When I read what he said, sometimes I actually do think, holy crap, this guy can't be human. The problems arise when you try to compromise what he said. When he said "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." - I'm pretty sure he meant it as such..

 

 

 

If only everyone in the world would listen to that. The problem is, a good deal don't. :|

First off: I don't think you guys noticed, but I meant pacifist, not atheist, lol sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second: Turn your other cheek if you're being persecuted, but [bleep] em up if they're being [wagon] killing your people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God has done some things to the enemies of Israel in the Bible, it's actually pretty cool. And the 12 plagues were epic. God is a kinda tough love God I guess you could say. He's loving, but if you're rebelling, he's gonna kick your [wagon] (as ina country or nationin general, sometimes a single person, or not, or get people to do it for him.

First off: I don't think you guys noticed, but I meant pacifist, not atheist, lol sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second: Turn your other cheek if you're being persecuted, but [bleep] em up if they're being [wagon] killing your people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God has done some things to the enemies of Israel in the Bible, it's actually pretty cool. And the 12 plagues were epic. God is a kinda tough love God I guess you could say. He's loving, but if you're rebelling, he's gonna kick your [wagon] (as ina country or nationin general, sometimes a single person, or not, or get people to do it for him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe in your God..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe in what Jesus said. I don't think he was the Son of God, a genius, but not the Son of God..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Old Testament God is clearly of human creation and the stories are often barbaric, often to the point that even most Christians don't pay attention to them. Well, today most Christians are too eager to talk about homosexuality etc, whatever.. but never the things that really matter.

Well, here's the thing, some of the Old Testament applys, and others don't. Some sdon't only because they were there to purify the Israelites, but after Jesus came, they weren't needed. But others still apply because they had nothing to do with it, it's confusing I know.

 

 

 

Example: If a house had mold in it, it was to be destroyed. It was to show, that Israelistes were above the other countries, but, I mean, that changed when Jesus came. Also, if that was the case, every house in US would be destroyed.

Well, here's the thing, some of the Old Testament applys, and others don't. Some sdon't only because they were there to purify the Israelites, but after Jesus came, they weren't needed. But others still apply because they had nothing to do with it, it's confusing I know.

 

 

 

Example: If a house had mold in it, it was to be destroyed. It was to show, that Israelistes were above the other countries, but, I mean, that changed when Jesus came. Also, if that was the case, every house in US would be destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See this is where we differ. You believe that the Bible is the word of God, and I believe that the Bible is mostly the words of ancient people.. coupled with various bits that have been added/removed over the ages..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that Jesus' teachings are brilliant. But that being said, I'm not about to claim that therefore, he is the son of an all knowing, all powerful, all present, eternal, immutable, etc etc God, and I'm not going to base my life entirely on what anyone in the Bible said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll read it, and I'll see which parts I think are good ideas, and then I'll think about those and if I come to the conclusion that they're good then I'll adopt them as part of my beliefs. Some of what Jesus said is genius and some of it isn't..I think that he was looking to the ultimate long term when he said those things.. and personally I do not think that we can mix his teachings with a capitalistic society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, I think that Jesus teachings or variants thereof will play a major part in the transition from a good society to a perfect society. It's the whole God thing that I have a problem with. All the anti-homosexual, mass genocide bs that all you fundamentalists keep on talking about and it really ruins the term "Christian." I wonder how many Christians actually follow the teachings of Christ?

ITT: Go off topic?

 

 

 

 

did you miss your fail?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't miss any fail, I just fail to see the point in me reierating mysef to the naves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush invades a country that is a member of OPEC and gas prices go up. Since we've already established the fact that Bush did not care if he was misinformed and invaded for the wrong reasons, we can also assume that he is there for something entirely different. What would be the obvious assumption? Oil. Or in the case that has been stated already: God. Just because Iraq or Saudi Arabia doesn't supply the U.S. with 99.9% of our oil, doesn't mean we don't want to control the oil we do get from them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When have we established that? Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true. What happened was that we got the intelligence wrong. George Tenet, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, said it was a "Slam Dunk" that Saddam had WMD's. If we invaded for oil why is Iraq producing less oil than they did before the invasion? Why is the Iraqi government sitting on a surplus of oil money that should be in Bush and Cheney's bank accounts?

