Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12

 

2006-09-09 09:00:56
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7038

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:


oh wait, yes they did!!

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Ira … sified.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01528.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01528.html
You wasted time searching this??
They've already admitted they didn't find any WMD's.  Don't you have a tv?  Or your browser only lets you go to foxnews?
Show me the link that says they admit they found zero WMD's. Cuz I showed you links where they said they did find them
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4484237.stm & http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 718150.stm - the US chief weapons inspector admits Iraq had no NCB weapons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm - Colin Powell admitting in a televised interview that the assertion that Iraq was stockpiling WMDs was wrong.
2006-09-09 09:08:02
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6889|Seattle, WA

IG-Calibre wrote:

maybe Bush didn't literally state it - he most certainly inferred it all the time.  However, I think you will find it was the Vice President Dick Cheney who told the American Public that there was a definate operational relationship between Saddam & al-Qaeda for instance sept2003 and I quote:

"a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s... al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained... the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organisation."
Source and date of that quote: It all depends on the timeline...nevermind I found it, however are you blind, in the North eastern part of Iraq was a training camp for Al Qaeda, Saddam didn't really do anything about them, big deal.  My point still stands that this Senate Report doesn't mean jack, and the AP reporting that the whole REASON we went into Iraq is now moot.  Pfffft, gimme a break.


Al qaeda was in Iraq, and had been for many decades....if you don't understand that, you don't understand history....
2006-09-09 09:10:47
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6889|Seattle, WA

Kmarion wrote:

I love the timing of this. Right before Mid-term elections. This and the Clinton bashing ABC mini-series comes out. Both sides of the aisle..lol
You obviously haven't even watched it, I talked with the director of the show, and the show certainly shows things that BOTH administrations did wrong.  Nice way to jump the gun, you haven't even seen it yet.
2006-09-09 09:14:20
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6889|Seattle, WA

mafia996630 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

Don't think there was a direct quote, but the smoke is all there.

OFCOURSE THEY WANT OIL, FFS. that the first thing u.s secured when they attacked iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, … 37,00.html

^---- that from jan 2003, just goes to show how prepared the u.s were.

Its does take time, but u.s being u.s , i would expect them to have found him by now.
Well smoke doesn't count, sorry.  Yeah and we gave control to the Iraqi's, once again find the oil, and I'll believe you, I haven't seen a jump in imports from Iraq since the day we went in.  Or a jump in production or reserves or anything, I seriously will believe you when you find anything that supports this, because sure it seems like a probable reason.  And yah, it takes time and just because the U.S. is the U.S. doesn't mean we can find a terrorist mastermind lickety split.  AQ is a huge organization, but we are making good progress taking them down one by one.  The problem with Iraq is this, now hear me out, I think we need to go after Al Qaeda first and foremost, take them down, but there were a SHITLOAD of them in IRAQ, imagine that, so how else were we going to get to them, ask Saddam nicely???
2006-09-09 09:23:26
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6718|Kakanien
fox news! loooooooooooooooooooool!
seriously, how can anyone still believe they DID find wmd?! they even said they did not and they would have shown them immediately to the world if they had!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0
2006-09-09 09:29:51
--->[Your]Phobia<---
Member
+35|7002|UK - England
I quote - A Chart of Bush Lies about Iraq (A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY)

Here’s what Bush said:
Bush’s Claim
Reality

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:

-       Sarin gas

-       Mustard gas

-       VX Nerve agent
Not True

Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people
Not True

Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world
Not True

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda

And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11
Not True

Zero Al Qaeda Connection

To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production
Not True

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.
Not True

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Not True

The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003
Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact
Not True

“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein  refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq
Not True

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003
2006-09-09 09:31:16
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7007

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

COMMENTARY)

Here’s what Bush said:
Hooray, you can cut and paste from the interweb.
2006-09-09 09:36:48
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6988|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:


Source and date of that quote: It all depends on the timeline...nevermind I found it, however are you blind, in the North eastern part of Iraq was a training camp for Al Qaeda, Saddam didn't really do anything about them, big deal.  My point still stands that this Senate Report doesn't mean jack, and the AP reporting that the whole REASON we went into Iraq is now moot.  Pfffft, gimme a break.


