"I Have A Bracelet Too"

[B_New End]

I hardly call spouting off talking points from Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and other liberal exploiters of the ignorant, "getting my position fucked 17 different ways."

Are you seriously going to try to deny these problems are all directly caused by the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

:18: :18:

And fuck you, you don't know where I get my information from, but I assure you, it is 100 times more extensive than anything you could possibly ever imagine or have studied.

 

[B_New End]

First of all, McCain and Petraeus figured out how to get out of the "quagmire". So what is the problem?

.

Mission accomplished, right?
Its all over, we can go home, right?

You know better than that.

 

[lucky8]

Calm down and wait your turn. Can't you see that I am outnumbered? Your post came WAY after the ones I am responding to. Its bad enough that you libs are claiming victory based on the fact that you guys can dump alot if liberal falacies at me at once. Now you are claiming victory by saying I can't answer you fast enough? Get a grip. Can't you see what you are asking me? You are literally asking me to educate you. If you are too ignorant to know why we went to Iraq, why should I be obligated to tell you? Have you stopped and stepped back and read your posts? Sheesh. Now get back in line.

HAHAHAHAHA I'm not a Dem, buddy. What specific threat did Saddam pose to America? (I understand, it's takes awhile to find the right answer on Google)

 

[stratedude]

HAHAHAHAHA I'm not a Dem, buddy. What specific threat did Saddam pose to America? (I understand, it's takes awhile to find the right answer on Google)

You are an idiot. I don't use Google for simple knowledge like that. I use Noodle i.e. brains.

I can't believe you fuckheads (your word asshole) need a history lesson from me.

Alright last one and I'm going to bed:

Before 9/11 we didn't think Saddam posed much of a significant threat to America. He was looked at as more of an annoyance. That is why we had 17 UN resolutions. He would violate one, then we would write another, and the cycle continued.

Then after 9/11, there were 3 things that put us into war with Iraq:
#1, The Bush Doctrine specified that any nation that supports terrorrism will be viewed as a terrorist nation. Saddam had given rewards to the families of suicide bombers that carried out attacks on Israel.
#2, Saddam's past of posessing and using WMD, and his refusal to cooperate with UN resolutions put in place as part of the Gulf War.
#3, Saddam's location in the heart of the middle east, making it geographically convenient to deal with terrorist if he decided to do so.

Given these three major factors, the immediate and SPECIFIC threat Saddam posed to the US was the possibility that he could aid, arm or fund terrorists that could make their way onto US soil to carry out an attack.

And while many of you short minded idiots have trouble remembering, 9/11 happened ON U.S. soil, by terrorists from the Middle East. So, yeah, it was a real and immediate concern considering the recent War on Terrorism.


CLASS DISMISSED.

 

[lucky8]

Oh, so you mean Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran too right? because the Iraqi government wasn't funding terrorism...

Here, maybe this song will help you think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXGhvoekY44

 

[B_New End]

And while many of you short minded idiots have trouble remembering, 9/11 happened ON U.S. soil, by terrorists from the Middle East. So, yeah, it was a real and immediate concern considering the recent War on Terrorism.

How many from Iraq?

Man, your skull is thick.

Of course the fact 0 were from Iraq is just more liberal America bashing hate speech spoon fed to us sheep by Jon Stewart.

 

[stratedude]

How many from Iraq?

Man, your skull is thick.

Of course the fact 0 were from Iraq is just more liberal America bashing hate speech spoon fed to us sheep by Jon Stewart.

You think you're so smart don't you? Why would we fight Germany only after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?

If there were geniuses like you back then there would have been people asking "How many of these Nazi's are from Japan?"

This conversation is WAAAY over your head.

 

[stratedude]

Oh, so you mean Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran too right? because the Iraqi government wasn't funding terrorism...

Holy crap are you serious? Lucky I though you were smarter than this? What UN resolutions were Pakistan and Saudi Arabia violating? re-read my post, but this time take notes. It is all spelled out there. #1, #2, and #3.

 

[B_New End]

You think you're so smart don't you? Why would we fight Germany only after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?

If there were geniuses like you back then there would have been people asking "How many of these Nazi's are from Japan?"

This conversation is WAAAY over your head.

Bush is teh Nazi!!1!!

Two can play this game.

P.s. loser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[Phil Ayesho]

The UN made no resolution to INVADE Iraq-

You can't point to violation of UN resolutions as reason to invade if the UN didn't think it was grounds to Invade.


And- On what grounds? How stupid can one republican be?

15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi.
Bin Laden is Saudi, son to an influential Saudi family.
(BTW- PERSONAL friends of the BUSH family)

Al Queda is a Wahabist movement.

Saudi Arabia is the only nation on earth with a Wahabist government.

IT is estimated that 80% of Al Quedas's funding comes from Saudi Sheiks.
The Saudi government supports Madrasas that preach violent anti-Americanism.


And yet- not only has there been NO investigation of Saudi involvement... but in the days afte 9/11 President Bush personally arranged for a charter jet to fly the entire Bin Laden family OUT of the US- without so much as an interview about their son.

NO stateside investigation of Bin Laden family accounts or assets...
NOTHING.

