedy ass.

So we should kill thousands of civillians because he didn't do that? AND AGAIN, AMERICA WAS JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS SADDAM WAS FOR THE OIL-FOR-FOOD SCANDAL!!!!!!!

It does matter.

Ahh dude, it does matter. You said Bush wasn't being misleading.

In my belief you don't see the truth and you are the one who ignores facts. It is a two way street.

LOL! LOL! LOL!

Show me an example of Stern or I ignoring facts. Stern has posted nothing but facts, do you even know what you are talking about anymore?

That is what you think, not me. You can't prove any of that. All you say is the the US is a hipocrit, we shouldn't be there in the first place war is for oil, and we are sewing the seeds of our own destruction. None of what you say is fact with the exception of the US being hypocritical.

If this is not true why was the oil minestry and other oil targets protected while hospitals weren't? You have side stepped this every time by saying it was a mistake; cut the shit and address it.

 

[Bodacious]

Wait, didn't you say Bush saw the same intelligence as everyone else???

Everyone else = other countries.

And for the 1000000th time the world did NOT BELIEVE IT WAWS TRUE! The world was investigating it by having inspectors on the ground, Bush blocked that investigation after just a couple months.

Source? France and germany even believed Saddam had WMDs, they wanted more time for the inspectors.

Lets not side track. The inspectors were there to see if what Bush was saying was true; Bush blocked that mission. Show me one example of where Saddam defied the inspectors this time around.

Why should Bush trust that Saddam is cooperating when he has a histrory of not cooperating?

If you don't speak out agains the war, like you are saying we shouldn't (you call it complaining) Bush will feel he has the right to invade every country he wishes. Did you miss his mendate speech?

I am not saying you shouldn't speak out against the war, I am just saying that speaking out against the war is useless.

Please, show me where I failed to address anything from you and I will right away.

Here goes:

Post 33 of this thread:

Have you been in the Military?

So on one had it is ok but in the greater scheme of things its not? Do you not see the flawed logic in that?

From Post 44 of this thread:

Why do you even make that argument when kerry says himself that what he did was illegal according to the geneva conventions? Are you saying Kerry is wrong?

Then how can you claim, that "there are a number of logical people on this board,[that agree with you]" when they haven't even given their thoughts on the issue?

From post 45 of this thread:

What benefit cuts?

From post 52:

Show me where it was policy for what Kerry described himself doing to be legal.

From post 71:
Where have I disagreed?
Again, where have I disagreed?
What facts?

From post 75:

But that isn't what happened is it?

From post 103:
Explain to me why it is less valid then because there were more words on one subject than another.

From post 106:
Then where are the UN resolutions denouncing the US? Where are the war crimes charges against Bush?
Source?
And how do you know Rumsfeld doesn't care now? That is an assumption is it not?

From post 109:
Who cares if I am wrong anyways?
Source?

From post 116:
Why then did when we had inspectors on the ground int he 90s did saddam kick them out and defied them every way he could? Are you trying to ignore these points?

Oh pleeeease... You just said the media didn't report anything on humantiarian reasons before the war. If the media doesn't report on it that means the MAJORITY of the people don't know about it. Or are you going to say this isn't fact and I am getting this from my crystal ball?

Where did I say that?

Me and stern have been able to discredit everything you said. You are down to where you point is that shit happens and that we made a lot of mistakes and that we went in to Iraq for humanitarian issues. Please, give me a break.

No you haven't. You twist facts to support your agenda. You conveniently leave stuff out or make things into what they realy aren't.

 

[Bodacious]

Nothing now, but it is important for people to know that those people died because of Bush's mistake.

And what end does that serve?

No but it proves Bush was wrong to go in there, that is what we are discussing.

What difference does it make if Bush was wrong to go in there? We are there unitl the ask us to leave, which is going to be a while.

Beats me? that is your response to a legitimate point that shows they didn't really think they had WMDs?

Like I said, things change.

Oh yes, they do. There WERE NO WMDs.

Says you.

Our soldiers are at risk each day, what the hell are you talking about? I think you are taking this crystal ball argument a little too far.

I am talking about American citizens in the continental US, not soldiers. That is whay I thought stern was talking about when he said putting innocent lives at risk. I thought he was saying that in reference to the future generations of islamic fundamentalists going to attack america in the future.

