Why Bush Should be Impeached [Archive] - Page 15 - Theology Forum

fool

September 12th, 2005, 06:59 PM

I have never "made excuses" for Saddam!
But you have done your best to minimize his record.

I'm only basing my claims about Saddam on the available evidence. I know of no evidence of major atrocities by Saddam in the years leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion.

And the difference between major and minor atrocities is what? Body count? Most killed at once? What's the difference between a mass murderer and a serial killer?

Since the Gulf War, Saddam had been surrounded 24/7 by the U.S. and international community.
Surrounded? How? Are you sure you know everything ? We are inside the country right now and we can't keep track of all the players. How can you defend the concept that anybody is absolutly sure that there's not a black market Russian nuke in somebodies refrigerator right now?

During this time, the U.S. was regularly bombing Iraq for one reason or another.

Cause they shot at us while we were patroling the treaty mandated no fly zone.

UN inspectors were on the ground for most of this period, finding no evidence of WMD, other than those that they destroyed in the early years. During this time, Saddam was very unlikely to have committed any kind of major atrocity that would have warranted a significant military intervention.

Where is Skeptic's cut off for major/minor atrocities? What's Skeptics Crime/Atrocity threshold?

Yes, Saddam probably had various individuals killed after the Gulf War, but nothing that would have warranted anything like Bush's unnecessary all-out military invasion, which has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as our brave troops.
Yes, Saddam could have been left to fester even though he was beligerent, was he beligerent enough? G.W. said yes, take him down. G.W. is a simple man who dosen't get why the liberals allow a dangerous dictator to thumb his nose at a treaty that allowed him to stay in power, and shoot at our jets, and maintain a full time torture chamber, No body knows what would have transpired if he had been left to his designs, but we do know something now, we know he's under watch 24/7 by the U.S. military.

drbrumley

September 12th, 2005, 07:01 PM

The UN sucks.

fool

September 12th, 2005, 07:05 PM

The UN sucks.
It sure does.

drbrumley

September 12th, 2005, 07:06 PM

It sure does.

Glad we agree. But then why do we have to enforce UN resoultions that are binding on no country?

fool

September 12th, 2005, 07:34 PM

Glad we agree. But then why do we have to enforce UN resoultions that are binding on no country?Cause a resolution is only as strong as the resolve behind it.

drbrumley

September 12th, 2005, 07:41 PM

Cause a resolution is only as strong as the resolve behind it.
Who gives the UN the right? Who gives the US the right to meddle in other governments affairs?

BillyBob

September 12th, 2005, 07:48 PM

The UN sucks.

See, we still have plenty of common ground, Doc! :thumb:

fool

September 12th, 2005, 08:04 PM

Who gives the UN the right? Who gives the US the right to meddle in other governments affairs?
the fact that we have whooped everybodies butt before. Oh yeah, and the fact that somebody has to or everyone will just do whatever they want.

drbrumley

September 12th, 2005, 08:13 PM

the fact that we have whooped everybodies butt before.

Oh, I see. Might makes Right?

Oh yeah, and the fact that somebody has to or everyone will just do whatever they want.

Hmmmm. So we are the UN's b***h. Your right, someone has to do it.

BillyBob

September 12th, 2005, 08:21 PM

Oh, I see. Might makes Right?

It sure does.

Hey, you sound just like Skeptic! :shocked:

fool

September 12th, 2005, 08:34 PM

Oh, I see. Might makes Right?
No, but if the right don't use their might then they might as well be wrong.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."-someolddeadguy.

Hmmmm. So we are the UN's b***h. Your right, someone has to do it.

The UN is our b***h and we'll drop em like a crack whore whenever we're done hearing them whine.

koban

September 12th, 2005, 08:59 PM

:mad:You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fool again :mad:

drbrumley

September 13th, 2005, 07:50 AM

No, but if the right don't use their might then they might as well be wrong.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."-someolddeadguy.

So, might makes right, even when its wrong. Thanks for the update.

The UN is our b***h and we'll drop em like a crack whore whenever we're done hearing them whine.

If you really beleive that, your username is properly represented.

drbrumley

September 13th, 2005, 07:52 AM

It sure does.

Hey, you sound just like Skeptic! :shocked:

Your whacked.

Skeptic

September 13th, 2005, 02:27 PM

That's not a lie. It sure is! Bush knew that he had no hard pre-war evidence of a WMD threat from Iraq. All he had were suspicions and hearsay. Bush knew there was plenty of doubt throughout the intelligence community about Iraq's suspected WMDs. But he and his neocon buddies chose to ignore these doubts and proceeded to cherry-pick any shred of possible evidence that might serve as ammunition supporting their long-established policy of invading Iraq, regardless of any WMDs.

Bush was relying on intelligence, the same intelligence that various other leaders used to come to the same conclusion including Bill Clinton, John Kerry ... Like Bush, Clinton and Kerry thought it was politically astute to talk tough on Iraq and presume that Iraq had WMD, despite the absence of evidence. The difference was that Clinton and Kerry did not push their rhetoric so far as to insist that the U.S. had the necessary hard evidence to warrant the launching of an all-out massive invasion of Iraq, which everyone knew would result in the deaths of many thousands. It's fine to presume Iraq has WMDs for the sake of political rhetoric and keep the pressure on Saddam to comply with inspectors. But it is NOT fine to presume Iraq has WMDs when ordering a bloody invasion of another country, killing thousands in the process! When it comes to starting wars, tough talk must always be replaced by pre-war hard evidence!

Clinton:

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over."
-- Bill Clinton, June 2004 interview with Time Magazine

Why would Clinton want to wait until UN inspections were completed? Could it be that he was not that sure about the existence of WMDs in the first place, despite his rhetoric to the contrary?

Kerry:

"And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath ... If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so. ...

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies. ...

If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. ... (which is exactly what has happened!)

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. ...

I believe the work we have begun in this Senate, by offering questions, and not blind acquiescence, has helped put our Nation on a responsible course. It has succeeded, certainly, in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable; but it also has put the administration on notice we will hold them accountable for the means by which we do this."
-- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

The evidence leaves no doubt about Iraq's WMDs? Where did the intelligence community all of a sudden come up with this evidence between 2001 and 2003?

"And frankly [the sanctions] have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
-- Secretary of State Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
-- Condoleezza Rice, July 29, 2001 on CNN

After the invasion, Rumsfeld even confirms that they had no new intell on WMDs before the war.

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder."
-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, July 9, 2003

So, between 2001 and 2003, there just happened to be this flood of incontrovertible evidence that came in that left no doubt whatsoever that Iraq had WMDs?

Please.

... and Tony Blair. He had no hard evidence either. Most of what he got was from the U.S. anyway.

Even the UN assumed Saddam had WMD. No, they suspected he had WMDs. They knew very well that their weapons inspectors were coming up empty handed in their search for WMDs. All they really had was the fact that Iraq had not accounted for the alleged WMDs they thought Iraq had years earlier. Wars should never be waged over accounting discrepancies, and the UN knew this!

koban

September 13th, 2005, 02:38 PM

:mock: skeptic

Skeptic

September 13th, 2005, 02:53 PM

:mock: skeptic Typical right-wing tactic. When you can't rationally challenged the message, attack or demonize the messenger.

So predictable. :yawn:

koban

September 13th, 2005, 02:57 PM

Typical right-wing tactic. When you can't rationally challenged the message, attack or demonize the messenger.

So predictable. :yawn:

Nah - you're just not worth the effort - kinda like Letsargue - you blather on and on without making any sense.

:mock: skreppie

Skeptic

September 13th, 2005, 03:18 PM

Nah - you're just not worth the effort - kinda like Letsargue - you blather on and on without making any sense. Then you also believe that a majority of the population of the planet does not make any sense regarding this issue. Right? The overwhelming majority of people in the world believe Bush's invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and wrong.

Then you also believe that the majority of Americans, who now believe that invading Iraq was a mistake, do not make any sense. Right?

Specifically what part of my post does not make any sense?

Or are you more interested in simply demonizing the messenger, than addressing the message?

koban

September 13th, 2005, 03:21 PM

Then you also believe that a majority of the population of the planet does not make any sense regarding this issue. Right? The overwhelming majority of people in the world believe Bush's invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and wrong.

Then you also believe that the majority of Americans, who now believe that invading Iraq was a mistake, do not make any sense. Right?

Specifically what part of my post does not make any sense?

Or are you more interested in simply demonizing the messenger, than addressing the message?

I think it's more fun to post :mock: skeptic than engage you in a dialogue that's been done to death.

Skeptic

September 13th, 2005, 03:27 PM

I think it's more fun to :mock: skeptic than engage you in a dialogue that's been done to death. :yawn:

Mocking the messenger does not disprove the message.

koban

September 13th, 2005, 06:37 PM

:yawn:

Mocking the messenger does not disprove the message.

