The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Charity Case]

My question to Genesis has nothing to do with his political leanings.  I would like to know if he actually thinks leaving Iraq right now is a good idea.  If Kitano thinks its a good idea then he's a fool as well.  Do you think it is a good idea?

And remind me how I am a liar again.  I stated my position.  It is pretty clear.  My stance is not only clear, but if actually follows logic.  What part am I lying about.

Congrats on your monday morning quarterbacking though...you are the best at that.  The Tom Brady of monday morning quarterbacking.  Hurrah!!!!

[pilferk]

Surprising...name calling from slcpunk.?

Let me clarify my position so you don't have to keep accusing people of double speak or calling people names.

I was totally for the war when I thought it was for removing wmds and when it appeared that Iraq was a threat to the US.? Keep in mind that this was the consensus of most of the worlds' intelligence agencies not just my opinion.?

You guys keep saying this.  Repeating it isn't going to make it true. MOST of the worlds intelligence agencies did NOT think Iraq had WMD's, nor did they think that Iraq was a threat to the US.  Quite the contrary. There was NO CONCENSUS.  Even our OWN INTELLIGENCE, when summed in total, was not conclusive...

What intelligence existed was inconclusive, and much of it contradictory.

[SLCPUNK]

Congrats on your monday morning quarterbacking though...you are the best at that.  The Tom Brady of monday morning quarterbacking.  Hurrah!!!!

This is where you are a liar, well one of the ways anyway..... I don't think anybody on this board (except the nut jobs like you, Kitano etc) could really say I've looked at this thing retroactively. I've said the same thing from the very beginning. I remember saying "stick in the hornets nest" a long long time ago.

You are just angry because you are wrong, it's ok to be wrong, and takes a bigger man to admit it (where you are lacking). It is time to let go of your ego and admit Bush has created a huge cluster fuck in the middle east that isn?t getting' better anytime soon. You won't though, because it is easier for you to lie to yourself.

[pilferk]

My question to Genesis has nothing to do with his political leanings.? I would like to know if he actually thinks leaving Iraq right now is a good idea.? If Kitano thinks its a good idea then he's a fool as well.? Do you think it is a good idea?

And remind me how I am a liar again.? I stated my position.? It is pretty clear.? My stance is not only clear, but if actually follows logic.? What part am I lying about.

Congrats on your monday morning quarterbacking though...you are the best at that.? The Tom Brady of monday morning quarterbacking.? Hurrah!!!!

To be quite fair, it's not "monday morning quaterbacking" when what he's been saying, all along, turns out to be true.

The arguments SLC is making now are the EXACT same ones he made during the election, and at the start of the war....you can review his posts for evidence of it.

[Charity Case]

I don't necessary share the same thought as you that everything is a cluster fuck over there.  Most of the first hand accounts from soldiers returning is about how things are getting better.  There are countless articles out there with first hand accounts.  I did a 30 second search and found one instantly:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_3031062

So to say it is a cluster fuck is something you may be getting from te liberal media, but it is not balanced reporting that you are listening to.  Is there any better source for information that the actually soldiers that are serving over there?

pilferk, consenseus may be too strong of a word, but many of the world's intelligence agencies thought that Iraq had wmds, just like the US.  We were not alone in thinking this and we were not alone in wanting to go in to stop them.

[pilferk]

I don't necessary share the same thought as you that everything is a cluster fuck over there.? Most of the first hand accounts from soldiers returning is about how things are getting better.? There are countless articles out there with first hand accounts.? I did a 30 second search and found one instantly:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_3031062

So to say it is a cluster fuck is something you may be getting from te liberal media, but it is not balanced reporting that you are listening to.? Is there any better source for information that the actually soldiers that are serving over there?

pilferk, consenseus may be too strong of a word, but many of the world's intelligence agencies thought that Iraq had wmds, just like the US.? We were not alone in thinking this and we were not alone in wanting to go in to stop them.

Again, you're "upping" the credibility of the information.

What other countries reportedly thought was that there was a possibility that WMD's existed in Iraq, but there was no conclusive evidence that they did.? Russia, Spain, and even Isreal had direct intelligence that was conflicting or proven to lack good credibility.? A good portion of the worlds intelligence community said the same thing:? We've heard the buzz, but have no concrete intel that would suggest it's actually true, and actually have equally credibly intel that says it's NOT true.? And, when we were so vehmenently sure of ourselves...they all asked to see the intel we had.? We refused (and now, at least, we know why).? In retrospect, it looks as if WE had the same intel THEY did, but decided to be a bit less restrained and lots more "gung ho", throwing caution to the wind, as it were.

And we were not alone in wanting to go in and stop them..that's true.? GB and Australia agreed with us (largely based on our assertions that we had cateogrical intelligence proving that WMD's existed).? The REST of the world favored letting the UN Inspectors do their job, especially considering that, as yet, they'd seen no evidence to corroborate claims that WMD's existed.