So we should kill thousands of civillians because he didn't do that? AND AGAIN, AMERICA WAS JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS SADDAM WAS FOR THE OIL-FOR-FOOD SCANDAL!!!!!!!

Give me your source that says we are just as guilty for the oil for food scandal.

Have you not read the Duelfer report? Are you not aware of what saddam's intentions were when the sanctions were lifted? Would you be willing to accept the consequences had Saddam been able to do as he pleased because no sanctions existed?

Ahh dude, it does matter. You said Bush wasn't being misleading.

Show me where I said that.

LOL! LOL! LOL!

Show me an example of Stern or I ignoring facts. Stern has posted nothing but facts, do you even know what you are talking about anymore?

The biggest fact you ignore is Congress' resolution to go to war.

If this is not true why was the oil minestry and other oil targets protected while hospitals weren't? You have side stepped this every time by saying it was a mistake; cut the shit and address it.

Because they made a mistake. That is the only answer.

 

[CptStern]

Oh yah, WTC1 was a military target as well as embassys in Africa.

only military service men died in africa (american) ...sure a whole whack of civilians died there but they werent america ..oh and how many people died in wtc1? ....6


btw Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman claimed responsibility not al queda

btw I found this extremely complelling:

"Salem asserts that the original plan was to have the plotters build the bomb using a harmless powder instead of actual explosive, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be constructed instead. He substantiates his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings.

Salem says he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office.

The FBI has not explicitly denied Salem's account."

source

next you'll bring up smoke and mirrors

And? What is us being responsible for those deaths going to change?

cupability ..your enemy will use that against you and justify all of their actions

Source? France and germany, the ones who would have vetoed the UN resolution, believe Saddam had WMD, they just wanted more time.

these countries ..the ones in red sent troops the ones in orange supported in word only ...no need to explain what represents countries that are white in color

Of course you shouldn't shut up, but there is a lot more you could do about it than holding a grudge. Be like your hero Noam and write a book or something. Join the Peace Corps. Grab a gun and fight for what you believe. Sitting in front of a monitor isn't acomplishing anything.

so when are you shipping off to iraq?

That doesn't change the fact that we are there does it?

you're sidestepping the issue

What are my lucky numbers? Will I be successful in my career? What does my love life have in store?

you're sidestepping again ..just answer the question

Beats me, but they did and we are in Iraq for the long haul.

why do you only look at the surface?

And your denunciations don't either.

yes they do, I've backed up my facts a multitude of times

That is assuming they are at risk.

assuming? over 1000 dead soldiers is more than an assumption

How do you know they are at risk? Under the assumption that we are making all of them angry and they are going to come over here and get us? OH NOES! Assumptions for the win.

how many terrorist attacks have you thwarted? how many more are on the horizon? ..9/11 is just a prelude of things to come ..you cant possibly protect everyone from attacks ..9/11 proved that a handful of poorly armed men can make a big impact (no pun intended)

Blah blah blah. Saddam should have never given America a reason to put sanctions on them. Saddam should have taken care of his populace instead of building palaces. Saddam should have use the money given to him for the oild for food program instead of taking care of his greedy ass.

you've just exposed how little you know about what happened ..the program started in 1997 (officially 1996, but the first shipments didnt start till 97) ..the sanctions were in place in 1991 ...6 years of hundreds of thousands of civilians dying

It does matter.

I see no relation to what we were discussing

In my belief you don't see the truth and you are the one who ignores facts. It is a two way street.

what facts? the Iran UN resolution? the PNAC papers? the targeting water treatment plants document?

That is what you think, not me. You can't prove any of that. All you say is the the US is a hipocrit, we shouldn't be there in the first place war is for oil, and we are sewing the seeds of our own destruction. None of what you say is fact with the exception of the US being hypocritical.

you're right I'm no clairvoyant ..but it really doesnt take a genius to see that you've opened a festering wound that is starting to rot ...you will pay for your greed a hundred fold ..as I've said before ..the civilians of america are poised to collect on the karma backlog that a few greedy men in washington started ..what will you say when I'm proven right? as I have been time and again ..much to my shame

 

[Bodacious]

cupability ..your enemy will use that against you and justify all of their actions

According to what you believe isn't that what has already happened?

these countries ..the ones in red sent troops the ones in orange supported in word only ...no need to explain what represents countries that are white in color

I get an error when trying to view that image, says forbidden. Either way, just because they aren't part of the coalition does not mean they didn't think saddam had WMDs before the intelligence failures were discovered.

so when are you shipping off to iraq?