A loonie for a messenger does not help support a losing argument :chuckle:

:mock: skeptic

Frank Ernest

September 14th, 2005, 05:33 AM

It sure is! Bush knew that he had no hard pre-war evidence of a WMD threat from Iraq. All he had were suspicions and hearsay. Bush knew there was plenty of doubt throughout the intelligence community about Iraq's suspected WMDs. But he and his neocon buddies chose to ignore these doubts and proceeded to cherry-pick any shred of possible evidence that might serve as ammunition supporting their long-established policy of invading Iraq, regardless of any WMDs.
:confused:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/13/112553.shtml

BillyBob

September 14th, 2005, 05:53 AM

No, they suspected he had WMDs. They knew very well that their weapons inspectors were coming up empty handed in their search for WMDs. All they really had was the fact that Iraq had not accounted for the alleged WMDs they thought Iraq had years earlier. Wars should never be waged over accounting discrepancies, and the UN knew this!

The UN was in bed with Saddam, they are an untrustworthy organization and the only reason we are a member is so we can keep an eye on them.

Frank Ernest

September 14th, 2005, 06:10 AM

Wars should never be waged over accounting discrepancies, and the UN knew this!

Now we know why Saddam was given a Get Out Of Jail Free card from :skeptic:.

It was all an accounting error. :darwinsm:

BillyBob

September 14th, 2005, 06:23 AM

Hey Skeppie, your terrorist pals just killed 75 innocent people.

75 Killed in Baghdad Blast (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/international/middleeast/14iraq.html?th&emc=th)

By ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: September 14, 2005
NY Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Wednesday, Sept. 14 -A suicide car bomber killed at least 75 people when it ripped through a gathering of day laborers waiting for work on Wednesday morning in one of Baghdad's largest Shiite districts.

The bomb detonated at 6:50 a.m. at Aruba Square in the Khadamiya district of northern Baghdad, where large numbers of laborers typically gather in the morning in hopes of being hired for the day. Another 162 were wounded by the blast, according to an official with the Interior Ministry.

The attack appeared to be the latest sectarian strike directed against Shiites in Baghdad, who have been repeatedly targeted by Sunni Arab insurgents and terrorists bent on exploiting Sunni-Shiite divisions across Iraq.

Frank Ernest

September 14th, 2005, 06:25 AM

Another "accounting error?" :darwinsm:

Skeptic

September 14th, 2005, 12:37 PM

:confused:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/13/112553.shtml
Iraqi Foreign Minister Says ‘No Doubt' Saddam Hid WMD
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2005

Washington, D.C. -- Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari kicked off a three-day U.S. visit by flatly asserting that there is "no doubt" the government of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. And he bases his statement on what?

Zebari – an Iraqi Kurd - dismissed the doubts that have been rampant in the Western press over trumped-up intelligence reports. "We are all convinced that Saddam had WMD, because Saddam used WMD on us Iraqis. We have no doubt that he had them, because he used them. Of this, there is no doubt," he said. This is a very old and faulty line of reasoning.

Everyone knows Iraq had WMDs! Everyone knows Saddam used WMDs! The question is when did have them and when did he use them!

Saddam had and used WMDs in the late 1980s against the Iranians and the Kurds. His WMDs were most likely destroyed under UN weapons inspector control after the Gulf War. Since then, inspectors from both the UN and the US have found no evidence of any remaining WMDs. Therefore, there is no rational reason to think that Saddam had WMDs in the years leading up to Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion. Saddam may, however, had some remaining WMDs, which is why so many people suspected that he did. But, for the nth time, wars are not justifiably started on the basis of mere suspicions! No clear hard evidence of a real significant and imminent threat, no justification for starting a war, which everyone knew would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Zebari had no explanation for the weapons' whereabouts today, however. "What happened to the weapons stockpiles afterwards is still a mystery," he said. "It's a mystery for you, for us, for the inspectors." It may be a great mystery to him, but it was not that great of a mystery to the inspectors.

In Jan., 2004, U.S. arms inspectors reported that they had found no evidence of Iraqi chemical or biological weapons stockpiles prior to the U.S. invasion; the asserted existence of such stockpiles had been a main justification for the invasion. Subsequently, a Senate investigation criticized the CIA for providing faulty information and assessments concerning Iraq's weapons. In addition, U.S. inspectors concluded in Oct., 2004, that although Hussein never abandoned his goal of acquiring nuclear weapons, Iraq had halted its nuclear program after the first Persian Gulf War. U.S. quietly abandoned their search for weapons of mass destruction by the end of 2004.

Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0858896.html) Also, see this (http://traprockpeace.org/weapons.html).

"But all facts show that he did develop them and use them." Old news that reveals nothing that would have justified a massive all-out invasion, which everyone knew would kill thousands of innocent people.

If anyone still has doubts of Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities, Zebari said, they can visit Iraq. "The weapons plants are still there. Many of them were looted, but they are still there," he said If these plants were so important, then why weren't they guarded by U.S. forces?

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.

Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them. "They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting."

The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion. Dr. Araji's statements came just a week after a United Nations agency disclosed that approximately 90 important sites in Iraq had been looted or razed in that period.

Satellite imagery analyzed by two United Nations groups - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or Unmovic - confirms that some of the sites identified by Dr. Araji appear to be totally or partly stripped, senior officials at those agencies said. Those officials said they could not comment on all of Dr. Araji's assertions, because the groups had been barred from Iraq since the invasion.

For nearly a year, the two agencies have sent regular reports to the United Nations Security Council detailing evidence of the dismantlement of Iraqi military installations and, in a few cases, the movement of Iraqi gear to other countries. In addition, a report issued last October by the chief American arms inspector in Iraq, Charles A. Duelfer, told of evidence of looting at crucial sites.

The disclosures by the Iraqi ministry, however, added new information about the thefts, detailing the timing, the material taken and the apparent skill shown by the thieves. Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

Dr. Araji said he had no evidence regarding where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments. "Targeted looting of this kind of equipment has to be seen as a proliferation threat," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a private nonprofit organization in Washington that tracks the spread of unconventional weapons. Dr. Araji said he believed that the looters themselves were more interested in making money than making weapons.

The United Nations, worried that the material could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it, largely unsuccessfully, across the Middle East. In one case, investigators searching through scrap yards in Jordan last June found specialized vats for highly corrosive chemicals that had been tagged and monitored as part of the international effort to keep watch on the Iraqi arms program. The vessels could be used for harmless industrial processes or for making chemical weapons.

American military officials in Baghdad did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the findings. But American officials have said in the past that while they were aware of the importance of some of the installations, there was not enough military personnel to guard all of them during and after the invasion. White House officials, apprised of the Iraqi account by The New York Times, said it was already well known that many weapons sites had been looted. They had no other comment.

Source (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2005/0313systematic.htm) Try again.

Skeptic

September 14th, 2005, 12:39 PM

The UN was in bed with Saddam, they are an untrustworthy organization and the only reason we are a member is so we can keep an eye on them. :kookoo:

Skeptic

September 14th, 2005, 12:45 PM

Hey Skeppie, your terrorist pals just killed 75 innocent people. No suicide bomber is a pal of mine.

It is faulty reasoning to suggest that, because I think terrorism and the Iraq insurgency will decrease if we leave Iraq, that I somehow support the killing of innocent civilians, or am on the side of terrorists.

This is just another example of trying to win support for your position by demonizing your opponent. :yawn:

koban

September 14th, 2005, 01:25 PM

:mock: Skreppie

Skeptic

September 14th, 2005, 02:06 PM

While some waste their time trying to mock me, people are dying.

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in insurgency (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 1,896
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 14,362
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 24,712 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 wounded (thru March '05) - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

koban

September 14th, 2005, 02:10 PM

Skeptic

September 14th, 2005, 03:41 PM

Iraqi's being tortured by Sadam and his sons It's "Saddam."

Torture, in itself, is not a justification of a massive all-out invasion in which many thousands of innocent men, women and children are killed.

Iraqi's being killed by Sadam and his sons Saddam's atrocities were in the late 1980s. Past atrocities are not a justification of a massive all-out invasion in which many thousands of innocent men, women and children are killed.

Latest attempts by Sadam to destabilize region The U.S. has done more to destabilize the region than Saddam:

Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq has resulted in a quagmire.
See: CIA Studies Provide Glimpse of Insurgents in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1508-2005Feb5.html?nav=headlines)

Supplying weapons for decades to almost all countries in the region!

How many Middle East leaders have the CIA either toppled or propped up, thereby destabilizing those countries, not to mention others around the world? Can you say Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq? How many corrupt regimes have the U.S. supported and protected?