This is history, guys.? You're arguing against the established facts of what actually happened, and what other governments actually said.? Do you really think anyone with an opposing viewpoint is going to let you "get away" with that?

[sandman]

most governments believed saddam had WMDs. that's why the UN passed so many resolutions.

not that it matters. who cares what france and other nations thought. they were being bribed via food for oil.

all that matters is that the leaders of the US (both parties) strongly believed that he had them.

[pilferk]

most governments believed saddam had WMDs. that's why the UN passed so many resolutions.

not that it matters. who cares what france and other nations thought. they were being bribed via food for oil.

all that matters is that the leaders of the US (both parties) strongly believed that he had them.

Again, most governments did NOT believe Saddam had WMD's.? That's history.? You're trying to rewrite it.

Most governments thought, based on their intel, he MIGHT POSSIBLY MAYBE have WMD's, and, therefore voted on UN resolutions allowing inspectors to go back to look....but balked at anything more forceful than resolutions BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT CERTAIN OF ANYTHING.  They passed resolutions threatening force IF WMD'S were proven to exist.  No proof, no force.  There wasn't any proof because there weren't any WMD's.

You're assigning certainty when history says there wasn't any.

And, whatever you may want to think of the other countries reason for their beliefs, they were right...now weren't they.? So casting reckless accusations around about WHY they believed what they did is pretty petty.

And yes, the US leaders, in BOTH parties, believed he had them...based on the flawed, INCOMPLETE intel that was being passed to them through this administration, and the VERY top of the Intel agencies.? Not exactly what I'd be bragging about....

I have no earthly idea why so many of the conservative posters on this board seem to want to rewrite this particular piece of history...or, rather, I know WHY they want to re-write it, but I don't understand HOW they think they can....

[Genesis]

most governments believed saddam had WMDs. that's why the UN passed so many resolutions.

You're forgetting that a UN weapons inspection team gave a clean chit to Iraq months before the U.S attack. They didn't find anything. Why should the U.S think otherwise? Bcoz, Bush is a stupid cunt that's why.

My question to Genesis has nothing to do with his political leanings. I would like to know if he actually thinks leaving Iraq right now is a good idea. If Kitano thinks its a good idea then he's a fool as well.

The only fool here is u fuck face. What happens if the U.S does stay around? The same thing that's been happening for months. More deaths on both sides.

[fesxine]

The Americans need to fuck off, they have completed fucked the middle east up with their constant meddling / hypocrisy and George W Bush is a total motherfuckin wanker.

[sandman]

most governments believed saddam had WMDs. that's why the UN passed so many resolutions.

not that it matters. who cares what france and other nations thought. they were being bribed via food for oil.

all that matters is that the leaders of the US (both parties) strongly believed that he had them.

Again, most governments did NOT believe Saddam had WMD's.? That's history.? You're trying to rewrite it.

Most governments thought, based on their intel, he MIGHT POSSIBLY MAYBE have WMD's, and, therefore voted on UN resolutions allowing inspectors to go back to look....but balked at anything more forceful than resolutions BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT CERTAIN OF ANYTHING.? They passed resolutions threatening force IF WMD'S were proven to exist.? No proof, no force.? There wasn't any proof because there weren't any WMD's.

You're assigning certainty when history says there wasn't any.

And, whatever you may want to think of the other countries reason for their beliefs, they were right...now weren't they.? So casting reckless accusations around about WHY they believed what they did is pretty petty.

And yes, the US leaders, in BOTH parties, believed he had them...based on the flawed, INCOMPLETE intel that was being passed to them through this administration, and the VERY top of the Intel agencies.? Not exactly what I'd be bragging about....

I have no earthly idea why so many of the conservative posters on this board seem to want to rewrite this particular piece of history...or, rather, I know WHY they want to re-write it, but I don't understand HOW they think they can....

i'm am NOT "assigning certainty". i'm simply stating that many governments believed he had them. did you forget about all the nations that have joined us in the fight in iraq?

[sandman]

Resolution 1441 was passed to force iraq to "disarm" and reveal all plans to develop wmd. it wasn't simply to let inspectors in. 

if i'm wrong and someone can show me a link, please do. otherwise, i think we're trying to read the minds of the leaders of various countries here. (most of whom were being bribed via oil for food anyway.)

[2NaFish]

britain's government didn't believe he had wmd's. Tony Blair did.

The ex-foreign minister robin cook (rip) resigned from the cabinet over the issue and his resignation speech said that from the intelliegence he had (which as foreign secretary is as good or better than the PM) he did not believe saddam to have any wmd's.

And he was right.

[nowonami]

Proving once again...you are not honest.

What's that line of yours SLC?

"Pot meet black..."