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I arrived in Kuwait on Jan 27 of 2003 and left Oct 2003. I entered Iraq March 22 and left Iraq June 20. I got out of the marines thanksgiving day of 2003 and am going to college. If I had to go back I would, but I have already served.

you're sidestepping the issue

you're sidestepping again ..just answer the question

why do you only look at the surface?

I see no need to answer. No matter how evil the US is depicted to be the troops aren't coming home and time isn't going to revert.

yes they do, I've backed up my facts a multitude of times

What facts? How do sanctions and attacks on water facilities make the war unjust?

assuming? over 1000 dead soldiers is more than an assumption

I misunderstood what you were talking about here. I thought you were talking about american civilians deaths in the future.

how many terrorist attacks have you thwarted? how many more are on the horizon? ..9/11 is just a prelude of things to come ..you cant possibly protect everyone from attacks ..9/11 proved that a handful of poorly armed men can make a big impact (no pun intended)

Jose Padilla and the dirty bomb plot is one that was avoided. Richard Reid the shoebomber is another. Most of that information is classified secret anyways, so how am I supposed to know?

you've just exposed how little you know about what happened ..the program started in 1997 (officially 1996, but the first shipments didnt start till 97) ..the sanctions were in place in 1991 ...6 years of hundreds of thousands of civilians dying

Again, I stand by what I said. Had saddam not given a reason for sanctions to be imposed there would be less deaths.

what facts? the Iran UN resolution? the PNAC papers? the targeting water treatment plants document?

No, facts like congress' war resolution and the belief Bush lied.

you're right I'm no clairvoyant ..but it really doesnt take a genius to see that you've opened a festering wound that is starting to rot ...you will pay for your greed a hundred fold ..as I've said before ..the civilians of america are poised to collect on the karma backlog that a few greedy men in washington started ..what will you say when I'm proven right? as I have been time and again ..much to my shame

I will eat my shorts if you are proven right. What are you going to do if I am proven right and democracy succeeds in Iraq and we thwart future terrorist attacks?

 

[No Limit]

And what end does that serve?

What difference does it make if Bush was wrong to go in there? We are there unitl the ask us to leave, which is going to be a while.

It serves the purpose of not reelecting an idiot that has made mistake after mistake. Oops, too late.

Says you.

Wait, so there were WMDs and I just forgot about it? Seriously, earth to Bodacious.

Like I said, things change.

Things don't change like that. If there was some huge discovery that would change their opinion in about a year you can bet that they would share that discovery with us. They had the same intelligence for years, anything new wasn't shown so there wasn't any smoking gun in there. So please spare the bullshit and admit they didn't really think Saddam had WMDs until somehow they flip flopped when they found out Bush's plan to go in to Iraq.

Give me your source that says we are just as guilty for the oil for food scandal

I don't need a source, it is common knowledge that only you have denied so far. So do your own damn research.

Show me where I said that.

Lets not play this game again, I don't have the nerve for it. When I asked you if Bush was misleading you refused to address it so I am assuming you think he wasn't misleading. If you wish correct me by saying he is misleading.

Because they made a mistake. That is the only answer.

No, this is not an answer; that's a half ass excuse so you don't have to admit you were wrong.

 

[No Limit]

I will eat my shorts if you are proven right. What are you going to do if I am proven right and democracy succeeds in Iraq and we thwart future terrorist attacks?

Ok, there will be an election on the 30th. So on Feb 28th (a month after) I want you to come in here. If democracy does succeed I will say I was wrong and Bush was right and that I should have voted for Bush; however, if the election doesn't work out becuase of violance or fraud you admit you were wrong and you will stop supporting Bush. Deal?

 

[Bodacious]

I don't need a source, it is common knowledge that only you have denied so far. So do your own damn research.

HAHAHAHAH, that is all I wanted to hear.

