now hang on, why should we gloss over this one? you dont just gloss over one of the biggest whoppers ever told in modern day media warfare, just because its old news. people died because of this wepons of mass destruction bullshit. it was an example of your administration fixing the 'facts' around their preconceived policy. that in itself is enough to end the argument right here - its absolute moral bankruptcy for Gods sake! its a slap in the face of the weapons inspectors who were sent around looking form something that didnt exist - for the sodliers dying while protecting the poele looking for them - for the politicians who werent in on the scam, who were frantically trying to justify their governemtns postion - for the families torn apart by distance, while their loved ones went to do their pointless duty - for the ameican taxpayers at home, who lost funding for schools, health, research, and other things taht were actually constructive in bettering their lives, and the iraqis, suffocated by sanctions, who lost dignity while a farce was perpetrated in their faces as a leadup to invasion.
We shouldnt go into this one because only Bush and God know whether or not the administration believe there were WMDs. You are so set in your mindset that our entire admin created one big lie...of which there is no proof. Others would say it was faulty intel...of which there is no proof. I know youre a big fan of using heresay and conjecture in your arguments, but its a big ol' waste of time.
completely ruined? you mean like the hydra, which sprouted 3 heads when you cut one off? a few years ago al quaida was one extremist group on the other side of the world, with a couple of fanatics patrolling the mountains with an ak47, and a scattering of tents with goat shit sprinkled around them. these days there is al-quaida, al-quaida in iraq, al-quaida in pakistan.....as well as another few hundred jihadi organisations taht sympathise with them and operate similarly. bin ladens network isnt torn apart or ruined - its stronger. after all, bush et al have given them thousands of new recruits in the form of dispossessed/vengeful iraqis, have validated the previous assertions of bin laden as per americas evil intent, have gifted tehm with wonderful live fire training camps in the form of, oh, every iraqi city, and they have exulted osama bin laden to a position where he rivals george bush in fame. torn apart? please, that shit is blowing up in everyones face. (pun intended
)
Just because you never heard of them doesnt mean they werent there. To believe so is irresponsible. If you read I believe Monday's New York Times (of course, they didnt bother to put it on the front page) there was a collection of writings from captured al-Qaeda operatives from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Throughout all the writings there was one common theme: how much of a shitty situation they are in compared to before 9/11. They found it 10x more difficult to find recruits, housing, or even sympathetic citizens throughout the countries mentioned above.
One of the folks even wrote at length about how whenever he would travel to Pakistan (where he was eventually caught) people who knew who he was affiliated with would laugh at him while he walked down the street.
I know how much you would like it to be the opposite, but the world has gotten progressively safer in the months following 9/11.
oh, you mean that there has only been one terrorist attack on US soil. well, i mean, id hate to get all techy on you but...why the hell would any jihadi try to attack americans in america when there are 130000 troops right there on their doorstep ready to be picked off? 44 american marines have died in the last 10 days, 75th. 1800 in combat total. about 25000 severely wounded (ie incapacitated. look at poor needtogetas, for example. that mofo cant spell. this christmas he'll probably sign his kids christmas card "from satan" by accident, the poor bastard)
Terrorism doesnt target troops. Its right there in the definition.
So yes, I mean that there has been only 1 attack against US interests both at home and abroad.
there are lots and lots and lots and lots of attacks on americans these days, 75th. how you tally them is up to you, but it doesnt change the truth.
The truth of what?
really? link me
or back up what you just said
(just to make you run around, you bastard
) but apart from that, a working relationship does not justify full scale invasion. i mean, we're talking about countries and wars ehre, this isnt a matter of simple, individual justice! even if you are right, and saddam was in bin ladens pocket (he wasnt) it takes nothing away from the statement that invading iraq was wrong.
I never said it did warrant a full scale invasion. You said it wasnt true. I pointed out that it indeed was. Just another point against you.
oh bullshit. the US trashed the UN when it decided to go to war on such a short timeframe. the UN weapons inspectors declared that there were no weapons in iraq. the US was scrambling to justify its position on iraq, even going so low as to say that gulf war 1 had not been declared over, and so technically, the US was still at war and could do what it wanted. at the end of the day, the decision had been made, and the US was going in whether anyone was coming or not.
the UN was shredded as a credible organisation after that.
If you dont think the UN destroyed its own credibility on its own then this is going to be a long debate.
well then, what do you call the guy who lies to the troops, telling them that they were putting themselves in harms way to go and protect america, when really they were being fed into the meat grinder for the sake of american imperialism, and a largely jewish agenda?
Make up your mind. Is it an American agenda or an Israeli agenda?
i support troops in that i think it is good that they are doing their duty, which is to do what the administration tells them, and to do a good job of it. however, if the mission was bullshit in the first place, do i honor them, their families, or their lost comerades by leaving them in place to continue suffering, and dying pointlessly? ill continue to support troops - hell, my town thrives because of them - but id rather support them HERE, as members of teh DEFENSE force, not as members of the imperial army of his majesty george bush, holding the scepter of halliburton.
Ive always wondered if anyone can actually explain what halliburton did, and why it is wrong. Im beginning to think its just a typical knee-jerk reaction when one has no argument.
well, for a start, "shock and awe" was a war crime. you dont go dropping great big bombs in the middle of civilian populations.
We didnt.
furthermore, i dont give a shit what your soldiers have suffered as compared to ordinary iraqis (though i deplore all of their sufferings) because the fact is, members of your military signed up for it, and had an option not to be there. the ordinary iraqis sitting in their ancestral homes, on the other hand, did not have such a choice, and as such, being collateral damage in a war of choice at the hands of americans who were supposedly there to help protect them is a tad bloody unjust no matter which bloody way you turn it, dont you think?
Thats where we disagree. Also, Im sure you dont lose any sleep over the plight of a few Iraqis civlians who have unfortunately been caught up in this at the fault of their comrades who choose to use them as human shields.
frankly i think that the second election was rigged.
I figured you did. Even though the entire US didnt.
ahem. sorry, was that loud? was that a bit too common sensical for you? are you upset that it kind of avoided the thrust of your statement completely, while the carpet was ripped out from under you, planting your face into the ground?
Never in the history of the world have you achieved such a thing.
i think your arrogance, hubris, and denial is a bigger problem.
Your blindedness is an even bigger problem.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
now, youre a military guy, so youve probably seen that movie 'under seige' (i love that movie, especially the chick in the cake. anyway) what was it he said about assumptions? 