If we invaded for oil why is Iraq producing less oil than they did before the invasion? Why is the Iraqi government sitting on a surplus of oil money that should be in Bush and Cheney's bank accounts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't personally believe the war for oil theory but the reason Iraq produces less oil now than it did before the invasion is because of the instability that came with the war, Saddam might have been horrible but he kept stability. Also let me play devil's advocate here, if the invasion was for oil wouldn't it be a good idea to limit production in order to keep the oil price artificially higher?

Saddam only kept stability in major cities during his reign. The reason places like Baghdad only have power for a portion of a day is because major cities have to produce power for the rest of the nation. People only make a big deal out of the stability thing because of the differences between city life back then and city life now. If you went to the areas near Kuwait, you'd find the areas much more stable now than then.

 

 

 

When have we established that? Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true. What happened was that we got the intelligence wrong. George Tenet, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, said it was a "Slam Dunk" that Saddam had WMD's. If we invaded for oil why is Iraq producing less oil than they did before the invasion? Why is the Iraqi government sitting on a surplus of oil money that should be in Bush and Cheney's bank accounts?

 

 

 

We established that when Bush was not remorseful in the least when he invaded a country FOR NO REASON. You can come up with as many reasons as you want to defend him, but when he doesn't even apologize to his own country, let alone the country he completely destroyed, I am pretty dang sure that he would have gone in there for any reason.

Pretty sure Truman never apologized to Nagasaki.

Pretty sure Truman never apologized to Nagasaki.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your point being what?

Pretty sure Truman never apologized to Nagasaki.

 

 

 

Why would he have to? Not only did Japan attack us first in Pearl Harbor, but Japanese generals refused to surrender even after the first nuke. Bush shows no remorse for duping his country or for Iraq, even though he was completely wrong for going to war with Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a good comparison.

 

 

 

 

When have we established that? Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true. What happened was that we got the intelligence wrong. George Tenet, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, said it was a "Slam Dunk" that Saddam had WMD's. If we invaded for oil why is Iraq producing less oil than they did before the invasion? Why is the Iraqi government sitting on a surplus of oil money that should be in Bush and Cheney's bank accounts?

 

 

 

We established that when Bush was not remorseful in the least when he invaded a country FOR NO REASON. You can come up with as many reasons as you want to defend him, but when he doesn't even apologize to his own country, let alone the country he completely destroyed, I am pretty dang sure that he would have gone in there for any reason.

 

 

 

You always say that Jack is ignoring you, now I think it's vice versa(Sp?).

Yeah, you're right, not the best comparison. Perhaps the Spanish-American War would be better. We didn't know whether or not Spain actually destroyed the Maine, but we attacked them and destroyed many of their assets in Cuba, and then relinquishing their hold on the island.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still not the greatest comparison, I know, but it's better.

 

 

 

You always say that Jack is ignoring you, now I think it's vice versa(Sp?).

 

 

 

Because I felt that this quote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't personally believe the war for oil theory but the reason Iraq produces less oil now than it did before the invasion is because of the instability that came with the war, Saddam might have been horrible but he kept stability. Also let me play devil's advocate here, if the invasion was for oil wouldn't it be a good idea to limit production in order to keep the oil price artificially higher?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Already addressed half of his statement and I didn't want to repeat the same thing again just for semantics. I know that he was given false intelligence and all the other obvious well-known facts jack put into his last statement, but I already gave my reasoning for why I believe he lied. I'll even repost the quote from page 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I honestly believe that he lied, and this is my reasoning:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even after he found out that he was misinformed, he showed no remorse for invading a country on false evidence. To me, that means he had alterior motives to invading Iraq (of which I do not know 100%, but I would guess some unfinished business by Dad in the 90s and oil). He would have used any reason he had to go into Iraq as soon as it popped up, and that is as good as a lie to me.