 

[No Limit]

HAHAHAHAH, that is all I wanted to hear.

Ok so you saying I am lying?

If I give you a source will you say that you are a dumbass?

 

[Bodacious]

Ok, there will be an election on the 30th. So on Feb 28th (a month after) I want you to come in here. If democracy does succeed I will say I was wrong and Bush was right and that I should have voted for Bush; however, if the election doesn't work out becuase of violance or fraud you admit you were wrong and you will stop supporting Bush. Deal?

You don't have to say you should have voted for Bush. And I am not going to say I don't support Bush. There are a lot of other things besides the war in Iraq that I support. I hope the same is true for you as well (meaning there are things that you do or do not support).


I am sure we can strike a deal somewhere.

If democracy succeeds you can come on here and say that the ends have justified the means. If Iraq falls a part then I will come on here and say that we are wasting our time and money over there and that we need to get out.

 

[No Limit]

You don't have to say you should have voted for Bush. And I am not going to say I don't support Bush. There are a lot of other things besides the war in Iraq that I support. I hope the same is true for you as well (meaning there are things that you do or do not support).


I am sure we can strike a deal somewhere.

If democracy succeeds you can come on here and say that the ends have justified the means. If Iraq falls a part then I will come on here and say that we are wasting our time and money over there and that we need to get out.

The POINT IS WE CAN'T GET OUT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. THE POINT IS BUSH MISLEAD THE PEOPLE TO HELP HIS OWN BUDDIES. Do you even understand what we are talking about?

 

[No Limit]

Also, I do not appreciate you implying I lied:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=3767

But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil. Since the oil-for-food program began, Iraq has sold $40 billion worth of oil. U.S. and European officials have long argued that the increase in Iraq's oil production also expanded Saddam's ability to use some of that money for weapons, luxury goods and palaces. Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq was skimming off as much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program thanks to companies like Halliburton and former executives such as Cheney.

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16201-2004Oct7.html

 

[Bodacious]

Ok so you saying I am lying?

If I give you a source will you say that you are a dumbass?

Where did I say you were lying?

Your source has to say what you claim, that the US is just as guilty as the oil for food scandal as the other nations were. And it has to be a credible source, or reference a credible source, too.

Then, I will admit that I was wrong. Just because I am wrong doesn't make me a dumbass.

 

[Bodacious]

Also, I do not appreciate you implying I lied:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=3767

Yah, antiwar.com really reliable source there. :angel:

 

[CptStern]

According to what you believe isn't that what has already happened?

yup ..just expect it to multiply over the next several generations ..witness palestine

I get an error when trying to view that image, says forbidden. Either way, just because they aren't part of the coalition does not mean they didn't think saddam had WMDs before the intelligence failures were discovered.

sorry dont know how that happened ..here try this ..halfway down

http://ruste.org/archives/000085.shtml

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I arrived in Kuwait on Jan 27 of 2003 and left Oct 2003. I entered Iraq March 22 and left Iraq June 20. I got out of the marines thanksgiving day of 2003 and am going to college. If I had to go back I would, but I have already served.

so in effect you're part of the problem

I see no need to answer. No matter how evil the US is depicted to be the troops aren't coming home and time isn't going to revert.

sigh, then why are we having this discussion? you're sidestepping without answering my questions ..I've answered all of yours, why do you purposefully ignore mine?

What facts? How do sanctions and attacks on water facilities make the war unjust?

you're twisting my words ..I was proving that the US deliiberately created the scenario that led to the deaths of over 500,000 children ..yet you're avoiding that at all costs

I misunderstood what you were talking about here. I thought you were talking about american civilians deaths in the future.

fine



J

ose Padilla and the dirty bomb plot is one that was avoided. Richard Reid the shoebomber is another. Most of that information is classified secret anyways, so how am I supposed to know?

but isnt that what your supposed to be doing a s a soldier? protecting your fellow countrymen?

Again, I stand by what I said. Had saddam not given a reason for sanctions to be imposed there would be less deaths.

oh come on!! everyone knew the true victems of the sanctions were going to be the civilian populace ..the US wanted them to rise up against saddam ..this was the prefect instrument ..but it didnt work

No, facts like congress' war resolution and the belief Bush lied.