Osama bin Laden got help from the CIA, in his early days. He has turned out to be a destabilizing factor, wouldn't you say?

BillyBob

September 14th, 2005, 03:48 PM

No suicide bomber is a pal of mine.

It is faulty reasoning to suggest that, because I think terrorism and the Iraq insurgency will decrease if we leave Iraq, that I somehow support the killing of innocent civilians, or am on the side of terrorists.

Hmmmm...Iraqi terrorists are killing Iraqi's and somehow that will all stop if we pull out our troops?

:darwinsm:

This is just another example of trying to win support for your position by demonizing your opponent. :yawn:

You do a fine job of demonizing yourself, you don't need my help.

drbrumley

September 14th, 2005, 03:52 PM

The UN was in bed with Saddam, they are an untrustworthy organization and the only reason we are a member is so we can keep an eye on them.
:darwinsm:

I do agree though that they are untrustworthy.

koban

September 14th, 2005, 04:10 PM

It's "Saddam."

Gee Skreppie - wouldn't want to disrespect a buddy of yours :chuckle:

:mock: Skeptic

shilohproject

September 14th, 2005, 04:17 PM

It's "Saddam."
And all this time I thought it was: Sodamn Insane!:doh:

Frank Ernest

September 14th, 2005, 06:03 PM

And he bases his statement on what?
Probably person knowledge since he was there.

This is a very old and faulty line of reasoning.
:darwinsm: Sez you.

Everyone knows Iraq had WMDs! Everyone knows Saddam used WMDs! The question is when did have them and when did he use them!
You don't know?

Saddam had and used WMDs in the late 1980s against the Iranians and the Kurds. His WMDs were most likely destroyed under UN weapons inspector control after the Gulf War. Since then, inspectors from both the UN and the US have found no evidence of any remaining WMDs. Therefore, there is no rational reason to think that Saddam had WMDs in the years leading up to Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion. Saddam may, however, had some remaining WMDs, which is why so many people suspected that he did. But, for the nth time, wars are not justifiably started on the basis of mere suspicions! No clear hard evidence of a real significant and imminent threat, no justification for starting a war, which everyone knew would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
Upon what do you base those suppositions?

It may be a great mystery to him, but it was not that great of a mystery to the inspectors.
:darwinsm:

Also, see this (http://traprockpeace.org/weapons.html).

Old news that reveals nothing that would have justified a massive all-out invasion, which everyone knew would kill thousands of innocent people.
Old and faulty line of reasoning.

If these plants were so important, then why weren't they guarded by U.S. forces?
After they had been looted? :darwinsm:

Try again.
:darwinsm:

koban

September 14th, 2005, 06:10 PM

Hey Frank - you're not :mock: ing Skreppie are you?

'Cause he don't like that! :chuckle:

simply one

September 14th, 2005, 09:37 PM

It's "Saddam."

Torture, in itself, is not a justification of a massive all-out invasion in which many thousands of innocent men, women and children are killed.

Saddam's atrocities were in the late 1980s. Past atrocities are not a justification of a massive all-out invasion in which many thousands of innocent men, women and children are killed.

The U.S. has done more to destabilize the region than Saddam:

Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq has resulted in a quagmire.
See: CIA Studies Provide Glimpse of Insurgents in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1508-2005Feb5.html?nav=headlines)

Supplying weapons for decades to almost all countries in the region!

How many Middle East leaders have the CIA either toppled or propped up, thereby destabilizing those countries, not to mention others around the world? Can you say Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq? How many corrupt regimes have the U.S. supported and protected?

Osama bin Laden got help from the CIA, in his early days. He has turned out to be a destabilizing factor, wouldn't you say?

Just wanted to give skeptic the smilie he deserves - :thumb:

still waiting for a logical, well supported response from the right...

BillyBob

September 14th, 2005, 10:01 PM

When :Commie: meets :Commie:

Frank Ernest

September 15th, 2005, 06:15 AM

:darwinsm:

simply one

September 15th, 2005, 03:50 PM

still waiting for a logical, well supported response from the right...

Frank Ernest

September 15th, 2005, 05:12 PM

:darwinsm: Still waiting for anything rational from the left ...

simply one

September 15th, 2005, 05:36 PM

:darwinsm: Still waiting for anything rational from the left ...

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that you actually READ the posts on this thread. I guess not. :hammer:

BillyBob

September 15th, 2005, 05:50 PM

There are some that I don't bother reading, I already know what they say. :blabla:

simply one

September 15th, 2005, 05:58 PM

There are some that I don't bother reading, I already know what they say. :blabla:

:think: Thinking and assimilating what the posts say helps

BillyBob

September 15th, 2005, 06:24 PM

simply one

September 15th, 2005, 06:44 PM

They never say anything new.

Here's a summary of Skeptic's posts for the past 3 years:

"I Hate George Bush, I love communism".

How many times do I have to read that crap, I know what he thinks and how he feels. And it seems you are heading down the same redundant road......

As with anything in modern politics, try to look past both your bias and his, and actually consider some of the facts, such as that we have yet to find any WMD in Iraq, that there is a swelling insurgency, etc...

Something Katrina Is Keeping Out Of Most of the News (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/3353212)

More than a dozen explosions ripped through the Iraqi capital in rapid succession today, killing at least 160 people and wounding 570 in a series of attacks that began with a suicide car bombing that targeted laborers assembled to find work for the day. Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility.

The death toll at hands of insurgents in the capital today far exceeds the carnage inflicted in any one day since the war began.

Al-Qaida in Iraq linked the attacks to the recent killing of about 200 militants from the city of Tal Afar by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

BillyBob

September 15th, 2005, 06:50 PM

I thought Al Queda had no ties with Iraq?????

simply one

September 15th, 2005, 07:01 PM

I thought Al Queda had no ties with Iraq?????

First, Al Qaeda has become more of an anti-US, fundamentalist Muslim IDEOLOGY instead of a tight-knit "organization". Second, Al Qaeda HAD minimal ties to Iraq back under Saddam. After the US invasion, and during the ensuing chaos, all manner of terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, moved in. Also, as I mentioned before, al Qaeda has become mroe of a revolutionary Muslim/anti-USA ideology, thereby allowing the anti-US rhetoric to spread.

BillyBob

September 15th, 2005, 07:02 PM

All the more reason to keep our troops in Iraq and continue killing Muslims. :thumb:

BillyBob

September 15th, 2005, 07:03 PM

Plus, we are heading into Iran next, this way we'll already have troops right there! :banana:

simply one

September 15th, 2005, 07:45 PM

All the more reason to keep our troops in Iraq and continue killing Muslims. :thumb:

The more Muslims we kill and Arab countries we invade, the more Muslims hate us. And there are enough Muslims in the world that the USA ois going to screw itself over if we invade Iran, unprovoked and uneccessarily.

BillyBob

September 15th, 2005, 07:53 PM

The more Muslims we kill and Arab countries we invade, the more Muslims hate us.

They already hate us!! :doh:

And there are enough Muslims in the world that the USA ois going to screw itself over if we invade Iran, unprovoked and uneccessarily.

Iran announced today that it is willing to share nuclear technology with other Muslim countries. That is hardly 'unprovoked'!!! :bang:

drbrumley

September 15th, 2005, 08:03 PM

They already hate us!! :doh::

And why would that be?

Iran announced today that it is willing to share nuclear technology with other Muslim countries. That is hardly 'unprovoked'!!! :bang:

So?

simply one

September 15th, 2005, 08:31 PM

So?

Because Nukes are America's toys! Because they are EVIL and we are the force of all GOOD in the world. Because in our hands, nukes enforce peace and security, but in their hands nukes represent EVIL.

:doh:

drbrumley

September 15th, 2005, 08:33 PM

Because Nukes are America's toys! Because they are EVIL and we are the force of all GOOD in the world. Because in our hands, nukes enforce peace and security, but in their hands nukes represent EVIL.

:doh:

One problem, we aren't talking missiles or weapons

BillyBob

September 16th, 2005, 07:16 AM

Of course we are. You don't think Iran is doing all of this just for nuclear energy, do you?

On Fire

September 16th, 2005, 07:48 AM

Just Say NO to impeachment.

DonW

September 16th, 2005, 10:24 PM

2½ years, nothing changes.

Frank Ernest

September 17th, 2005, 04:46 AM

Impeachment. John Conyers is still "studying" the matter. He started "studying" about mid-July.

BillyBob

September 17th, 2005, 07:24 AM

This thread is no fun without Skeppie.

Frank Ernest

September 17th, 2005, 07:41 AM

What happened to :skeptic:? Lose the "Repeat ad Nauseam" key on his keyboard?