 

 

 

 

When have we established that? Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true. What happened was that we got the intelligence wrong. George Tenet, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, said it was a "Slam Dunk" that Saddam had WMD's. If we invaded for oil why is Iraq producing less oil than they did before the invasion? Why is the Iraqi government sitting on a surplus of oil money that should be in Bush and Cheney's bank accounts?

 

 

 

We established that when Bush was not remorseful in the least when he invaded a country FOR NO REASON. You can come up with as many reasons as you want to defend him, but when he doesn't even apologize to his own country, let alone the country he completely destroyed, I am pretty dang sure that he would have gone in there for any reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ahaha, you make me laugh, look.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really think Iraq never attacked us, ever?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, just because you believe something, doesn't mean it's established. Now, if billions of people, think of an opinion the same way, it's usualyl fact, sometimes. But because you believe it, well, quite frankly, doesn't mean [cabbage].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what the [bleep]? You're saying we destroyed Iraq? Are you [bleep]ing blind? Do you remember in April when we took over Iraq, and tore down Hussein's statue, the people were cheering! You want to know why? Because, unlike America, if you spoke out againstHussein, you were tortured. In so gruesome ways, I'm not gonna tell em (pm me if you wanna know) Ok? Also, he commited Genocide! Do you know know this? He nerve gassed thousands of Iraqis simply because they were a different kind of Muslim! He was a terrorist in executive position, I thank GOD that we are in there. Now, maybe, we should start pulling out, but never going in in the first place? Get real.

Okay I'll try to break this down very simply. If you think something is true saying it is not lying. I guess you and that moron Robert Wexler don't understand that. He did the exact same thing when Sec. Rice testified to them. So unless you think that the President has his own private Intelligence agency that is better than CIA and told him that Saddam did have WMD's then he wasn't lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: accidentally put a 'not' in there.

 

 

 

You really think Iraq never attacked us, ever?

 

 

 

No. Iraq has never attacked the United States of America and Saddam Hussein also did NOT harbor or help Al-Qaeda.

 

 

 

Some U.S. officials also accused Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship was found.

 

 

 

Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, just because you believe something, doesn't mean it's established. Now, if billions of people, think of an opinion the same way, it's usualyl fact, sometimes. But because you believe it, well, quite frankly, doesn't mean [cabbage].

 

 

 

You know what is fact? That most Americans think that invading Iraq was a dumb idea. Obviously you're not one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

 

 

 

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After September 11th, Americans felt like they needed to strike back on something, anything. Going to Afghanistan was justified, to me. It was the home of Osama Bin-Laden, but the Iraq war is ridiculous. There was not sufficient evidence. Here's some reasons why:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior to the war, Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was claimed to pose a serious and imminent threat to Western national security. This assessment was supported by the U.K. intelligence services, but not by other countries such as France, Russia and Germany. United Nations weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD, giving support to earlier criticism of poor intelligence on Iraqi WMDs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what that means? The UN did NOT find evidence for WMDs. Only the United States and United Kingdom's intelligence agencies did. If you're having trouble connecting the dots, unlike most Americans today, here's another quote that has been hammered at you already, but you choose to keep ignoring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush reportedly told Palestenian officials either that God inspired him to end the tyranny in Iraq, or to hit Saddam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You want to know why? Because, unlike America, if you spoke out againstHussein, you were tortured. In so gruesome ways, I'm not gonna tell em (pm me if you wanna know) Ok? Also, he commited Genocide! Do you know know this? He nerve gassed thousands of Iraqis simply because they were a different kind of Muslim! He was a terrorist in executive position

 

 

 

So in your opinion, since the United States has a powerful military, we have to take out crazed dictators every time they pop up? No, I think that there were other reasons for going into Iraq. Why aren't we occupying Darfur? Surely you know of the genocide being committed there. What about Hitler and the Jews? We remained neutral until we were attacked. No, the reason we went into Iraq is because it benefited our country. Darfur doesn't benefit us because Africa is a lost cause and after Somalia, I think our country knows better. We need to leave the policing of the world to the United Nations, not the United States. It's what it was designed for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thank GOD that we are in there.