I proved bush lied ..not only indirectly but directly:

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George Bush February 8, 2003

I will eat my shorts if you are proven right. What are you going to do if I am proven right and democracy succeeds in Iraq and we thwart future terrorist attacks?

alright I promise to give up my humanitarian ways and support US foreign policy no matter how many civilians it affects ..so when do you expect democracy to come to iraq? in a few days? when allawi's party takes control? btw how successful has israel been at thwarting terrorism? your situation is much much worse, because not only do you not speak the language, not only do you not have any trust worthy informants but it's not even on your turf ..you cannot sustain 1000 casualties a year for very long ..americans will not stand for it

 

[No Limit]

Then, I will admit that I was wrong. Just because I am wrong doesn't make me a dumbass.

If you admit you are wrong you are not a dumbass; however, you have continually side stepped simple questions. We say that Bush didn't care about the people because he guarded oil instead of hospitals you say it was a mistake. We show you how Rice and Powell both didn't think Saddam had WMDs you say 'beats me'. If you admit you were wrong on those issues I will apologize for calling you an idiot which I already got a warning for.

 

[No Limit]

Yah, antiwar.com really reliable source there. :angel:

Ok, then read the other f*cking source I posted.

 

[Bodacious]

Ok, then read the other f*cking source I posted.

I didn't see it.


Woops! Looks like you were right and I was wrong. But what does it change?

 

[No Limit]

I didn't see it.


Woops! Looks like you were right and I was wrong. But what does it change?

Well if you were a rational person it would change the way you look at this war; but for some stupid reason you won't look at this with an open mind. What if Bush really did lie to you? Why won't you at least look at the possibility?

 

[Bodacious]

We say that Bush didn't care about the people because he guarded oil instead of hospitals you say it was a mistake.

Do you disagree it was a mistake to only guard those places? Where are your facts that say Bush doesn't care? A lot of mistakes were made and looking back on them we can learn from them and not repeat them in the future.

We show you how Rice and Powell both didn't think Saddam had WMDs you say 'beats me'. If you admit you were wrong on those issues I will apologize for calling you an idiot which I already got a warning for.

I said things change. Call me on not backing that up if you want but I don't have access to secret documents that could prove otherwise.

 

[Bodacious]

Well if you were a rational person it would change the way you look at this war; but for some stupid reason you won't look at this with an open mind. What if Bush really did lie to you? Why won't you at least look at the possibility?

Because I don't think he lied. Thats the differnce. If he really did lie what does it change as far as Iraq goes? We are still there and are going to install a democracy.

 

[No Limit]

I said things change. Call me on not backing that up if you want but I don't have access to secret documents that could prove otherwise.

Ok, but you also said that Bush saw the same evidance as we all did when you were trying to prove another point. Why did Bush withhold this information from the American people if it was big enough to change thei mind? Let me guess, you don't know but you know for a fact Bush had a reason to? RIght?

 

[No Limit]

Because I don't think he lied. Thats the differnce. If he really did lie what does it change as far as Iraq goes? We are still there and are going to install a democracy.

I already told you why it matters. YOU CAN NOT SUPPORT A PRESIDENT THAT LIES TO YOU! And Stern already gave you a direct example of how Bush lied, stop feeding me this bullshit.

 

[Bodacious]

yup ..just expect it to multiply over the next several generations ..witness palestine

We'l have to wait and see won't we?

sorry dont know how that happened ..here try this ..halfway down

http://ruste.org/archives/000085.shtml

Thanks.

sigh, then why are we having this discussion? you're sidestepping without answering my questions ..I've answered all of yours, why do you purposefully ignore mine?

Because at the end of the day nothing changes. The troops aren't coming home and we are going to do our best to make sure the elections go smoothly.

you're twisting my words ..I was proving that the US deliiberately created the scenario that led to the deaths of over 500,000 children ..yet you're avoiding that at all costs

Thanks for clarifying. So what? You think every president since Carter has been planning this and the Republican/Democrat bickering is a fascade to fool the American peole into giving up their tax dollars to fill their pockets? At least, that is what would have to happen if you think that is true

but isnt that what your supposed to be doing a s a soldier? protecting your fellow countrymen?