THAT is how the republican party rolls, tho.... if you got enough money and oil connections... you can help finance the greatest attack on American soil in 190 years, and the republican president will hold your fucking hand as you walk thru the rose garden.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Barack? Is that you? Seriously by about the 2nd paragraph I just realized that you are so far off base in your understanding of what is going on here that all this ranting can't possibly warrant an explanation. That is called a thorough education. You don't even have a clue why we were justified in going to Iraq but not Korea. That alone was enough to just stop you there and say, "You know what, it is too much a waste of time to bother with you. I could write a book that counters all of your wild ideas (even though there are plenty of books out there that do it already), but that is not why I am here. If you want to ask any specific questions as to why you are wrong about a certain point, or if you feel the need to challenge me one a particular point, I will welcome that. But when you throw every convoluted, backwards idea you have in your arsenal at me at once, all I can say is, you simply don't understand. And it makes me wonder if you are the Senator Obama himself.

Nice try- but that is not an argument and you offer no actual rebuttal.

If you found my points unrelated-- that is merely evidence that you really don't know anything about any of this- or that you just don't reason well.

We had not one iota of justification to go into Iraq- the UN inspectors said so, the NON-falsified intelligence said so.

Saddam HATED islamic fundamentalism because it threatend HIS role as leader of the faithful in Iraq.
The ONE country we could be SURE wasn't encouraging islamic fundamentalism was Iraq.

Oh- and WHO endorsed Saddam's dictatorship? Who armed him?
Reagan, Rumsfeld and Cheney , that's who...

Iraq posed ZERO threat to the US.
Anything he could have gotten up to could have been taken care of with a cruise missile.

 

[deleted15807]

....and the republican president will hold your fucking hand as you walk thru the rose garden.

When you are hooked on the sweet stuff under all that Saudi Arabian sand they can fuck you ten ways till sunrise and you gotta smile the whole time :smile:

 

[Mr Ed in Mass]

You're grasping at straws here. I don't see how going into a needless war and bailing out Wall Street are remotely related. One is based on pure fabrication and lies and one is based on reality.

Saddam Hussein despite being a tyrant did a better job running Iraq than we're doing I'm afraid.

He did a better job killing millions of innocent people?

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Um- no he killed, by most estimates, about 200,000. Over a twenty year period.


Bush has killed between 100,000 and 300,000 in five years.

Bush has been a much better killer... Just imagine what he could accomplish with 20 years....

 

[uniqueusername]

Um- no he killed, by most estimates, about 200,000. Over a twenty year period.


Bush has killed between 100,000 and 300,000 in five years.

Bush has been a much better killer... Just imagine what he could accomplish with 20 years....

Whose estimates are these?

87% fewer violent deaths annually in Iraq now than under Saddam Hussein

Iraq, a country approximately the size of California, but with only 2/3rd its population, suffered more than a million violent deaths under Saddam Hussein's regime. That would average out at about 50,000 deaths a year in a population of 25 million before the Americans got involved.

This article was written in 2005, so the death toll of the Iraq War has changed, but the statistics on the atrocities under Saddam have not. Even if your estimates are to be believed, the Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam.

Iraq Body Count

But they aren't to be believed. According to this site, which keeps the most extensive database on Iraqi civilian deaths anywhere, between 87,665 and 95,687 people have been killed thus far over the 5+ years we've been there. That averages out to, at most, about 20,000 people per year, a 60% DECREASE from the yearly death toll under Saddam.

If nothing else, you cannot deny that fewer Iraqis are dying now than before the invasion.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Again, you are wrong on every point, and I don't write history books and I don't educate brainwashed fools like you.

You clearly don't READ history books either. Everything I said IS true...All historical facts..
And you do not rebut because you have NOTHING with which to rebut.

What I meant by that is that Bill Clinton let America get beat down over and over by terrorists and did little to nothing to prevent any of it.

Saying shit is still shit. You have no evidence. Clinton did not LET anyone do anything.. Clinton RESPONDED with military force.


Who let us get beat down?
How about the stupid bitch who couldn't be bothered to even READ a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US"- and IGNORE it?

Bush was at the helm while Arabs ON the watchlist were taking flight instruction in Florida.

Republicans did NOTHING about Bin Laden- who had attacked US assets 3 times before, UNTIL he crashed jets into the WTC...
NOTHING, NADA...
NOT ONE THING, pal.

Clinton actually was gathering intel on Bin Laden til his last day in office- Intel that Bush disregarded..
So Don't spout ignorant bull about something that you know nothing about.

9/11 did not happen two weeks after Clinton left- it happend NINE MONTHS after Bush took power.

Show me ONE FUCKING THING Bush did about Bin Laden in that period or shut up.

And not only did that embolden the terrorists, but it led to the 9/11 attacks. Under Bush, the attacks on Americans around the world by terrorists have been dramatically reduced.

You sound so naive and so completley brainwashed by right wing hogwash its almost cute...

Bin Laden doesn't have to attack the US... His BEST friend Bush is doing a bang up job of destroying US credibility, its military, its standing in the world community, and its economy...
AND his best friend Bush is doing a GREAT job recruiting NEW terrorists and NEW donations from all over the arab world...