 

 

 

So does George Bush, in fact, he told him to go in there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay I'll try to break this down very simply. If you think something is true saying it is not lying. I guess you and that moron Robert Wexler don't understand that. He did the exact same thing when Sec. Rice testified to them. So unless you think that the President has his own private Intelligence agency that is better than CIA and told him that Saddam did have WMD's then he wasn't lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not debating the facts of what happened. Every American knows them (or should). What I'm trying to say is that George Bush treated it as if nothing happened. I didn't hear an address to the nation on the fact that he got bad information and that he made a mistake, and like I have stated twice now, to me, that means he doesn't care and that is as good as lying to the American Public. We're pouring billions of dollars into the Iraq black hole every year when everyone knows that once we leave, it's just going to go back to the way it was. History shows that that area of the world will NEVER have any form of democracy or peace.

Also, just because you believe something, doesn't mean it's established. Now, if billions of people, think of an opinion the same way, it's usualyl fact, sometimes. But because you believe it, well, quite frankly, doesn't mean [cabbage].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The majority of the world thought the world was flat...it wasn't fact then, it isn't fact now and it never has been a fact. I don't mind disagreeing with people if they can conduct a logical argument but that just moronic. The "everybody says it so it must be true" mentality reminds me or high school rumours, people should learn to engage their brains.

This might sound bad taste, but I'm beting a month or so after he leaves, he'll get murdered by some angry guy :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He has secret service protection for the rest of his life.

 

 

 

 

 

When have we established that? Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true. What happened was that we got the intelligence wrong. George Tenet, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, said it was a "Slam Dunk" that Saddam had WMD's. If we invaded for oil why is Iraq producing less oil than they did before the invasion? Why is the Iraqi government sitting on a surplus of oil money that should be in Bush and Cheney's bank accounts?

 

 

 

We established that when Bush was not remorseful in the least when he invaded a country FOR NO REASON. You can come up with as many reasons as you want to defend him, but when he doesn't even apologize to his own country, let alone the country he completely destroyed, I am pretty dang sure that he would have gone in there for any reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ahaha, you make me laugh, look.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really think Iraq never attacked us, ever?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, just because you believe something, doesn't mean it's established. Now, if billions of people, think of an opinion the same way, it's usualyl fact, sometimes. But because you believe it, well, quite frankly, doesn't mean [cabbage].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what the [bleep]? You're saying we destroyed Iraq? Are you [bleep] blind? Do you remember in April when we took over Iraq, and tore down Hussein's statue, the people were cheering! You want to know why? Because, unlike America, if you spoke out againstHussein, you were tortured. In so gruesome ways, I'm not gonna tell em (pm me if you wanna know) Ok? Also, he commited Genocide! Do you know know this? He nerve gassed thousands of Iraqis simply because they were a different kind of Muslim! He was a terrorist in executive position, I thank GOD that we are in there. Now, maybe, we should start pulling out, but never going in in the first place? Get real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You thank GOD that you guys are there? I hope GOD saves you from your naivity.

Hi all, can we get back onto the topic please (Bush's legacy). Maybe he lied about Iraq WMDs, and maybe he didn't - so perhaps phrase your responses in the terms of "I think that history will decide that George Bush lied to take us into Iraq, and so I think... but if history decides that George Bush didn't lie to take us into Iraq, then I think..."

[hide=]

 

 

 

 

 

You really think Iraq never attacked us, ever?

 

 

 

No. Iraq has never attacked the United States of America and Saddam Hussein also did NOT harbor or help Al-Qaeda.

 

 

 

Some U.S. officials also accused Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship was found.

 

 

 

Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, just because you believe something, doesn't mean it's established. Now, if billions of people, think of an opinion the same way, it's usualyl fact, sometimes. But because you believe it, well, quite frankly, doesn't mean [cabbage].