You asked if there were any terror attacks that we have stopped since 9/11. How do these questions have any relevance to that?

oh come on!! everyone knew the true victems of the sanctions were going to be the civilian populace ..the US wanted them to rise up against saddam ..this was the prefect instrument ..but it didnt work

Or maybe the sanctions were supposed to coerce Saddam into complying with the rest of the world's demands?

I proved bush lied ..not only indirectly but directly:

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George Bush February 8, 2003

The bush lied argument is tired. Keep think that if you want.

alright I promise to give up my humanitarian ways and support US foreign policy no matter how many civilians it affects ..so when do you expect democracy to come to iraq? in a few days? when allawi's party takes control? btw how successful has israel been at thwarting terrorism? your situation is much much worse, because not only do you not speak the language, not only do you not have any trust worthy informants but it's not even on your turf ..you cannot sustain 1000 casualties a year for very long ..americans will not stand for it

Time will tell.

 

[Bodacious]

I already told you why it matters. YOU CAN NOT SUPPORT A PRESIDENT THAT LIES TO YOU! And Stern already gave you a direct example of how Bush lied, stop feeding me this bullshit.

*dances* If you think Bush lied you think Aristotle lied when he siad the world was flat.

 

[No Limit]

Or maybe the sanctions were supposed to coerce Saddam into complying with the rest of the world's demands?

What did Saddam have to do to comply with Bush. Bush never gave any thing Saddam could really do to comply. Can you not skip this question this time?

 

[No Limit]

*dances* If you think Bush lied you think Aristotle lied when he siad the world was flat.

So this is not a lie:

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Don't give me the shit with intelligence; if this was based off real intelligence show me which one.

 

[Bodacious]

Ok, but you also said that Bush saw the same evidance as we all did when you were trying to prove another point. Why did Bush withhold this information from the American people if it was big enough to change thei mind? Let me guess, you don't know but you know for a fact Bush had a reason to? RIght?

My intent was that Bush saw the same eveidence that the rest of the world leaders saw.

I don't know why he would withhold that information, maybe he thought there would be turmoil had that information been revealed. There could be any number of reasons.

What difference does it make anyways?

 

[No Limit]

Let me just give you a list of the things I am waiting on you to address:

Why did Bush block the UN investigation in to Saddam's WMDs when the inspectors were in Iraq?

What did Saddam have to do, according to Bush, to avoid invasion?

Why did the CIA censor examples of Cheney's company helping in the Oil-for-Food scandal?

There is more but I want your response on the 3 above examples.

 

[Bodacious]

What did Saddam have to do to comply with Bush. Bush never gave any thing Saddam could really do to comply. Can you not skip this question this time?

The sanctions didn't sart with Bush 2 in power like stern pointed out. They started in the 90s.

I don't know the nature of the sanctions. I am sure part of the reason for them existing was to get saddam to allow the weapons inspectors in unthwarted. Don't say the weapons inspectors weren't being given the run around in the 90s because they were.

 

[No Limit]

The sanctions didn't sart with Bush 2 in power like stern pointed out. They started in the 90s.

I don't know the nature of the sanctions. I am sure part of the reason for them existing was to get saddam to allow the weapons inspectors in unthwarted. Don't say the weapons inspectors weren't being given the run around in the 90s because they were.

For christ sake, this has nothing to do with the 90s. Answer the questions.

 

[Bodacious]

Let me just give you a list of the things I am waiting on you to address:

Why did Bush block the UN investigation in to Saddam's WMDs when the inspectors were in Iraq?

Bush allowed the UN inspectors in Iraq until the war started, I woulnd't call that blocking the UN investigation. He told them to get out because Saddam wouldn't comply, so they left to avoid the oncoming attack. Remember, the belief was that Saddam had WMDs, and beacuase the UN inspecors hadn't found anything and Saddam had a history of undermining the UN inspector's efforts, we attacked.

What did Saddam have to do, according to Bush, to avoid invasion?

Disarm, give the inspectors what they wanted.

Why did the CIA censor examples of Cheney's company helping in the Oil-for-Food scandal?

From your own source: "The Privacy Act would indeed prohibit the unconsented disclosure of intelligence on "persons" who are either U.S. citizens or permanent residents, according to lawyers knowledgeable about the law and a detailed explanation of the statute on the Justice Department's Web site. But the Web site adds that "[c]orporations and organizations . . . do not have any Privacy Act rights.""