BillyBob

September 17th, 2005, 07:45 AM

He sold it to Moveon.org

:chuckle:

Frank Ernest

September 17th, 2005, 08:17 AM

:darwinsm:

Quasar1011

September 17th, 2005, 03:52 PM

If Bush should be impeached, it shouldn't be for any reason that concerns Iraq. That's not what will spell doom for our country. It should be for his abandonment of Israel. Supporting a Palestinian State is the worst thing our government is doing right now.
Seems we have forgotten this:

Genesis 12:3 (God speaking to Abraham)
"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

If you don't think America is coming under God's curse; well, just look at New Orleans...

Bush needs to renounce his support for a Palestinian state, and move our embassy to Jerusalem, like he said he would do back in 2000.

Skeptic

September 19th, 2005, 04:39 PM

Here's a summary of Skeptic's posts for the past 3 years:

"I Hate George Bush, I love communism".

How many times do I have to read that crap, I know what he thinks and how he feels. Here's a summary of BillyBob's posts for the past 3 years:

"I love George Bush. All Democrats and liberals are commies."

How many times do I have to read that crap?

Skeptic

September 19th, 2005, 04:46 PM

Plus, we are heading into Iran next, this way we'll already have troops right there! Do you think the U.S. has enough troops to invade Iraq, while dealing with the quagmire in Iraq?

Iran wouldn't be NEARLY the pushover Iraq was! The U.S. bombed the hell out of Iraq for years before Bush unnecessarily invaded, unjustly killing many thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process. Iran, on the other hand, has been watching and preparing since 1991. Iran has done their homework. They have seen what works against the U.S. and Britain, and what doesn't work. Iran would put up a far more effective fight, using the kind of gorilla and terrorist tactics that they have seen are effective against the Western infidels. If you think that an influx of foreign terrorists is a problem in Iraq, you ain't seen nothing yet! Iran would make Iraq look like, well .... a training camp! Iran would be the REAL battleground against Islamic terrorists elements. If the U.S. invaded Iran, massive numbers of Iranians, who have no terrorist inclinations now, would quickly become highly motivated suicide bombers. Invasions by foreign powers have a way of turning peace-loving citizens into terrorist jihadists!

Bush was a fool for invading Iraq. He would be an even greater fool for invading Iran!

koban

September 19th, 2005, 04:53 PM

Skeptic, you're back! It wasn't the same while you were gone. :sigh:

Now let's see, where were we?

Oh yeah :mock: Skeptic

Skeptic

September 19th, 2005, 04:56 PM

They already hate us!! Not all Muslims hate us.

It's stupid rhetoric like yours which may very well exacerbate an already tragic quagmire in the Middle East!

People who spout the kind of "kill all Muslims" hatred such as you are spouting should be arrested.

What would you suggest be done with individuals who constantly advocate the killing of all Christians?

Skeptic

September 19th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Just Say NO to impeachment. Just say NO to pre-emptive wars of choice that are based on false premises, lies, suspicions, distortions and exaggerations!

Just say NO to unnecessary and immoral invasions of countries that result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children!

BillyBob

September 19th, 2005, 05:11 PM

What would you suggest be done with individuals who constantly advocate the killing of all Christians?

You mean Muslims? Kill them, which is exactly what we are doing.

BillyBob

September 19th, 2005, 05:12 PM

Do you think the U.S. has enough troops to invade Iraq, while dealing with the quagmire in Iraq?

'Quagmire'. :darwinsm:

:mock: :skeptic:

Skeptic

September 19th, 2005, 05:21 PM

You mean Muslims? Kill them, which is exactly what we are doing. A very small minority of Muslims want to kill Christians.

So, BillyBob, anyone who advocates killing all Christians should be killed, while anyone who advocates killing all Muslims should be praised?

:doh:

BillyBob

September 19th, 2005, 06:02 PM

There is a big difference between the two, and I will not waste my time explaing the obvious, even to you.

Gerald

September 19th, 2005, 06:09 PM

There is a big difference between the two, and I will not waste my time explaing the obvious, even to you.Is there? There are just as many crazed, bloodthirsty Christians as there are crazed, bloodthirsty Muslims.

A pox on all of them, says I.

Any belief in unverifiable entities that care about you, personally, no matter how benign such belief may be, is the product of delusion.

Delusion is bad. Period.

Skeptic

September 19th, 2005, 06:10 PM

There is a big difference between the two, and I will not waste my time explaing the obvious, even to you. I think anyone who advocates the killing of all members of ANY religion should be locked up!!

But you seem to think that, since an extreme minority of members of one religion advocate the killing of some Christians or other infidels, that it is acceptable to kill ALL members of that religion!

Many Christians would call your perspective "evil," BillyBob.

I call your radical extremist views cruel and immoral.

Frank Ernest

September 19th, 2005, 06:32 PM

:yawn:

BillyBob

September 19th, 2005, 06:52 PM

I think anyone who advocates the killing of all members of ANY religion should be locked up!!

But you seem to think that, since an extreme minority of members of one religion advocate the killing of some Christians or other infidels, that it is acceptable to kill ALL members of that religion!

Many Christians would call your perspective "evil," BillyBob.

I call your radical extremist views cruel and immoral.

*sound of crickets chirping*

koban

September 19th, 2005, 08:02 PM

*sound of crickets chirping*

Can we get a smilie of that? :think:

Frank Ernest

September 20th, 2005, 05:26 AM

Got the sound anyway.

Skeptic

September 20th, 2005, 05:07 PM

What's the sound of thousands of innocent men, women and children dying?

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in insurgency (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 1,906
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 14,362
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 25,884 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 wounded (thru March '05) - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

koban

September 20th, 2005, 09:37 PM

Got the sound anyway.

:shocked: Omigosh Frank - I thought I was inside Skeptic's head :chz4brnz:

BillyBob

September 20th, 2005, 09:38 PM

What's the sound of thousands of innocent men, women and children dying?

You'd have to ask Saddam.....

Skeptic

September 21st, 2005, 01:41 AM

You'd have to ask Saddam..... Actually, Bush wouldn't know, because he has been isolated from the consequences of his unnecessary and immoral war in Iraq!

You don't care about the deaths of those many thousands of innocent Iraqis either. You think that, even if Iraq was not a threat, that it was still a good idea to kill many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children in order to remove a dictator. I say that simply removing a brutal dictator from power is never sufficient justification for a massive all-out military invasion, which always results in the deaths of thousands of innocent people!

No evidence of a significant and imminent threat, no justification for war.

koban

September 21st, 2005, 01:45 AM

:mock: Skreppie

Skeptic

September 21st, 2005, 02:16 AM

Is that all you have to say koblah?

:mock: ko :blabla:

koban

September 21st, 2005, 03:10 AM

Yeah - you're not worth any more effort - just a one note band...

Frank Ernest

September 21st, 2005, 05:30 AM

:darwinsm: He got back his "Repeat ad Nauseam" key.

BillyBob

September 21st, 2005, 05:54 AM

:chuckle:

Frank Ernest

September 21st, 2005, 06:27 AM

:shocked: Omigosh Frank - I thought I was inside Skeptic's head :chz4brnz:
:darwinsm: Well, I do have access to a super-secret government remote satellite sound-sensing device. (Boys at Area 51 said I could use it for a few days.)

My compliments on your excellent deployment of the smilie.

koban

September 21st, 2005, 07:13 AM

Is that the one they got from those nice little men in the flying saucer? :chuckle:

Frank Ernest

September 21st, 2005, 07:17 AM

Is that the one they got from those nice little men in the flying saucer? :chuckle:
Shhhhhhhh! We can't discuss it unless :skeptic: is wearing his aluminum-foil helmet.

Skeptic

September 21st, 2005, 05:11 PM

Yeah - you're not worth any more effort - just a one note band... Because there is so much tone-deafness in these threads, the notes I play need to be repeated.

:mock: tonedeaf ko :blabla:

drbrumley

September 21st, 2005, 05:52 PM

Skeptic, this is such a moral issue for you. Why is your morality better than Bush's?

Skeptic

September 21st, 2005, 07:54 PM

Skeptic, this is such a moral issue for you. Why is your morality better than Bush's? Yes, it's a moral issue, but it's not a question of "better." I have my morality and Bush has his. I think his sucks!

I believe pre-emptive wars, in the absence of a verifiably real, significant and imminent threat, are wrong. Bush does not think such wars are wrong.

I believe that Presidents should be truthful about the real justifications for war. Bush, obviously, does not. He shifted justifications from WMDs, to WMD programs, to WMD intent, to "emerging threat", to Saddam was a bad guy. Finally, he made the unfounded claim that the world was somehow safer because Saddam was no longer in power, even though he knew that Saddam had not been a threat since 1991. Bush knew he was not being truthful when he said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." He knew there was plenty of doubt about WMDs in the intelligence community, but decided to ignore whatever did not support his pre-established policy.