While I realize you consider yourself among the most objective and honest on this board, you're anything but.?

According to you, Sean Hannity and Bill O' Reilly just spin things all the time but Michael Moore and Al Franken call it right down the line.

You rant about the conservative bias of Fox News while claiming to be unaware of the liberal leanings of other networks.

You praise Al-Jazeera and echo their propaganda of the west "killing their children" as the prime reason for Islamic terrorism.

Not that you could ever be accused of being friendly to religion.? In your book, if anyone's faith teaches against homosexuality, it's just an excuse for bigotry.? Never mind the fact that would include all of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

You relish jumping all over conservative religious leaders and labeling them hypocrites.? But Jesse Jackson gets a pass, his extra-marital affairs notwithstanding.

Naturally we all know the one guy who will never get a pass as far as you are concerned.? You say some would support Bush even if he "ate a baby on live TV."? The flip-side of that coin is Bush could save a dozen babies from a burning orphanage and you would find something wrong with it.

When Bush's ratings are down you are quick to point it out.? When they are up you don't make a peep.

Too bad the same can't be said for Iraq War - the Grand Poobha of your soapboxes.? You and others of your sort continually rehash the question of why the U.S. went to war, yet never examine why you are asking the question.

Is it the fallen U.S. soldiers?

The whining of you and your ilk has always been in stark contrast to the vast majority of military personnel who support the war.? An exception to the rule comes along in the form of Cindy Sheehan and you milk it for all its worth, while dismissing the opinions of most military families.

Is it the Iraqi casualties?

You and the left in general can't say enough about the U.S. being there for oil instead of liberation, while at the same time acting like you are some great champion of human rights.

What's ironic is you and many of the most shrill voices against this war are just peachy-keen on abortion.? You're fine with an unborn child being killed but expect people to believe you really give a damn about people halfway around the world; many of whom wouldn't mind you and every other American dead.

I don't care how many flags you have in your yard, you're are a phoney.? A fraud.? A bunko-artist.? Not to mention a whiny little bitch.

You may fool some here, especially those from other countries - due in no small part to you sticking your tongue up their ass all the time.?

But you ain't fooling anybody here so get off your high horse.

Punk.

[SLCPUNK]

Look...it's my angry Mormon from Utah............

Look me up when I move back out..................


You rant about the conservative bias of Fox News while claiming to be unaware of the liberal leanings of other networks.

You wish. I post middle of the road material and often use Fox news(I go out of my way to use Fox especially if it proves one of you wrong), Christian Science Monitor, CNN, BBC, etc. I did post a NY times article lately that was an opinion piece. I could have easily put AP, but instead posted the source because I did not care at that point what the source was. I liked the article and felt it held truth.

You praise Al-Jazeera and echo their propaganda of the west "killing their children" as the prime reason for Islamic terrorism.


Spin.

 In your book, if anyone's faith teaches against homosexuality, it's just an excuse for bigotry. .

You are right, I do.

And it is.

Holy books (in this case the Holy Bible) condone many things including rape, murder, and selling your children into slavery. They also have passages that speak against homosexuality. Most Christians (including yourself) aren't even aware of the totality of the bible to begin with. But my biggest problem is that you pick out what you you want to use out of it and disgard the rest. In this case, you use it as an excuse to be a bigot.

You relish jumping all over conservative religious leaders and labeling them hypocrites.  But Jesse Jackson gets a pass, his extra-marital affairs notwithstanding.

The people I criticize are the ones who condone all these behaviors and then turn around and get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Left or Right.

When Bush's ratings are down you are quick to point it out.  When they are up you don't make a peep.

They were low before 9-11, then high after 9-11 and the slowly went down. I have been against him since his illegal, and immoral war in Iraq. If he his ratings are low, yup I'm going to point them out, so what? Tough shit buddy.
Not to mention his ratings haven't been that high for a while.

Too bad the same can't be said for Iraq War - the Grand Poobha of your soapboxes.  You and others of your sort continually rehash the question of why the U.S. went to war, yet never examine why you are asking the question.

I have made my point very clear. All of you Bush apologists, and left wing haters always do this. You just repeat-repeat-repeat (In a way that would make Karl Rove Blush). It has been proven in this thread. We say "the world didn't believe there was credible evidence to attack" and you say "but there was, it's a fact". Which, of course, is not true. Also I have made my point clear many times over and you come back and say "Well Punk why don't you tell us what you would do?".  How can your denial be so severe, to cripple you to this degree? To lie to yourself and everybody on this board, so blatantly and not think you don't appear to be totally deranged?

The emperor is not wearing any clothes.....

You and the left in general can't say enough about the U.S. being there for oil instead of liberation, while at the same time acting like you are some great champion of human rights.

I value human life yes. I know I'm not a Christian, but I do value, each and every human life.