 

 

 

You know what is fact? That most Americans think that invading Iraq was a dumb idea. Obviously you're not one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

 

 

 

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After September 11th, Americans felt like they needed to strike back on something, anything. Going to Afghanistan was justified, to me. It was the home of Osama Bin-Laden, but the Iraq war is ridiculous. There was not sufficient evidence. Here's some reasons why:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior to the war, Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was claimed to pose a serious and imminent threat to Western national security. This assessment was supported by the U.K. intelligence services, but not by other countries such as France, Russia and Germany. United Nations weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD, giving support to earlier criticism of poor intelligence on Iraqi WMDs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what that means? The UN did NOT find evidence for WMDs. Only the United States and United Kingdom's intelligence agencies did. If you're having trouble connecting the dots, unlike most Americans today, here's another quote that has been hammered at you already, but you choose to keep ignoring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush reportedly told Palestenian officials either that God inspired him to end the tyranny in Iraq, or to hit Saddam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You want to know why? Because, unlike America, if you spoke out againstHussein, you were tortured. In so gruesome ways, I'm not gonna tell em (pm me if you wanna know) Ok? Also, he commited Genocide! Do you know know this? He nerve gassed thousands of Iraqis simply because they were a different kind of Muslim! He was a terrorist in executive position

 

 

 

So in your opinion, since the United States has a powerful military, we have to take out crazed dictators every time they pop up? No, I think that there were other reasons for going into Iraq. Why aren't we occupying Darfur? Surely you know of the genocide being committed there. What about Hitler and the Jews? We remained neutral until we were attacked. No, the reason we went into Iraq is because it benefited our country. Darfur doesn't benefit us because Africa is a lost cause and after Somalia, I think our country knows better. We need to leave the policing of the world to the United Nations, not the United States. It's what it was designed for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thank GOD that we are in there.

 

 

 

So does George Bush, in fact, he told him to go in there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay I'll try to break this down very simply. If you think something is true saying it is not lying. I guess you and that moron Robert Wexler don't understand that. He did the exact same thing when Sec. Rice testified to them. So unless you think that the President has his own private Intelligence agency that is better than CIA and told him that Saddam did have WMD's then he wasn't lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not debating the facts of what happened. Every American knows them (or should). What I'm trying to say is that George Bush treated it as if nothing happened. I didn't hear an address to the nation on the fact that he got bad information and that he made a mistake, and like I have stated twice now, to me, that means he doesn't care and that is as good as lying to the American Public. We're pouring billions of dollars into the Iraq black hole every year when everyone knows that once we leave, it's just going to go back to the way it was. History shows that that area of the world will NEVER have any form of democracy or peace.

[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, do oyu honestly think the WashingPost will give you an unbiased answer, in all seriousness?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, you act like no president has ever gone in to free people from a dictator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I'd bet $50 that all those 'Iraqi war hating americans' are below the age of 30.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really, in your right mind think te UN is competent to know anything? Also, Russia was in the pits. They're just trying to gert stablized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really need to stop googling stuff, it won't get you anywhere. Use databases, those are usually true, unlike Newspapers, which are pretty much, 90% time, biased.

[hide=]

 

 

 

 

 

You really think Iraq never attacked us, ever?

 

 

 

No. Iraq has never attacked the United States of America and Saddam Hussein also did NOT harbor or help Al-Qaeda.

 

 

 

Some U.S. officials also accused Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship was found.

 

 

 

Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, just because you believe something, doesn't mean it's established. Now, if billions of people, think of an opinion the same way, it's usualyl fact, sometimes. But because you believe it, well, quite frankly, doesn't mean [cabbage].