I believe it is wrong for Presidents to cherry pick whatever might win support for a policy of pre-emptive war in the eyes of Congress and the American people. Bush didn't want evidence, he wanted ammunition to justify invading Iraq.

I believe it is wrong for a President to invade a country, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children on false pretenses, simply to remove a dictator from power.

Want more?

I didn't think so.

drbrumley

September 21st, 2005, 08:29 PM

Yes, it's a moral issue, but it's not a question of "better." I have my morality and Bush has his. I think his sucks!

I believe pre-emptive wars, in the absence of a verifiably real, significant and imminent threat, are wrong. Bush does not think such wars are wrong.

I believe that Presidents should be truthful about the real justifications for war. Bush, obviously, does not. He shifted justifications from WMDs, to WMD programs, to WMD intent, to "emerging threat", to Saddam was a bad guy. Finally, he made the unfounded claim that the world was somehow safer because Saddam was no longer in power, even though he knew that Saddam had not been a threat since 1991. Bush knew he was not being truthful when he said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." He knew there was plenty of doubt about WMDs in the intelligence community, but decided to ignore whatever did not support his pre-established policy.

I believe it is wrong for Presidents to cherry pick whatever might win support for a policy of pre-emptive war in the eyes of Congress and the American people. Bush didn't want evidence, he wanted ammunition to justify invading Iraq.

I believe it is wrong for a President to invade a country, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children on false pretenses, simply to remove a dictator from power.

Want more?

I didn't think so.
Do you believe in absolute wrong Skeptic? You spout off Bush is wrong absolutely. Based on what? Your opinion? Again, what makes you right and Bush wrong? Because if you don't believe in absolutes, your a hypocrite to the tenth degree.

simply one

September 21st, 2005, 08:44 PM

Do you believe in absolute wrong Skeptic? You spout off Bush is wrong absolutely. Based on what? Your opinion? Again, what makes you right and Bush wrong? Because if you don't believe in absolutes, your a hypocrite to the tenth degree.

Skeptic never said that Bush was ABSOLUTELY wrong.

Bush was right in saying that Saddam was not a good person. Things he omitted to mention were that there was no imminent necissity for invasion of Iraq, that tens of thousands of innocents would be killed to take out ONE MAN, and that the world is full of "BAD GUYS" with Saddam being nowhere near the worst.

Humans do not exist in absolutes BY THEIR VERY NATURE. And, Skeptic is not espousing his owon, crazy, divergent morality. Last time I checked, all major religions on Earth place the value of human life as paramount. When someone misleads a supposedly democratic country, which was founded on ideals of Freedom, including the freedom that people have to hear the actual FACTS from their government.

Invading a nation to depose a ruler, without firm evidence of an IMMINENT threat, knowing that TENS OF THOUSANDS would die, is wrong. No matter what this government tells you to think.

BillyBob

September 21st, 2005, 10:40 PM

:yawn:

marcmenz

September 22nd, 2005, 02:48 AM

ya why tho, wut is it?

Skeptic

September 22nd, 2005, 04:20 AM

Do you believe in absolute wrong Skeptic? No.

You spout off Bush is wrong absolutely. No I don't. I simply don't think I should have to go on a tangent and describe the philosophical roots of my morality every time I call something "right" or "wrong."

Based on what? Your opinion? Upon what do you based your morality?

On your opinion that a moral God exists?

On your opinion that the Bible is the "Word of God"?

On your opinion that the morality taught in the Bible is the "Absolute Truth"?

Again, what makes you right and Bush wrong? My sense of morality (which is quite mainstream) makes me think that Bush's war in Iraq is wrong. The morality of a vast majority of people on the planet considers Bush's unnecessary war immoral.

Because if you don't believe in absolutes, your a hypocrite to the tenth degree. It is always your opinion that God exists, that the Bible is God's Word, and that absolute morality exists.

If you disagree, then please tell me what is your rational basis for claiming that the moral principles to which you adhere are absolute? Can you tell me without resorting to mere opinion?

Frank Ernest

September 22nd, 2005, 05:05 AM

Skeptic never said that Bush was ABSOLUTELY wrong.
:darwinsm:

Bush was right in saying that Saddam was not a good person. Things he omitted to mention were that there was no imminent necissity for invasion of Iraq, that tens of thousands of innocents would be killed to take out ONE MAN, and that the world is full of "BAD GUYS" with Saddam being nowhere near the worst.
Mass murderer = Not a good person.
The rest is unfounded opinion.

Humans do not exist in absolutes BY THEIR VERY NATURE. And, Skeptic is not espousing his owon, crazy, divergent morality. Last time I checked, all major religions on Earth place the value of human life as paramount. When someone misleads a supposedly democratic country, which was founded on ideals of Freedom, including the freedom that people have to hear the actual FACTS from their government.
First sentence = :cow: Define human nature.
Second sentence = Yes, he is.
Third sentence = No, they all don't.
Fourth sentence = Pure conjecture.

Invading a nation to depose a ruler, without firm evidence of an IMMINENT threat, knowing that TENS OF THOUSANDS would die, is wrong. No matter what this government tells you to think.
Unfounded :cow:

Skeptic

September 22nd, 2005, 05:18 AM

Unfounded Frankie, generally speaking, do you think that it is morally acceptable to invade a nation to depose a dictator, without firm evidence of an imminent threat, knowing full well that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result?

Frank Ernest

September 22nd, 2005, 05:28 AM

Frankie, generally speaking, do you think that it is morally acceptable to invade a nation to depose a dictator, without firm evidence of an imminent threat, knowing full well that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result?
Generally speaking, I don't deal in loaded hypotheticals. :nono:

koban

September 22nd, 2005, 07:14 AM

Frankie, generally speaking, do you think that it is morally acceptable to invade a nation to depose a dictator, without firm evidence of an imminent threat, knowing full well that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result?

Gee Skreppie, didja forget some of the reasons behind that? :hammer:

Frank Ernest

September 22nd, 2005, 07:33 AM

Shhhhhhh! :skeptic: thinks he's being very clever.

Anonymouse

September 22nd, 2005, 05:13 PM

Why should Bush be impeached?

Because he earned it! And because it's 2005, and thus is lonnnng overdue! :loser:

Skeptic

September 22nd, 2005, 05:50 PM

Generally speaking, I don't deal in loaded hypotheticals.

Do you think there is firm evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat?

BillyBob

September 22nd, 2005, 06:00 PM

Do you think there is firm evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat?

Bush used the phrase 'BEFORE they become an imminent threat'.

We've been through this a hundred times before Skeppie. I have proven that was what Bush said and in response you have posted dozens of quotes which confirm this but you added your own lame, fanciful interpretations to them and pretend that something else was said. Bla bla bla....been down this road before...:yawn:

fool

September 22nd, 2005, 07:09 PM

Bush used the phrase 'BEFORE they become an imminent threat'.

We've been through this a hundred times before Skeppie. I have proven that was what Bush said and in response you have posted dozens of quotes which confirm this but you added your own lame, fanciful interpretations to them and pretend that something else was said. Bla bla bla....been down this road before...:yawn:
This whole thread has been 3000+ posts of the same tired edited!
I don't understand why anyone bothers reading it.
Or posting in it, like I just did...................:think:

koban

September 22nd, 2005, 07:51 PM

That's why I usually don't bother with more than :mock: :skeptic:

It's quick, to the point and good for a healthy growing boy! :thumb:

simply one

September 22nd, 2005, 10:03 PM

Bush used the phrase 'BEFORE they become an imminent threat'.

Any major, or even not-so-major (North Korea), country in this world may become an imminent threat to the US. Any nation with a nuclear arsenal poses a much stronger probability to become a threat to Americans than Saddam ever did. You use your generalized reasoning and smilies to dsguise your sieve-like reasoning.

koban

September 22nd, 2005, 10:17 PM

Any major, or even not-so-major (North Korea), country in this world may become an imminent threat to the US. Any nation with a nuclear arsenal poses a much stronger probability to become a threat to Americans than Saddam ever did. You use your generalized reasoning and smilies to dsguise your sieve-like reasoning.

So you picks and chooses...

We can't "win" a war with China or Russia (or England - :mad: )

We can win a war with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Uganda...

Skeptic

September 23rd, 2005, 02:36 AM

Bush used the phrase 'BEFORE they become an imminent threat. Ok, let me ask you, BillyBob.

Generally speaking, do you think that it is morally acceptable to invade a nation to depose a "terrorist" dictator, BEFORE there is firm evidence of an imminent threat, knowing full well that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result?

koban

September 23rd, 2005, 02:42 AM

Ok, let me ask you, BillyBob.

Generally speaking, do you think that it is morally acceptable to invade a nation to depose a "terrorist" dictator, BEFORE there is firm evidence of an imminent threat, knowing full well that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result?