What's ironic is you and many of the most shrill voices against this war are just peachy-keen on abortion.  You're fine with an unborn child being killed but expect people to believe you really give a damn about people halfway around the world; many of whom wouldn't mind you and every other American dead.

I usually would not answer this, since it is so obviously a straw man argument. But I find it hilarious that you are against abortion, but pro-war. Before they are outside the womb it's murder, but once they are out, put a gun in their hand and shove them out the door to kill.

Also, even though I have posted this before, I don't really like abortion, but do believe it is the right of the mother. You are free to spin that in any direction you'd like. Or heck, you can even just come back and ask me my stance on that again, like everything else....

I don't care how many flags you have in your yard, you're are a phoney.  A fraud.  A bunko-artist.  Not to mention a whiny little bitch.

Well how very Mormon of you....

That is ok. I know who I am. I don't have to delete my account because I'm afraid somebody will use my words against me next time. I have the same opinion, and have since the beginning. You hate me because liars hate the truth.

It(the truth) will set you free, but it will piss you off first.

But you ain't fooling anybody here so get off your high horse.

"To thy own self be true."

[Rain]

most governments believed saddam had WMDs. that's why the UN passed so many resolutions.

not that it matters. who cares what france and other nations thought. they were being bribed via food for oil.

all that matters is that the leaders of the US (both parties) strongly believed that he had them.

Again, most governments did NOT believe Saddam had WMD's.? That's history.? You're trying to rewrite it.

Most governments thought, based on their intel, he MIGHT POSSIBLY MAYBE have WMD's, and, therefore voted on UN resolutions allowing inspectors to go back to look....but balked at anything more forceful than resolutions BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT CERTAIN OF ANYTHING.? They passed resolutions threatening force IF WMD'S were proven to exist.? No proof, no force.? There wasn't any proof because there weren't any WMD's.

You're assigning certainty when history says there wasn't any.

And, whatever you may want to think of the other countries reason for their beliefs, they were right...now weren't they.? So casting reckless accusations around about WHY they believed what they did is pretty petty.

And yes, the US leaders, in BOTH parties, believed he had them...based on the flawed, INCOMPLETE intel that was being passed to them through this administration, and the VERY top of the Intel agencies.? Not exactly what I'd be bragging about....

I have no earthly idea why so many of the conservative posters on this board seem to want to rewrite this particular piece of history...or, rather, I know WHY they want to re-write it, but I don't understand HOW they think they can....

i'm am NOT "assigning certainty". i'm simply stating that many governments believed he had them. did you forget about all the nations that have joined us in the fight in iraq?

Can you give me the list again ?  Plenty of small countries under American influence. If France refused to go it wasn't at all because food and oil scandal ... but because our intelligence agency was pretty sure they weren't wmds in Iraq. Germany didn't buy it either. Spain and Italy went while 90 % of their population were against it ... even in South America, Brazil refused to help.
It's amazing you can't even remember what happened at the UN 3 years ago.

[Charity Case]

The only fool here is u fuck face.

Look at the internet tough guy get creative.     What is up with the name calling?  Do you have any real arguements or just moronic statements like this?  Typical left wing nut though.  Wants to leave Iraq because of lives that are being lost.  Oh no, it's a war and we lost people...let's run!  You'd make a great general or commander.

nowonami, great post....probably the most accurate description of slc's stances and positions that could be posted.  And him taking the time to respond so thoroughly to each point shows that it hit pretty close to home.

[SLCPUNK]

The only fool here is u fuck face.

Look at the internet tough guy get creative.     What is up with the name calling?  Do you have any real arguements or just moronic statements like this?  Typical left wing nut though.  Wants to leave Iraq because of lives that are being lost.  Oh no, it's a war and we lost people...let's run!  You'd make a great general or commander.

He's really just going down to your level.

All arguments have been presented, and you have given us nothing but lies, half truths, assumptions and more lies.

Put a fork in it...your done.

[Pazzuzu]

Speaking simply for myself, weapons of mass destruction or no, I still support Iraq war.

Why?

1. The United States had a certain moral obligation to finish what it didn't see through in the Gulf War.

2. For better or worse it has demonstrated there are at least a few countries who will actually back up with force the resolutions the United Nations puts forth.

3. In my opinon, the United States deciding to go into Iraq has just sped up a war that was already coming.? What a lot of people don't seem to realize (or just don't want to) is even if you removed every last American and Israeli presence from the entire middle east, there would still be Islamic terrorist attacks in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. 

[Pazzuzu]

Holy books (in this case the Holy Bible) condone many things including rape, murder, and selling your children into slavery.

Hey SLC, while I realize this little tiff going on is none of my business, I've got to throw my hat in here.

I happen to believe in the Holy Bible and have read both the Old and New Testaments many times.?

Where exactly are rape, murder, and selling your children into slavery condoned?