Bush Lied!!

[ooda]

Originally Posted by slugymay

If you read, the conference was begun in 1993 and went into force in 1997 as its own conference and not a part of the UN Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch. Up until 2001, Chemical weapons were a single entity and were classified as such, but around 2001 they were recategorized as a weapon of mass destruction.

Hmm, okay.

[lickmyballssuckmy]

Just wanted to make sure everybody is alive and clinging to their beliefs.

This wasn't new news. I think it's a timed news release by republicans to have an effect on the 2006 elections, that's all.. And I think it's about 2 months too early.

I'm with spooky.. You guys that say WMD don't exist can't be convinced otherwise. Until we go into the Bekka Valley and take them, you will say they don't exist. Probably even afterwards. You won't be convinced that they exist until they are dropped on our soil. Then you'll compain that we did nothing to prevent it.

ryanknapper, the reason we don't go around the world overthrowing dictators to liberate people is because that's not what we are doing in Iraq. It's a byproduct of the war.

For the sake of argument, let's say we overthrew dickhead because he was truly endangering the U.S. somehow. Look how much hate is directed our way, and not his, for defending oursleves from his actions. Imagine how much more if we just went around overthrowing every bastard that ran a country. That's stupid and that's not what we do. We tolerate Castro and Kim Jong Il because they aren't directly threatening us. It's up to their people to stand up and take power. We're not the world police and anybody who says we are or that we should be hasn't thought it through. Let the UN do something useful for a change.

Thank god our soccer team sucks. How much hate would we have to endure if we won the world cup? jesus.. Anyway, miss you Oslin.. Hope you're ok..

[lickmyballssuckmy]

RH,

True. Unless we were sitting in on the briefings he sat in, we don't know exactly why we're there. I'm curious though.. We're there. However it happened we're there.

If you were elected president tomorrow, would you see it through or would you order everybody out of Iraq?

Originally Posted by Rock Hardbuns

Someone call for me? I don't know exactly what point I'm supposed to argue, but I suppose I can start like so:

Spooky acuses all people that disagrees with him of drinking kool aid and riding bandwagons, because in his mind this somehow voids their arguments.

Oh yeah. The war. My position is that it is impossible to know whether it was the right move or not. There is doubt as to the motive, the strategy and what the outcome will be so it's basically too soon to tell. (I guess I'm with Kerry)

[lickmyballssuckmy]

I've got no problem with 10 million+ people not having him as their leader.. But, that is no reason to attack a country or we would have gotten rid of Castro decades ago. Sure, we tried. But we wouldn't have stopped trying. Rebuilding the country and helping with a new government is a task you take on when you attack a country and overthrow their leader. In WWII, we couldn't just go in, make sure Hitler was dead, and then drive away. We had to rebuild, pay for all kinds of stuff, and work with their new leaders for a successful handoff from occupation to freedom. That's essentially what is happening in Iraq now. The insurgency is fading out but will probably continue in spurts just like the violence in Israel/Palestine has for decades.

Same question to you as RH, if you became president tomorrow, would you see it through or pull out the military and CIA?

Originally Posted by Sexy_Potatoe_with_an_E

Exactly one reason why I think we don't belong in Iraq, not that I'm saying I don't think we belong there, but rather one reason why I'm on the fence...

[da_ticklah]

Originally Posted by spooky

/yawn.
patiently waiting on da_ticklah to tell me im wrong

<Keith's Dad voice>
Son. . . .you already admitted it and I accept your apology
</Keith's Dad voice>

Seriously I'm not arguing it the WMD thing it is water under the bridge we are in there and gotta finish it and get our troops home ASAP. I do want to know why the find Osama efforts are not as effective as the find Saddam efforts but oh well.

[MichaelG]

Originally Posted by da_ticklah

<Keith's Dad voice>
Son. . . .you already admitted it and I accept your apology
</Keith's Dad voice>

Seriously I'm not arguing it the WMD thing it is water under the bridge we are in there and gotta finish it and get our troops home ASAP. I do want to know why the find Osama efforts are not as effective as the find Saddam efforts but oh well.

Osama will be found for the '08 election

[lickmyballssuckmy]

We found Saddam because we killed the 10-15 people who like him and we had unrestricted access to the land he was hiding on/in.

1. Lots of people love Osama and he uses cutouts so only a handful of people know where he is, if he is alive.

2. We have troops in Aghanistan but he is supposedly in Pakistan. Our troops are not allowed to go into Pakistan. Officially.

3. He has major kidney problems and will probably die before we get our hands on him. But he no longer needs to visit hospitals because FRANCE sent him two dialysis machines a few years back for his own personal use.

Or you could buy into the prevailing argument, bush sucks..

[lickmyballssuckmy]

It wouldn't surprise me if they found him sometime and the timed the news with the election.. The finding him part would be the biggest surprise, really.. Election tricks.. bleh..

If you pay attention, you know in your heart who you're going to vote for as soon as the primaries are over.. The peopel that flip coins and can't decide until the last second are who screws it up for everybody.

Originally Posted by MichaelG

Osama will be found for the '08 election

[ooda]

Originally Posted by slugymay

If you read, the conference was begun in 1993 and went into force in 1997 as its own conference and not a part of the UN Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch. Up until 2001, Chemical weapons were a single entity and were classified as such, but around 2001 they were recategorized as a weapon of mass destruction.

Hmm, I get that I'm wrong, but I keep looking and all I see is that everything was pretty much in place before 2001, with the only things related to chemical weapons being calls by some of America's lackeys for implementation of the resolution following 9/11.

Could it be that we're both talking about the same thing, but at the same time we're not? By that I mean that I'm not really looking at the stuff directly tied to Iraq, but instead some of the more general stuff.

Hell, I don't mind if I'm wrong. This is at least giving me an excuse to read up on some stuff I was a bit hazy about.

[lickmyballssuckmy]

First of all, I'm sad that we won't have a president with amazon boobs. BUt also..

The official reason is that we were threatened by him. In the late 1990's everybody was saying it. The UN passed 17 resolutions telling him to stop his weapons programs. In the days leading up to the war, he was moving his WMD into Syria, the UN knew he was doing it, and Bush/Blair decided to go in and try to catch him red-handed.

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=340

People like to confuse others by making it sound like Iraq was about 9/11, oil, world domination, etc. But it is about our national interests being threatened by the Hitler of his time.

In the terms of a "Global War on Terror", our National Security Strategy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/index.html) states that "The advance of freedom and human dignity through democracy is the long-term solution to the transnational terrorism of today." Basically, this is a war without borders and it goes beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

Liberation of people is simply a by-product anytime a leader gets overthrown. Look back at post WWII Japan and Germany as
examples. With or without liberation, there is a period of time where power is handed back to the citizens/leaders of the attacked country. The attacking country is responsible for paying for and rebuilding the infrastructure of the nation. And a government tha the people want is the end-game, hopefully resulting in a bunch of free people who have been liberated and
can now control their own destiny.

Here in America, we are safer because we tookthe fight to the terrorists instead of letting them bring the fight to us.
Because we have been agressive, things like this happen:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/22/miami.raids/index.html

Originally Posted by Sexy_Potatoe_with_an_E

No, see here is where I'm confused with your point suckmy you said we're not the world polic but why did we go into iraq then ? I'm not trying to antagonize I'm seriously confused...