I know you asked BillyBob, but let me chip in my two cents worth...

YOU BET!!!!!

Skeptic

September 23rd, 2005, 03:18 AM

We can win a war with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Uganda... :chuckle: Maybe if we nuked them. But we're not going to do that.

We will not win in Iraq, even though we have "won" several battles. It's looking more and more likely that we will pull out of Iraq, kinda like we pulled out of Vietnam.

See: Bush's Words on Iraq Echo LBJ in 1967 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/words_of_war;_ylt=AqPFuGLwbfMXvTQjJ6uN_H.s0NUE;_yl u=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-) Johnson's main arguments were much like those Bush has employed: War was justified to protect the U.S. and to encourage freedom everywhere. When faced with mounting losses on the battlefield, both presidents offered the dead as a reason to keep fighting.

"When a war is long-lived and the outcome is not demonstrably positive, the lines of argument available to a president are seriously constrained," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "Democrat or Republican, 1960s or early part of the 21st century, you're going to hear a common rhetoric."

South Vietnam, politically unstable because of internal violence and corruption, stumbled toward elections to adopt a constitution and to select officials — not unlike the process Iraq is undergoing.

"Our nation was not born easily. There were times in those years of the 18th century when it seemed as if we might not be born at all," Johnson said in a speech on Aug. 16, 1967.

"Given that background, we ought not to be astonished that this struggle in Vietnam continues," Johnson said. "We ought not to be astonished that that nation, wracked by a war of insurgency and beset by its neighbors to the north, has not already emerged, full-blown, as a perfect model of two-party democracy."

Bush, too, has compared Iraq's difficulties in determining its political future to postcolonial America's.

In his radio address on Aug. 27, Bush said: "Like our own nation's founders over two centuries ago, the Iraqis are grappling with difficult issues, such as the role of the federal government. What is important is that Iraqis are now addressing these issues through debate and discussion — not at the barrel of a gun."

Bush has often linked the security and freedom of the United States to the war in Iraq. On Aug. 4 he told reporters: "We're laying the foundation of peace for generations to come. We're defeating the terrorists in a place like Iraq so we don't have to face them here at home. And, as well, we're spreading democracy and freedom to parts of the world that are desperate for democracy and freedom."

A secure and free America was tied to the fight in Southeast Asia, Johnson maintained. "What happens in Vietnam is extremely important to the nation's freedom and it is extremely important to the United States' security," he said from the South Lawn of the White House on Sept. 15, 1967.

The question of progress amid a rising death toll dogged Johnson as much as it has Bush. In part, Johnson measured progress by the number of enemy soldiers killed and the much smaller number of U.S. troops dying in Vietnam. Other Americans in uniform would carry on, the president pledged.

"Be assured that the death of your son will have meaning," Johnson told the parents of a posthumous recipient of the Medal of Honor during a Rose Garden ceremony on April 6, 1967. "For I give you also my solemn pledge that our country will persist — and will prevail — in the cause for which your boy died."

Speaking to military families in Idaho on Aug. 24, Bush said: "These brave men and women gave their lives for a cause that is just and necessary for the security of our country, and now we will honor their sacrifice by completing their mission."

Bush remains optimistic about the outcome of the war though just four out of 10 of those polled favor his handling of it.

A loss of public confidence overwhelmed Johnson. By March 1968, he had decided someone else needed to see the war to its conclusion — and startled the nation by announcing he would not seek another term.

Frank Ernest

September 23rd, 2005, 03:40 AM

Because he earned it! And because it's 2005, and thus is lonnnng overdue! :loser:
:darwinsm: :Servent:

Frank Ernest

September 23rd, 2005, 03:44 AM

:chuckle: Maybe if we nuked them. But we're not going to do that.
Probably not.

We will not win in Iraq, even though we have "won" several battles. It's looking more and more likely that we will pull out of Iraq, kinda like we pulled out of Vietnam.
:darwinsm:

See: Bush's Words on Iraq Echo LBJ in 1967 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/words_of_war;_ylt=AqPFuGLwbfMXvTQjJ6uN_H.s0NUE;_yl u=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-)
:darwinsm: Revisiting your days of tarnished glory, are you?

Skeptic

September 23rd, 2005, 03:57 AM

I know you asked BillyBob, but let me chip in my two cents worth...YOU BET!!!!! I do NOT think that it is morally acceptable to invade a nation to depose a "terrorist" dictator, before there is firm evidence of an imminent threat, knowing full well that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result.

Despite BillyBob's "Saddam was a terrorist" rhetoric, the lives of many thousands of innocent men, women and children should NOT be sacrificed in order to prevent a possible (not probable) future (not current) threat to America.

Furthermore, when there is no hard evidence that even a "terrorist" dictator has any WMDs, WMD programs, or the materials to make WMDs, there is no justification for killing thousands of innocent men, women and children in order to "disarm" this "terrorist" dictator or prevent him from possibly threatening America sometime in the future.

No country has the moral right to kill thousands of innocent people in order to feel more secure about their future, in the absence of a real, significant and imminent threat.

Barbaric countries throughout history have justified their invasions and the slaughter of thousands on the paranoid basis of protecting themselves from possible future threats! Bush's policy of pre-emptive war, in the absence of a significant and imminent threat, is barbaric and contrary to long-standing American national security policies!!

9/11 did NOT all of a sudden make pre-emptive wars to protect against possible future threats moral. Bush was, however, able to capitalize and build upon the fear and paranoia that 9/11 initially instilled in the uninformed masses.

Frank Ernest

September 23rd, 2005, 05:22 AM

I do NOT think that it is morally acceptable to invade a nation to depose a "terrorist" dictator, before there is firm evidence of an imminent threat, knowing full well that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result.

Despite BillyBob's "Saddam was a terrorist" rhetoric, the lives of many thousands of innocent men, women and children should NOT be sacrificed in order to prevent a possible (not probable) future (not current) threat to America.

Furthermore, when there is no hard evidence that even a "terrorist" dictator has any WMDs, WMD programs, or the materials to make WMDs, there is no justification for killing thousands of innocent men, women and children in order to "disarm" this "terrorist" dictator or prevent him from possibly threatening America sometime in the future.

No country has the moral right to kill thousands of innocent people in order to feel more secure about their future, in the absence of a real, significant and imminent threat.

Barbaric countries throughout history have justified their invasions and the slaughter of thousands on the paranoid basis of protecting themselves from possible future threats! Bush's policy of pre-emptive war, in the absence of a significant and imminent threat, is barbaric and contrary to long-standing American national security policies!!

9/11 did NOT all of a sudden make pre-emptive wars to protect against possible future threats moral. Bush was, however, able to capitalize and build upon the fear and paranoia that 9/11 initially instilled in the uninformed masses.
:darwinsm: :yawn: :loser:

BillyBob

September 23rd, 2005, 07:58 AM

Any major, or even not-so-major (North Korea), country in this world may become an imminent threat to the US. Any nation with a nuclear arsenal poses a much stronger probability to become a threat to Americans than Saddam ever did. You use your generalized reasoning and smilies to dsguise your sieve-like reasoning.

Please try to follow the conversation, Simpleton. Skeptic has been twisting Bush's words and I am [as I have countless times] pointing that out.

BillyBob

September 23rd, 2005, 07:59 AM

koban

September 23rd, 2005, 09:09 AM

I do NOT think that it is morally acceptable to invade a nation to depose a "terrorist" dictator, before there is firm evidence of an imminent threat, knowing full well that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result.

Really???

I did not know this was the way you felt.

Let me ask you another thing - are you a Bush supporter?

HerodionRomulus

September 23rd, 2005, 10:06 AM

Saudi Minister Chides US Policy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_interview;_ylt=AiB1Ddisj2ZmxNaWvjBQ1BFI2ocA; _ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

"Saudi Arabia's foreign minister says the Bush administration did not heed some Saudi warnings on occupying Iraq and that he doesn't believe a new constitution and elections will solve the emerging nation's problems........
"Perhaps what they are saying is going to happen," he said. "I wish it would happen, but I don't think that a constitution by itself will resolve the issues, or an election by itself will solve the difficult problems......

He also said the Saudis were skeptical of the outcome before the United States went to war in Iraq, but its concerns weren't always heeded.
"It is frustrating to see something that is clearly going to happen and you are not listened to by a friend and soon harm comes out of it," Saud said. "It hurts."

Meanwhile, where is Osama and why is he still free?