 

 

 

You know what is fact? That most Americans think that invading Iraq was a dumb idea. Obviously you're not one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

 

 

 

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After September 11th, Americans felt like they needed to strike back on something, anything. Going to Afghanistan was justified, to me. It was the home of Osama Bin-Laden, but the Iraq war is ridiculous. There was not sufficient evidence. Here's some reasons why:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior to the war, Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was claimed to pose a serious and imminent threat to Western national security. This assessment was supported by the U.K. intelligence services, but not by other countries such as France, Russia and Germany. United Nations weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD, giving support to earlier criticism of poor intelligence on Iraqi WMDs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what that means? The UN did NOT find evidence for WMDs. Only the United States and United Kingdom's intelligence agencies did. If you're having trouble connecting the dots, unlike most Americans today, here's another quote that has been hammered at you already, but you choose to keep ignoring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush reportedly told Palestenian officials either that God inspired him to end the tyranny in Iraq, or to hit Saddam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You want to know why? Because, unlike America, if you spoke out againstHussein, you were tortured. In so gruesome ways, I'm not gonna tell em (pm me if you wanna know) Ok? Also, he commited Genocide! Do you know know this? He nerve gassed thousands of Iraqis simply because they were a different kind of Muslim! He was a terrorist in executive position

 

 

 

So in your opinion, since the United States has a powerful military, we have to take out crazed dictators every time they pop up? No, I think that there were other reasons for going into Iraq. Why aren't we occupying Darfur? Surely you know of the genocide being committed there. What about Hitler and the Jews? We remained neutral until we were attacked. No, the reason we went into Iraq is because it benefited our country. Darfur doesn't benefit us because Africa is a lost cause and after Somalia, I think our country knows better. We need to leave the policing of the world to the United Nations, not the United States. It's what it was designed for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thank GOD that we are in there.

 

 

 

So does George Bush, in fact, he told him to go in there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay I'll try to break this down very simply. If you think something is true saying it is not lying. I guess you and that moron Robert Wexler don't understand that. He did the exact same thing when Sec. Rice testified to them. So unless you think that the President has his own private Intelligence agency that is better than CIA and told him that Saddam did have WMD's then he wasn't lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not debating the facts of what happened. Every American knows them (or should). What I'm trying to say is that George Bush treated it as if nothing happened. I didn't hear an address to the nation on the fact that he got bad information and that he made a mistake, and like I have stated twice now, to me, that means he doesn't care and that is as good as lying to the American Public. We're pouring billions of dollars into the Iraq black hole every year when everyone knows that once we leave, it's just going to go back to the way it was. History shows that that area of the world will NEVER have any form of democracy or peace.

[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, do oyu honestly think the WashingPost will give you an unbiased answer, in all seriousness?

 

 

 

Most of my quotes and links, I got from Wikipedia. Want another source that says the same thing?

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/21/iraq.poll/index.html

 

 

 

This was from 2006 and still it was 61% disapproved. Imagine what the rate is 2 years later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, you act like no president has ever gone in to free people from a dictator.

 

 

 

Our job is not to police the world. According to our founding fathers we should not engage in "entangling alliances". In other words, WE SHOULD MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS. It is not our job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I'd bet $50 that all those 'Iraqi war hating americans' are below the age of 30.

 

 

 

Regardless of the fact that 60% of our country is not below the age of 30 and older than the age of 18 (which is what percentage disagrees with the War in Iraq and is allowed to vote in polls maintained by the government and news stations), since when does it matter what age a person has to be for their opinion to be voiced?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really, in your right mind think te UN is competent to know anything? Also, Russia was in the pits. They're just trying to gert stablized.

 

 

 

Are you really questioning the UN's competence? They have served as a world peace-keeper for 63 years, yet somehow you doubt their competence to solve an issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really need to stop googling stuff, it won't get you anywhere. Use databases, those are usually true, unlike Newspapers, which are pretty much, 90% time, biased.

 

 

 

Right, so in all your infinite wisdom, you have come up with such unrefutable evidence to compel me to completely give up my arguments to the likes of "I'd bet $50 that all those 'Iraqi war hating Americans' are below the age of 30." I have yet to see you post ANY links or articles related to your argument. The most you do is rant (with many curses and spelling mistakes present) on your own uneducated, extremely biased opinions. And no, citing your dad as a reporter does NOT count as a credible news source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't even begin to address your arguments because they make absolutely no sense. You address none of my points except by asking me pointless questions. Are you done yet?