Al qaeda was in Iraq, and had been for many decades....if you don't understand that, you don't understand history....
By stating in such an authoritative manner that Al-qaeda had been in Iraq "for many decades" clearly demonstrates fairly comprehensively and conclusively that you are in fact talking out your hole and haven't a notion!!  Thank's for giving me a really good laugh *even though my mother always told me not to laugh at retards*
Wow, how old are you dude, you seriously don't know how to talk and read with people.  Cheney said that, and I stated that Al Qaeda had been in Iraq for decades.  What part of my statement is wrong with you?  You sure are good at being rude, and not respecting others opinions......I didn't mean it to be Authoritative.....I asked if you were blind because its OBVIOUS that they have been in Iraq, your almost proving yourself wrong....
From your own Senate report "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support..."  Yes Al-quaeda was in Iraq but not at the request of Saddam's regime infarct Saddam was also trying to find Zarqawi when he found out he was in the country.
2006-09-09 09:40:15
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6889|Seattle, WA

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

I quote - A Chart of Bush Lies about Iraq (A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY)

Here’s what Bush said:
Bush’s Claim
Reality

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

Let's see, not a lie, everyone had the same intelligence, even other countries

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:

-       Sarin gas

-       Mustard gas

-       VX Nerve agent
Not True
Same as the first, same intelligence, didn't know it wasn't true back than, not a lie

Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq
Same, starting to see a pattern

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”
Int'l community had same intelligence, same as first three

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people
Not True
And yet again, same thing

Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
Intelligence, world, everyone, thought there was, not just us

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
Not a lie, they were building these and importing them

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world
Not True
How do you know?

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq
How do you know they weren't moved out, there was A LOT of movement in on the south border before we went in, you think they were just moving milk trucks??

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
He had close to a half million dollar contract with Al Qaeda

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda
Same as above and also Al Qaeda has been in the Northeastern part of Iraq for a while, but it is debatable that he helped them, and once again we had intelligence that showed this as well, still not a lie

And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11
Not True
Sure I agree now, but the intelligence back than said otherwise

Zero Al Qaeda Connection
Debateable, how do you know this for a 100% truth other than what you've been told


"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Intel yet again

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production
Not True
How do you know!?!? I'm amazed, are you some sort of secret Iraq advisor with privleged information, there is no way you can know this for sure

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.
Sure I agree, how is this a lie though?

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.
A lot was destroyed, how do you know

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Once again, int'l intel

The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003
Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact
Not True

“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein  refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq
Hahahaha ok find a source for that PLEASE I have to see it, he continued to DENY them access to VITAL parts that they watned to see, you've got to be kidding me, you were credible up until this

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003
And were denied entry to vital key areas
Bottom line dude, there isn't one lie in that whole list, maybe a lot of mistakes and problems, sure I definitely agree there, we were quick to go in Iraq, but damn no one lied, its called bad intel, and everyone believed that, so to say Bush stated some things that turned out to be later false does not mean he lied, to have lied he would had to have known WITHOUT a doubt that what he was saying was false, and all the evidence didn't point that way.
2006-09-09 09:42:41
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6889|Seattle, WA

IG-Calibre wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:


By stating in such an authoritative manner that Al-qaeda had been in Iraq "for many decades" clearly demonstrates fairly comprehensively and conclusively that you are in fact talking out your hole and haven't a notion!!  Thank's for giving me a really good laugh *even though my mother always told me not to laugh at retards*
Wow, how old are you dude, you seriously don't know how to talk and read with people.  Cheney said that, and I stated that Al Qaeda had been in Iraq for decades.  What part of my statement is wrong with you?  You sure are good at being rude, and not respecting others opinions......I didn't mean it to be Authoritative.....I asked if you were blind because its OBVIOUS that they have been in Iraq, your almost proving yourself wrong....
From your own Senate report "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support..."  Yes Al-quaeda was in Iraq but not at the request of Saddam's regime infarct Saddam was also trying to find Zarqawi when he found out he was in the country.
I know, I think I already stated something to that fact, but your saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE that they weren't doing anything, just because Saddam didn't like Zarqawi...it is impossible, well I don't know how you know that but if you believe it thats fine, but your still missing my point, Bush never said any of this, it wasn't a reason to go into Iraq, we didn't go in after Saddam BECAUSE of 9/11, we went in to get closer to Al Qaeda and take out a horrible dictator regime.
2006-09-09 09:43:07
--->[Your]Phobia<---
Member
+35|7002|UK - England

usmarine2005 wrote:

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

COMMENTARY)

Here’s what Bush said:
Hooray, you can cut and paste from the interweb.
I cant be arsed wasting time with you. what do you think you are a Patriot?
Your a dum ass - go buy something from wallmart. Hope you dont post shit again. stick to the stopic at hand or dont post at all.
2006-09-09 09:44:56
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7007

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

go buy something from wallmart.
Lolz.  Huh?


Anyway, I am on topic.  Cut and paste "facts" from the internet is retarded.
2006-09-09 09:47:26
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6988|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Wow, how old are you dude, you seriously don't know how to talk and read with people.  Cheney said that, and I stated that Al Qaeda had been in Iraq for decades.  What part of my statement is wrong with you?  You sure are good at being rude, and not respecting others opinions......I didn't mean it to be Authoritative.....I asked if you were blind because its OBVIOUS that they have been in Iraq, your almost proving yourself wrong....
From your own Senate report "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support..."  Yes Al-quaeda was in Iraq but not at the request of Saddam's regime infarct Saddam was also trying to find Zarqawi when he found out he was in the country.
I know, I think I already stated something to that fact, but your saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE that they weren't doing anything, just because Saddam didn't like Zarqawi...it is impossible, well I don't know how you know that but if you believe it thats fine, but your still missing my point, Bush never said any of this, it wasn't a reason to go into Iraq, we didn't go in after Saddam BECAUSE of 9/11, we went in to get closer to Al Qaeda and take out a horrible dictator regime.
*whispers* No you're getting confused, thats what happens when a story is a tissue of lies, you invaded Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction remember? - the story changed to regime change after they didn't exist.  Although I do believe some Marines found a protractor, ruler, and 2 set squares which clearly demonstrated that Iraq had weapons of maths instruction..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-09-09 09:56:50)

2006-09-09 10:18:28
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6889|Seattle, WA

IG-Calibre wrote:

*whispers* No you're getting confused, thats what happens when a story is a tissue of lies, you invaded Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction remember? - the story changed to regime change after they didn't exist.  Although I do believe some Marines found a protractor, ruler, and 2 set squares which clearly demonstrated that Iraq had weapons of maths instruction..
Once again, you are misinterpreting what I've wrote, dude I don't really care that much, I agree we need to get OUT of Iraq...hello??? I'm saying they are NOT lies, you need to look at the definition of a lie, more closely, Bush didn't know any of that was false beforehand, how is it a lie than???? We went in for WMD's on BAD intel and the story didn't CHANGE about the regime change, it needed to be done.  Or maybe you think Saddam was a good guy who didn't put people in mass graves.
2006-09-09 10:33:11
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6988|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