Anonymouse

September 23rd, 2005, 08:57 PM

"if you believe there is no such thing as a winner in a nuclear exchange, that argument [of nuclear overkill] that argument makes no sense. I don't believe that. You have a survivability of command and control, survivability of command and control ... industrial potential, protection of a percentage of your citizens, and you have a capacity that inflicts more damage on the opposition than it can inflict upon you. That's the way you can have a winner [in a nuclear war]"
-- George Bush the first, quoted in Robert Scheer, "With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush and Nuclear War" (1982)
:doh: And here I thought Bush Jr. was uniquely stupid, when in truth it's daddies genetics!

:chuckle: Maybe if we nuked them. But we're not going to do that.

We will not win in Iraq, even though we have "won" several battles. It's looking more and more likely that we will pull out of Iraq, kinda like we pulled out of Vietnam.

It is a powerful enemy, one that has nothing to lose!
We can not win in Iraq. And to "nuke" them, as many have suggested in other political forums I've attended, would be National suicide! Given the level of insurgents activities American troops and her Allie Nations military personnel have suffered thus far, the reprisals for such an act would be staggering.
At 1.3 Billion, Islam is the second largest populace religion in the world.(source link (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html))
To assault a Muslim nation with a nuclear weapon would lead to not only International rebuke, but levels of retaliation unlike anything we've witnessed thus far.

Besides all this, the motivation for occupying Iraq was not to unseat the wanton violence of a psychotic dictator like Saddam H., Every administration since he took power, was fully aware of his activities at all times! As well as the fact that the embargo did nothing to quell his power but rather suffered the innocent people of Iraq to have cause to hate America because they were told their suffering was due to our influence in affecting the embargo in the first place. Is it any wonder that now, as we occupy that country, the people doubt our sincerity when we profess to be there to help!?
Saddam was in the midst of building his 7th palace when the U.S. invaded. He suffered not one whit from the application of the embargo upon his country, while, in contrast, innocent babies were damned and suffering HIV/AIDS infections in orphanages and local hospitals, because the embargo was the causative factor for hospitals not having enough clean needles for treatments. This being but one example of the embargo's ill effects on the people , rather on the dictator who called the shots that allegedly made the embargo necessary in the first place.

Make no mistake we will leave Iraq a defeated nation. In the meantime however, the U.S. and her Allies shall exploit the resources of Iraq through the auspices of multi-national corporations, like Haliburton and others, because while at war America is prohibited by law from importing oil from Iraq. However Russia and France were the foremost consumer nations of crude from that region before the occupation, (which goes a long way to explain why France was reticent in giving it's support of the invasion, at it's outset).

Russia scents oil[I] Article link (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FG01Ag03.html)