"So company names may have been ruled out by "other applicable law." An intelligence official said Duelfer's legal advisers relied on a 1981 Executive Order, signed by President Ronald Reagan, that sets out rules for intelligence-gathering in the United States and abroad.

That order, a public document, limits the circumstances under which intelligence agencies may "collect, retain or disseminate" information concerning "United States persons" -- which the order, unlike the Privacy Act, defines to include corporations."

There is more but I want your response on the 3 above examples.

Anything else?

 

[No Limit]

My intent was that Bush saw the same eveidence that the rest of the world leaders saw.

I don't know why he would withhold that information, maybe he thought there would be turmoil had that information been revealed. There could be any number of reasons.

What difference does it make anyways?

:bounce: :bounce:
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:


What turmoil? That the world would support our invasion? Are you listening to yourself?

 

[Bodacious]

For christ sake, this has nothing to do with the 90s. Answer the questions.

Then why did you quote somethign from my conversation with stern in reference to the sanctions?

 

[No Limit]

Bush allowed the UN inspectors in Iraq until the war started, I woulnd't call that blocking the UN investigation. He told them to get out because Saddam wouldn't comply, so they left to avoid the oncoming attack. Remember, the belief was that Saddam had WMDs, and beacuase the UN inspecors hadn't found anything and Saddam had a history of undermining the UN inspector's efforts, we attacked.

No, the inspectors were still doing their assigned job when Bush told them to get out. That is blocking an investigation. That is like when a cop comes to search your house and half way through the job before anything is found the DA tells them to simply arrest you and stop the search. And again, Saddam did nothing to defy the inspectors in 02-03.

Disarm, give the inspectors what they wanted.

HOW? He didn't have what BUSH wanted (WMDs).

From your own source: "The Privacy Act would indeed prohibit the unconsented disclosure of intelligence on "persons" who are either U.S. citizens or permanent residents, according to lawyers knowledgeable about the law and a detailed explanation of the statute on the Justice Department's Web site. But the Web site adds that "[c]orporations and organizations . . . do not have any Privacy Act rights.""

Then why did it list the names of companies outside the US? I will tell you why, to make it look like the countries that disagreed with the invasion were helping Saddam while Americans weren't.

 

[No Limit]

Then why did you quote somethign from my conversation with stern in reference to the sanctions?

I am still waiting for you to answer the question.

Notice how I was talking about Bush 2.

 

[CptStern]

We'l have to wait and see won't we?

nope we can see the effects today right now ...march there was an average of 30 attacks a day, there is now 70-80 attacks on coalition forces ..how many will there be 2 months from now? 2 years from now? 2 decades from now ...like I said, all you have to do is look at palestine as an example

Because at the end of the day nothing changes. The troops aren't coming home and we are going to do our best to make sure the elections go smoothly.

you're still avoiding the question

Thanks for clarifying. So what?

this is quite indicative of your state of mind

So what?

..what would you have said if it was 500,000 blond haired blue-eyed american children thrown away as if they mean nothing? No matter the colour of the skin, no matter the race if even one child suffers because of an ideal it is wrong. Bodacious I thought better of you ..now I'm not so sure

You think every president since Carter has been planning this and the Republican/Democrat bickering is a fascade to fool the American peole into giving up their tax dollars to fill their pockets? At least, that is what would have to happen if you think that is true

huh? what are you trying to say here? please just answer the question

You asked if there were any terror attacks that we have stopped since 9/11. How do these questions have any relevance to that?

because it shows the length you'll go in protecting your countrymen ....you must realise that going down this hazardous road will only jeopordize your countrymen ..it's your sworn duty to protect them ..by willingly fighting in iraq you have betrayed them

Or maybe the sanctions were supposed to coerce Saddam into complying with the rest of the world's demands?

by targeting civilians? come on they KNEW saddam would just hole himself up in one of his palaces

The bush lied argument is tired. Keep think that if you want.

but ...what would you call it then? disinformation? a little white lie? selective memory? read my lips:

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons "

were is the documentation supporting the fact that saddam used WMD on US troops

Time will tell.

I hope you like your shorts, wont be too long now