*whispers* No you're getting confused, thats what happens when a story is a tissue of lies, you invaded Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction remember? - the story changed to regime change after they didn't exist.  Although I do believe some Marines found a protractor, ruler, and 2 set squares which clearly demonstrated that Iraq had weapons of maths instruction..
Once again, you are misinterpreting what I've wrote, dude I don't really care that much, I agree we need to get OUT of Iraq...hello??? I'm saying they are NOT lies, you need to look at the definition of a lie, more closely, Bush didn't know any of that was false beforehand, how is it a lie than???? We went in for WMD's on BAD intel and the story didn't CHANGE about the regime change, it needed to be done.  Or maybe you think Saddam was a good guy who didn't put people in mass graves.
Yeah I'm just yanking your chain I get what your saying. The problem is though, it's very convenient to say "it was bad Intel" fact of the matter is Iraq had agreed to let weapon inspectors back into the country,  many experts on the region knew that Iraq didn't have such capabilities; however rather than do this the legal way - Your President moved his army half way around the world and attacked, even though there was heavy opposition to that course of action with in the UN. Your country acted as an aggressor along with the rest of the "coalition of the willing" and caused a fucking mess and totally destabilised the entire region and caused a civil war, the question is for what? if it wasn't for WMD, wasn't for 9/11, but was soley to bring "freedom" to the Iraq people, you're now standing on very shaky legal ground
2006-09-09 10:38:43
Foxhoundmgw
Man of Moebius Morals
+71|6826|Nottingham, UK

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

*whispers* No you're getting confused, thats what happens when a story is a tissue of lies, you invaded Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction remember? - the story changed to regime change after they didn't exist.  Although I do believe some Marines found a protractor, ruler, and 2 set squares which clearly demonstrated that Iraq had weapons of maths instruction..
Once again, you are misinterpreting what I've wrote, dude I don't really care that much, I agree we need to get OUT of Iraq...hello??? I'm saying they are NOT lies, you need to look at the definition of a lie, more closely, Bush didn't know any of that was false beforehand, how is it a lie than???? We went in for WMD's on BAD intel and the story didn't CHANGE about the regime change, it needed to be done.  Or maybe you think Saddam was a good guy who didn't put people in mass graves.
How come the English find out so much about American news, but I can probably count the amount of Americans who know about Dr David Kelly, who he was, what his job entailed, and how he was involved in the 'plot' to invade again, on one hand (if you cheating shits don't google/wiki/www it).

This man was the cause of a rather large and public ruckus between the BBC and Downing Street, over allegations that the Joint Intelligence Comission and Downing Street had sexed up the September Dossier (published 24th Sept 2002) to more heavily support the proposed 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The guy had been a UN weapons inspector in Iraq previously, had a doctorate in Microbiology and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. In hindsight, although the perfect person to validate such a document, he's not the best choice to validate one that has been doctored to make things look more sinister.

If you actually give a shit about the information you cite as canon being publicly lambasted in 2002 for it's nature of being not quite kosher google and wiki from this point on. But first, a spoiler. He was found dead in the woods before the September Dossier was published.

But as a final suggestion, don't defend a possible lie, with a definite lie.

STEAMLOLLERS to the 45 minute claim, It always was priceless.

And guys, stop voting Republican and Democrat. Vote fucking American. It might solve some of your issues.

Last edited by Foxhoundmgw (2006-09-09 10:40:34)

2006-09-09 10:40:46
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6889|Seattle, WA

IG-Calibre wrote:

Yeah I'm just yanking your chain I get what your saying. The problem is though, it's very convenient to say "it was bad Intel" fact of the matter is Iraq had agreed to let weapon inspectors back into the country,  many experts on the region knew that Iraq didn't have such capabilities; however rather than do this the legal way - Your President moved his army half way around the world and attacked, even though there was heavy opposition to that course of action with in the UN. Your country acted as an aggressor along with the rest of the "coalition of the willing" and caused a fucking mess and totally destabilised the entire region and caused a civil war, the question is for what? if it wasn't for WMD, wasn't for 9/11, but was soley to bring "freedom" to the Iraq people, you're now standing on very shaky legal ground
OMG there is a sane person underneath that facade   Glad you came out finally man.  I agree it is a very interesting situation that occured and most of it was bad intel and more of it was BAD decisions by the administration.  Don't even bring up the U.N., they are a bunch of crackpots I swear the U.N. doesn't stand for anything anymore, but yes we did strike a little early and went a little fast, I agree, but we certainly have accomplished a lot faster than going slow, Saddam is gone: How is that bad? We have caputred NUMEROUS Al Qaeda operative in and around Iraq: How is that bad? We have disrupted some of the COC of Al Qaeda: How is that bad?  But it is hard to miss how imperialistic the move was, democracy is a good thing, but the people of Iraq are ultimately the ones who must decide.  I think its about time we get out of Iraq and start bombing Iran.    The whole region was on the verge of destabilisation anyway, its not like that area of the world enjoys moments of prolonged stabilisation......I think the Iraqi people deserve to be free and not under the strong fist of someone like Saddam, I think their country will be better off in the long run once they get this bullshit insurgent crap under control and I hate people that say they are freedom fighters, they aren't, they aren't anything like our forefathers in the U.S. because most of the insurgents ARE NOT EVEN FROM IRAQ.  Glad we can talk now, without the name calling.
2006-09-09 10:41:34
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7007