Iraq currently has the worlds 3rd largest oil reserve! However, a blast on the pipeline in early September 2005, has halted exports from the Kirkuk-Ceyhan region for the time being. The schedule for repair and restoration to full capacity is unknown, and yet the attack is an indicator that, per astute observations of the true motivations behind the invasion, that the issue of humanitarianism was not in any wise the cause for the invasion.

~~~~~

That being said, I'd also like to thank the site managers for providing a plethora of emoticons to post on board. Were it not for that, poor Frank Ernest would be mute. :shut: And thus, far less entertaining! :thumb: :darwinsm:

Frank Ernest

September 24th, 2005, 04:08 AM

:darwinsm: :yawn: :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

chrysostom

September 24th, 2005, 04:15 AM

God bless America and God bless George Bush. Amen

And and God bless BillyBob’s flag; long may it wave

Anonymouse

September 24th, 2005, 12:29 PM

:darwinsm: :yawn: :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ohhh that was just too easy! :darwinsm:

simply one

September 25th, 2005, 09:34 PM

I would like to ask a question to all the Conservative Christians on this thread who are advocating the unneccessary killing of tnes of thousands of huuman beings, simply to depose on dictator: How can you possibly justify your stance on this subject based on the moral and ethical codes of your religion? How can the paramount value of human life and love for ALL people be twisted to justify our born-again Christian President's invasion of a country, which directly caused the deaths of tens of thousands? How can you possibly lie to yourselves, calling yourselves Christians and praising a man who primarily advocated PEACE towards all men?:madmad:

Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because a deranged power hungry dictator killed his own citizens does not jusitify America causing the death of tens of thousands more. Dictators have seized power by force throughout history, but using brute force, resulting in unneccessary deaths, does nothing to help solve this problem.

simply one

September 25th, 2005, 09:38 PM

God bless America and God bless George Bush. Amen

And and God bless BillyBob’s flag; long may it wave

:doh:

How can you possibly claim to be CHRISTIAN? Then again, throughout history Christians and their leaders have condoned war and killing, despite the confliction with Christian ethics. I guess after 2000 years, you have become pretty good at deluding yourselves away from Jesus' preachings of peace and love. Those who criticize other factions of Christianity for being "pagan" many times exhibit the most "pagan" characteristics of barbarity and warmongering.

Frank Ernest

September 26th, 2005, 04:01 AM

I would like to ask a question to all the Conservative Christians on this thread who are advocating the unneccessary killing of tnes of thousands of huuman beings, simply to depose on dictator:
Assuming facts not in evidence. Nobody is advocating the unneccessary[sic] killing of tnes[sic] of thousands of huuman[sic] beings, ... Strawman argument. :down:

How can you possibly justify your stance on this subject based on the moral and ethical codes of your religion? How can the paramount value of human life and love for ALL people be twisted to justify our born-again Christian President's invasion of a country, which directly caused the deaths of tens of thousands? How can you possibly lie to yourselves, calling yourselves Christians and praising a man who primarily advocated PEACE towards all men?:madmad:
You're using the same scurrilous tactic that :skeptic: uses. See above and try to argue honestly instead of continually regurgitating the :Commie: line.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because a deranged power hungry dictator killed his own citizens does not jusitify America causing the death of tens of thousands more.
That's exceptionally sloppy reasoning(?) as well. Let me know when you acquire a functioning brain and a capacity for reality.

Dictators have seized power by force throughout history, but using brute force, resulting in unneccessary deaths, does nothing to help solve this problem.
Why do you support the terrorists then?

By the way, borrowing from the :Commie: playbook, you are atheist and not qualified to comment on what Christians believe or don't believe.

Frank Ernest

September 26th, 2005, 05:27 AM

Picture from weekend anti-war rally in DC. (Is that simpleton and :skeptic:?)

Frank Ernest

September 26th, 2005, 05:39 AM

:doh:

How can you possibly claim to be CHRISTIAN? Then again, throughout history Christians and their leaders have condoned war and killing, despite the confliction with Christian ethics. I guess after 2000 years, you have become pretty good at deluding yourselves away from Jesus' preachings of peace and love. Those who criticize other factions of Christianity for being "pagan" many times exhibit the most "pagan" characteristics of barbarity and warmongering.
:darwinsm:

koban

September 26th, 2005, 06:56 AM

Wait a minute Frank - maybe SO's onto something. :think:

Nahhhh :darwinsm:

Frank Ernest

September 26th, 2005, 08:20 AM

:darwinsm: Or on something.

koban

September 26th, 2005, 11:31 AM

Yeah - that's what I meant... :D

simply one

September 26th, 2005, 08:40 PM

Assuming facts not in evidence. Nobody is advocating the unneccessary[sic] killing of tnes[sic] of thousands of huuman[sic] beings, ... Strawman argument. :down:

You're using the same scurrilous tactic that :skeptic: uses. See above and try to argue honestly instead of continually regurgitating the :Commie: line.

That's exceptionally sloppy reasoning(?) as well. Let me know when you acquire a functioning brain and a capacity for reality.

Why do you support the terrorists then?

By the way, borrowing from the :Commie: playbook, you are atheist and not qualified to comment on what Christians believe or don't believe.

That's still not an answer to my question, asking you to support your positions based on your claimed religious values :think:

By the way, borrowing from the ConservativeChristian playbook by discrediting the messenger and putting down the person, instead of logically putting together a counterpoint. Hmm... nice try.

And, supporting terrorists? They do not need it! Bush gave them all the recruiting ammunition they needed when he invaded Iraq! But thats beside the point...

I'm looking forward to a good, well thought counterpoint...

Skeptic

September 27th, 2005, 02:55 AM

Assuming facts not in evidence. Frankie, just what are the facts? Here's your opportunity to set the record straight.

1. Why did Bush publicly deny the many pre-war doubts the intelligence community had regarding Iraq's suspected WMDs by claiming that there were no such doubts?

2. What were the real reasons Bush invaded Iraq?

3. What actual evidence justified the invasion?

4. Why was it so urgently necessary, in March 2003, for Bush to invade Iraq, even though everyone knew that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result?

5. Roughly how many Iraqi civilians died in the first few months of the invasion?

6. What evidence do you have that shows the U.S. is winning the global war on terrorism?

7. What is your evidence that Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq has made the U.S. and the world a safer place to live?

Try not waiting for BillyBob or someone else to answer the questions for you.

Frank Ernest

September 27th, 2005, 02:58 AM

That's still not an answer to my question, asking you to support your positions based on your claimed religious values :think:
There is no rational answer to your silly question. It's loaded with left-wing bias (polite word for lie) and is based on a fallacious conclusion. :down:

By the way, borrowing from the ConservativeChristian playbook by discrediting the messenger and putting down the person, instead of logically putting together a counterpoint. Hmm... nice try.
:yawn: The "attack the messenger" argument is wearing thin since it has no rational or logical basis. :nono:

And, supporting terrorists? They do not need it! Bush gave them all the recruiting ammunition they needed when he invaded Iraq! But thats beside the point...
:darwinsm: Thanks for confirming that you support the terrorists. :up:

I'm looking forward to a good, well thought counterpoint...
Then provide a rational point.

Frank Ernest

September 27th, 2005, 04:07 AM

Frankie, just what are the facts? Here's your opportunity to set the record straight. Try not waiting for BillyBob or someone else to answer the questions for you.
:yawn: If you don't know the facts by now, you haven't been paying attention.

simply one

September 27th, 2005, 09:40 PM

:yawn: If you don't know the facts by now, you haven't been paying attention.

If the answers are already stated, it should be simple enough for you to find them, and place them in response to Skeptic's inquiries. Otherwise, you are only being arrogant and avoidant.

koban

September 27th, 2005, 09:48 PM

If the answers are already stated, it should be simple enough for you to find them, and place them in response to Skeptic's inquiries. Otherwise, you are only being arrogant and avoidant.

I would suspect that somewhere in these 244 pages of "dialogue" you might find your answers. If you come up empty handed, then come back.

simply one

September 27th, 2005, 09:52 PM

I would suspect that somewhere in these 244 pages of "dialogue" you might find your answers. If you come up empty handed, then come back.

Just as anyone holds their beliefs the be True until proven False, so shall I hold mine. As "debaters" at TOL, it is the responsibility of each side to post its beliefs in response to the other.

koban

September 27th, 2005, 09:54 PM

Over and over and over ?

:darwinsm:

Get a clue, :loser:

simply one

September 27th, 2005, 09:57 PM

Over and over and over ?

:darwinsm:

Get a clue, :loser:

Get the facts :dunce:

two can fight at this level...

koban

September 27th, 2005, 10:00 PM

:mock: Simply One

simply one

September 27th, 2005, 10:04 PM

:mock: Simply One

Cute AND Original.

Wait, I seem to remember something similar with Skeptic...

:think:

If you're going to post childish insults, :commie: is even easier to type than yours; I would not want you straining yourself for my sake.

:rolleyes:

koban

September 27th, 2005, 10:15 PM

Cute AND Original.

Wait, I seem to remember something similar with Skeptic...

:think:

If you're going to post childish insults, :commie: is even easier to type than yours; I would not want you straining yourself for my sake.

:rolleyes:

Except you got it wrong :darwinsm:

:mock: SO saves a lot of time.

So does :Commie:

Frank Ernest

September 28th, 2005, 03:21 AM

If the answers are already stated, it should be simple enough for you to find them, and place them in response to Skeptic's inquiries. Otherwise, you are only being arrogant and avoidant.
:darwinsm: Then it should just as simple for you and :skeptic: to find them and, for a change, read them.

Oh, look! My Dorkometer just redlined!

koban

September 28th, 2005, 05:41 AM

They're liberals Frank - they expect everything to be done for them. :doh:

(must be Bush's fault) :noid:

Frank Ernest

September 28th, 2005, 05:55 AM

They're liberals Frank - they expect everything to be done for them. :doh:
Lazy bunch, aren't they? Must be that welfare-state mentality. :darwinsm:

(must be Bush's fault) :noid:
Speaking of Bush's fault, did you catch Cynthia McKinney's gig at the anti-America rally?

koban

September 28th, 2005, 06:09 AM

No - I'm kind of news impoverished. Scary to say, but most of my news I get here. :shocked:

HerodionRomulus

September 28th, 2005, 02:16 PM

Lazy bunch, aren't they? Must be that welfare-state mentality.

Once again, calumnies from sycophants who can only parrot what their local pulpit pounder tells them to think.

THIS social democrat has worked since 13, put myself thru college and grad school while working full time and now holds down one fulltime job and two part time ones. Although one of the pt is unpaid: it's for my church.

I trust if you are ever unemployed or injured on the job you will bravely refuse unemployment or workers comp. Not hardly.
And be sure to eschew those other benefits of modern liberalism: food safety (FDA), work place safety, civil rights, social security, paid vacations, sick leave and the list goes on.

Bush Lies: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." May '03.

simply one

September 28th, 2005, 02:41 PM

Once again, calumnies from sycophants who can only parrot what their local pulpit pounder tells them to think.

THIS social democrat has worked since 13, put myself thru college and grad school while working full time and now holds down one fulltime job and two part time ones. Although one of the pt is unpaid: it's for my church.

I trust if you are ever unemployed or injured on the job you will bravely refuse unemployment or workers comp. Not hardly.
And be sure to eschew those other benefits of modern liberalism: food safety (FDA), work place safety, civil rights, social security, paid vacations, sick leave and the list goes on.

Bush Lies: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." May '03.

:thumb: for an honest, hardworking person

koban

September 28th, 2005, 02:46 PM

Leeches on society

simply one

September 28th, 2005, 02:56 PM

Leeches on society

Sooo... let me get this straight, you just called someone who has worked hard all his life, supports a family, AND volunteers at a Church A LEECH ON SOCIETY?

People like HR are the hardworking type that keep America moving forward...

Then agian, I can see how you are confused and delusional, considering you praise a president who:

-is directly responsible for the deaths of over 25,000 civilians and 1,900 US soldiers

-manged to take a winfall of international goodwill and turn it into international detestment in under two years

-created the largest spending deficit in history by cutting the taxes for the top 1% of Americans

:hammer:

...and the list goes on. If you want more reasons why I disapprove of Bush, see half of the posts in this big thread

koban

September 28th, 2005, 04:08 PM

My post directed at HR was done tongue in cheek (should have attached an appropriate smiley)

For your share of the "half of the posts in this big thread", I will attach an appropriate smiley.

:baby:

wait, wait, maybe :Cyrus:

Ah, what the heck, this saves a lot of time

:mock: SO

Skeptic

September 29th, 2005, 02:27 AM

If you don't know the facts by now, you haven't been paying attention. I know the facts. But, what I want to know, Frankie, is what are the facts according to you? Here's your opportunity to set the record straight by present the facts as YOU see them! So far, most of what we've gotten from you is a bunch of smilies.

You know how I would answer these questions. How would YOU answer them, Frankie?

1. Why did Bush publicly deny the many pre-war doubts the intelligence community had regarding Iraq's suspected WMDs by claiming that there were no such doubts?

2. What were the real reasons Bush invaded Iraq?

3. What actual evidence justified the invasion?

4. Why was it so urgently necessary, in March 2003, for Bush to invade Iraq, even though everyone knew that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result?

5. Roughly how many Iraqi civilians died in the first few months of the invasion?

6. What evidence do you have that shows the U.S. is winning the global war on terrorism?

7. What is your evidence that Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq has made the U.S. and the world a safer place to live?

koban

September 29th, 2005, 02:42 AM

I know the facts. But, what I want to know, Frankie, is what are the facts according to you? Here's your opportunity to set the record straight by present the facts as YOU see them! So far, most of what we've gotten from you is a bunch of smilies.

You know how I would answer these questions. How would YOU answer them, Frankie?

OOOO OOOO OOOO

let me, let me

1. Why did Bush publicly deny the many pre-war doubts the intelligence community had regarding Iraq's suspected WMDs by claiming that there were no such doubts?

Because a president leading a country into war can't afford ambiguity?

2. What were the real reasons Bush invaded Iraq?

What's black and gooey and costs lots and lots of money?

3. What actual evidence justified the invasion?

Ummm - gassing the Kurds, Al Kyda (big guy, lives down the street from me), torture of own citizens, agression against coalition forces, sponsoring terrorism, ....

4. Why was it so urgently necessary, in March 2003, for Bush to invade Iraq, even though everyone knew that many thousands of innocent people would die as a result?

you're right - we should have waited until April - lots fewer would have died then.

5. Roughly how many Iraqi civilians died in the first few months of the invasion?

:think: More than in New Orleans (Bush's fault also, dontcha know)

6. What evidence do you have that shows the U.S. is winning the global war on terrorism?

Very few twin towers have been blown up in the past few years (except in Lord of the Rings )

7. What is your evidence that Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq has made the U.S. and the world a safer place to live?

How many terrorist attacks have we had on US soil in the past few years?

Do you think it's the POTUS's job to make the world a safer place to live, Pollyanna?