AND his best friend Bush has not done ONE FUCKING THING to find Bin Laden in 6 years.

Bush is kicking in doors in Falluja... killing people who had nothing to do with terrorism until Bush killed their families...

Bin Laden LOVES Geroge Bush and the Republican party...

The only reason the Clinton presidency SEEMED great was because it was conveniently nested between the peace from the success of the Gulf War, and the prosperity of the internet boom. And he did a great job of sweeping all of our military actions and defeats at the hands of terrorists under the rug with the help of the liberal media of course.

What a moron... sad sad sad.

Remember how Bush found NO WMD's that was because Clinton enforced sanctions.
Remember the genocide in Bosnia? Clinton stopped it.

And really- we had NO peace from the Gulf war- you dolt.
IT was THE GULF WAR that turned Bin Laden against the US.

9/11 was BORN in the fact of US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

Without the gulf war- there would have been NO Al Queda.



Come on back anytime with your republican cliffs notes on make believe history.

Debating someone as ill informed and unable to make an argument as you is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Whose estimates are these?
really?
a progaganda site?

ASK Iraqis who are not on the payroll. They hated Saddam- but Bush has managed to make Saddam seem like the better option.

And when we leave--- a new despot who can keep the factions in line thru fear is going to rise...


This article was written in 2005, so the death toll of the Iraq War has changed, but the statistics on the atrocities under Saddam have not. Even if your estimates are to be believed, the Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam.

Iraq Body Count
But they aren't to be believed. According to this site, which keeps the most extensive database on Iraqi civilian deaths anywhere, between 87,665 and 95,687 people have been killed thus far over the 5+ years we've been there. That averages out to, at most, about 20,000 people per year, a 60% DECREASE from the yearly death toll under Saddam.

You are a tool of disinformation.

87,000 "documented" dead?
So we just don't count everybody, right?
God no, lets not count ALL the dead.

This site you link is utter bullshit.
Statistical sampling has proven a much higher number.
In fact- MY numbers were extremely conservative...
Proper scientific method results in a number closer to 665,000 killed as a result of the war.


You don't get to MASSAGE the numbers lower by requiring documentation for each corpse.
For example- bodies dropped in the street without ID and without a head are not counted.

Dead is dead. And half a million dead is the number that all reputable reserachers agree is closer to the mark.

If nothing else, you cannot deny that fewer Iraqis are dying now than before the invasion.

Bullshit
I have listened to interviews with Iraqis- I KNOW a family of Iraqis.

Under Saddam- their Daughters could walk to the store at midnight and have nothing to fear.

Saddam rulled ruthlessly- but that at least resulted in NOBDOY stepping out of line.

If you honestly believe that fewer Iraqis are dying daily than BEFORE the invasion, you are woefully misinformed.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The only reason the Clinton presidency SEEMED great was because it was conveniently nested between the peace from the success of the Gulf War, and the prosperity of the internet boom.

I don't know about you, but the fact that Clinton was able to get Jordan and Israel to agree on a peace treaty speaks volumes. Not a bad thing to be conveniently nested between the Gulf War & the internet boom, among other things.

Israel?Jordan Treaty of Peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK seriously, no more history education for you. I can't waste my time with someone as messed up as you. You're not even in the ballpark and it will take too much effort and time to get you back on track. Read a book, and lay off the Youtube and blogs.

Would the actual border crossings at Jordan which show several pictures of Clinton shaking hands & signing the treaty along with King Hussein & Prime Minister Habin be better proof? I could actually vouch for that because I was in the Middle East just a few days ago.

 

[uniqueusername]

You are a tool of disinformation.

87,000 "documented" dead?
So we just don't count everybody, right?
God no, lets not count ALL the dead.

This site you link is utter bullshit.
Statistical sampling has proven a much higher number.
In fact- MY numbers were extremely conservative...
Proper scientific method results in a number closer to 665,000 killed as a result of the war.


You don't get to MASSAGE the numbers lower by requiring documentation for each corpse.
For example- bodies dropped in the street without ID and without a head are not counted.

Dead is dead. And half a million dead is the number that all reputable reserachers agree is closer to the mark.

The study you linked to isn't even CLOSE to as scientific as the site I posted. It's not like they just look through newspapers and write down the number of deaths. They go through morgue records, documents, letters, anything they can find. If any evidence of a death shows up, it's counted.

In the study you posted, researchers went around to people's houses, asked how many people had been killed, and extrapolated that percentage to the entire population. Which do you think is more reliable?

I'll also point out that the site I posted is decidedly anti-war. They have no incentive to deflate the numbers.

Bullshit
I have listened to interviews with Iraqis- I KNOW a family of Iraqis.

Under Saddam- their Daughters could walk to the store at midnight and have nothing to fear.

Saddam rulled ruthlessly- but that at least resulted in NOBDOY stepping out of line.

If you honestly believe that fewer Iraqis are dying daily than BEFORE the invasion, you are woefully misinformed.

I know a guy who told me everything is fine there. It doesn't make it true.

 

[lucky8]

Moral of the story...the internet is not a reliable source for accurate information