Foxhoundmgw wrote:

How come the English find out so much about American news, but I can probably count the amount of Americans who know about Dr David Kelly
Because we dont spend every moment trying to find things wrong with your country, which is more than I can say for 90% of these forums.
2006-09-09 10:43:31
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6889|Seattle, WA

usmarine2005 wrote:

Foxhoundmgw wrote:

How come the English find out so much about American news, but I can probably count the amount of Americans who know about Dr David Kelly
Because we dont spend every moment trying to find things wrong with your country, which is more than I can say for 90% of these forums.
Good point, instead of IMMENSELY criticizing every single mistake, and making false accusations like lying, how about offering your point of view on what you think we should do to turn things around, how about offering some substance to your claims of bad leadership, what would you change???
2006-09-09 10:50:00
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6988|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Yeah I'm just yanking your chain I get what your saying. The problem is though, it's very convenient to say "it was bad Intel" fact of the matter is Iraq had agreed to let weapon inspectors back into the country,  many experts on the region knew that Iraq didn't have such capabilities; however rather than do this the legal way - Your President moved his army half way around the world and attacked, even though there was heavy opposition to that course of action with in the UN. Your country acted as an aggressor along with the rest of the "coalition of the willing" and caused a fucking mess and totally destabilised the entire region and caused a civil war, the question is for what? if it wasn't for WMD, wasn't for 9/11, but was soley to bring "freedom" to the Iraq people, you're now standing on very shaky legal ground
OMG there is a sane person underneath that facade   Glad you came out finally man.  I agree it is a very interesting situation that occured and most of it was bad intel and more of it was BAD decisions by the administration.  Don't even bring up the U.N., they are a bunch of crackpots I swear the U.N. doesn't stand for anything anymore, but yes we did strike a little early and went a little fast, I agree, but we certainly have accomplished a lot faster than going slow, Saddam is gone: How is that bad? We have caputred NUMEROUS Al Qaeda operative in and around Iraq: How is that bad? We have disrupted some of the COC of Al Qaeda: How is that bad?  But it is hard to miss how imperialistic the move was, democracy is a good thing, but the people of Iraq are ultimately the ones who must decide.  I think its about time we get out of Iraq and start bombing Iran.    The whole region was on the verge of destabilisation anyway, its not like that area of the world enjoys moments of prolonged stabilisation......I think the Iraqi people deserve to be free and not under the strong fist of someone like Saddam, I think their country will be better off in the long run once they get this bullshit insurgent crap under control and I hate people that say they are freedom fighters, they aren't, they aren't anything like our forefathers in the U.S. because most of the insurgents ARE NOT EVEN FROM IRAQ.  Glad we can talk now, without the name calling.
Quite simply - the end doesn't justify the means.

Edit: as for namecalling hey sorry i'm from N.Ireland "offence is taken but never intended", i've been called a lot worse, it's only a bit of banter

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-09-09 10:52:51)

2006-09-09 10:53:40
Foxhoundmgw
Man of Moebius Morals
+71|6826|Nottingham, UK

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Foxhoundmgw wrote:

How come the English find out so much about American news, but I can probably count the amount of Americans who know about Dr David Kelly
Because we dont spend every moment trying to find things wrong with your country, which is more than I can say for 90% of these forums.
Good point, instead of IMMENSELY criticizing every single mistake, and making false accusations like lying, how about offering your point of view on what you think we should do to turn things around, how about offering some substance to your claims of bad leadership, what would you change???
To both of you. I might suggest you learn to read. Downing Street is not where the White House is. I called MY government liars. And pointed out something MY government did. The fact that Dossier was published at all, let alone with fabrications in it, bolstered support for the second invasion based on bullshit about WMD's that YOUR President then delivered a State of the Union about. If Blair and his fork tongued fucks hadn't done what they did, Bush wouldn't have looked like a 1 legged spaniel doing the doggy paddle (fucking stupid).

usmarine, you once pmed me about how you could respect my opinion, no you don't even read the words, let alone get the message.

Albert, maybe if you ALSO read my OP, you would have half a clue what I was saying, and if you just skip to the bottom about voting American, you might even read my opinion. Any other reply you 2 make due to skimming and not reading, is spam, purely.

EDIT: as for the quote you chose, that refers to the amount of media we have shown on our tv's/broadcast over our radios. it's not a case of wanting to pick at every fucking thing your country does, but a case of everyone thinking we all want to know who choked on what pretzel today. I simply asked if you knew of a piece of OUR news from that timeframe. You did read the warning about the serious debate thread right guys? No throwing your toys out of the pram, or fuck off?

Last edited by Foxhoundmgw (2006-09-09 10:56:06)

2006-09-09 10:54:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6896|USA

aardfrith wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

You wasted time searching this??
They've already admitted they didn't find any WMD's.  Don't you have a tv?  Or your browser only lets you go to foxnews?
Show me the link that says they admit they found zero WMD's. Cuz I showed you links where they said they did find them
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4484237.stm & http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 718150.stm - the US chief weapons inspector admits Iraq had no NCB weapons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm - Colin Powell admitting in a televised interview that the assertion that Iraq was stockpiling WMDs was wrong.
Then what exactly is house of representatives document  detailing??

Last edited by lowing (2006-09-09 10:55:12)

2006-09-09 11:02:29
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7007

Foxhoundmgw wrote:

You did read the warning about the serious debate thread right guys? No throwing your toys out of the pram, or fuck off?
You are right.  I will just bash countries like the majority of people here.  I must have missed that in the warning.
2006-09-09 11:06:15
Foxhoundmgw
Man of Moebius Morals
+71|6826|Nottingham, UK

usmarine2005 wrote:

Foxhoundmgw wrote:

You did read the warning about the serious debate thread right guys? No throwing your toys out of the pram, or fuck off?
You are right.  I will just bash countries like the majority of people here.  I must have missed that in the warning.
lol. dude, just delete your post. it's just starting to sound like you are turning emo on us. You once again fail to actually address ANYTHING I posted, even after I repeated I slated MY country, you know, England, not America. But, once again, you talk about bashing countries. Maybe you enjoy it and are inviting me to bash America, then when I don't, it upsets you. Chin up Tiger!
2006-09-09 11:11:20
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7007

Foxhoundmgw wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Foxhoundmgw wrote:

You did read the warning about the serious debate thread right guys? No throwing your toys out of the pram, or fuck off?
You are right.  I will just bash countries like the majority of people here.  I must have missed that in the warning.
lol. dude, just delete your post. it's just starting to sound like you are turning emo on us. You once again fail to actually address ANYTHING I posted, even after I repeated I slated MY country, you know, England, not America. But, once again, you talk about bashing countries. Maybe you enjoy it and are inviting me to bash America, then when I don't, it upsets you. Chin up Tiger!
For real dude.  If I posted something on Northern Africa issues or something like that, it would be on the 3rd page of this forum in about a day, maybe with 10 responses.  If I make a post about the US, I will get 5 pages of responses at least.

 

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard