Few things in this thread.

1 - If you're going to say something, make an argument instead of an unfounded generalization or an ad hominem.

2 -

J0kerr1: Saddam himself thought he had WMD. He didn't let the inspectors do their job because of this. This led us, and many other countries, to beleive he had weapons. We do know he broke UN sanctions (good job of the UN holding them to those).  We do know he was looking to stockpile materials.

The book Cobra II by Michael Gordon has a section detailing how Mr. Hussein's generals believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons and fully expected Saddam to authorize their use during the invasion period. Saddam, however, revealed to them that he had no weapons after all and that he was only employing a ruse against Iraq's next door neighbor, Iran. His generals were, needless to say, dismayed that they would not be able to pull out those secret weapons. Bottom line: Saddam knew that Iraq didn't have active WMDs.


3 -

J0kerr1: Lying, I want you to prove the Bush intentiolaly lied to the public. I know you can't, because he didn't. Now I can point to another time someone lied, but we won't go there. "I will tell you once more time, I did not point to a president who lied to the nation and obstructed justice."

Your first sentence, I'm guessing, left out "Administration" after Bush. On this premise:
Lie: On March 30, 2003, 11 days after the war in Iraq began, in an interview, Donald Rumsfeld stated: "We know where they are", referencing the WMDs in question. Afterward, a CIA report was released declaring that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

So you know they lied. How can I prove that they intentionally did it? I'm not sure, Karl Rove has been a pretty good coach for Mr. Bush, and motives are well hidden among the administration. But I ask you to consider this:

From: The New York Times, March 27, 2006 ==News==
During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003 ... "The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."
...
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

From: CNN.com, March 18, 2003 ==Bush issues Ultimatum to Saddam==
Saying the "danger was clear" that the Iraqi regime would provide terrorists with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, President Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours for him and his sons to leave Iraq before military action begins "at a time of our choosing."

What you should understand from these two articles is this: Bush and Blair planned to invade Iraq "penciling in" a date for war regardless of what Saddam did. The New York Times article referenced a memo. Please see the second paragraph of the article - both the president and the prime minister acknowledge that no unconventional weapons had been found in Iraq, and yet they sought to invade anyway. The argument that the administration was not in the slight bit deceitful cannot be soundly made.

As for the comment about Bill Clinton: Clinton lied about a blowjob, Rumsfeld lied and brought America into a war. Consider the difference.

4 - In reference to a comment made about Fox news exhibiting a right-wing agenda.

J0kerr1: This is the mind-numbing crap coming out of the liberial cult. Fox news seems right because it is the only news that tries to be in the center. Bill, if you actually listened to him and not repeat what your superiors say, picks on anyone he seems as doing wrong (whcih has been right and left people).

As for more biased news...New York Times might be looking at legal issues that accuse them of treason.

You're merely the second conservative out of many I've met in my entire life who has actually tried to say that Fox news is not a right-wing biased news source. I disagree with you, and I'm sure even the producer of Fox News, off the record, would disagree with you as well. What I would have you consider is this: while ABC, CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times, CBS, the Washington Post, and (at that time independent) Anderson Cooper, divided the Katrina investigation into two parts: State and Local failures and National Failures, Fox news did not significantly report failures on the national level at all. Fox News reporting centered upon the governor's and the mayor's responses to the disaster instead of dividing its coverage like the other organizations. If that's not biased news reporting, then what is?

As for the newspapers committing treason deal: the newspapers in question have not been indicted on such charges, so I find it highly presumptuous to raise the issue in this forum. Secondly, although the Op-Ed section of the Times is definitely liberal, it is the fairest you'll get in its reporting of news. Cite examples, then, of how the Times's news reporting is biased (as opposed to its Op-Ed board).

5 -  J0kerr1: By the way..here is your list of liberial talk show hosts - Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Kevin McDonald, Kim Miller, Marcus O'Crotty, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Howard Stern, Lynn Samuels, Peter B. Collins.

Want more. There is an army of them. You don't consider Fox balanced becaue you are a far left wack job who only repeats what you have been told to say. I bet none of you have even watched more than one or any of Bills shows. You just repeat what the superiors tell you. They controll you and you are the drones.

The aforementioned people are, as you have said, talk show hosts. Jon Stewart hosts a comedy show. Fox news, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC are all aiming to be reputable news sources, and I, at least, expect them to act like reputable news sources. Citing talk show/comedy show hosts is a non sequitr, and it has nothing to do with Fox news's bias.

Secondly, what's all this talk about my "superiors"? What superiors? And yes, I have watched the O'Reilly factor, and I've found it particularly interesting how he acutally takes offense to the words "Happy Holidays".

6 - Lastly, stop holding the U.N. to the standard of a world government.

---

Originally posted by Dakaas
Reviewing this forum has been a joy. I can take comfort in these uncertain times that somethings in the universe will always remain constant. Liberals will always be irrational, loud mouthed, out of touch retards. Good to know, I can sleep more comfortably at night knowing I'm not one of them.

---

gnomexxx: Liberal is a political ideology, not a political party. There is a national conservative political party, but again, conservative is being referenced as a political ideology, not a political party.

---

Originally posted by bhagamu

gnomexxx: Liberal is a political ideology, not a political party. There is a national conservative political party, but again, conservative is being referenced as a political ideology, not a political party.

---

---

Originally posted by baff

---

Originally posted by Necran
My sources have informed me America has over 2000 nuclear bombs, also they invented pretty much all the chemical and biological weapons known to man, someone should really stop them if you ask me.

---

Not so, they are relative new comers to WMD. We invented all the good stuff.

P.S. Fox news is clutching at straws. We really did bomb all those weddings. Let our dogs shag people, drive tanks through peoples gardens, massacre tens of thousands, completely destroy an entire countries system of law and order and shoot up a load of children on a false perspective. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.

Also when a country has over 2000 nuclear bombs you shouldn't try and stop them. That would be a mistake.

---

---

Originally posted by gnomexxx

---

Originally posted by Dakaas
Reviewing this forum has been a joy. I can take comfort in these uncertain times that somethings in the universe will always remain constant. Liberals will always be irrational, loud mouthed, out of touch retards. Good to know, I can sleep more comfortably at night knowing I'm not one of them.

---

Uh, oh.  You told them liberals now.  I bet you they are so mad at you for saying that to them. 

I can't wait until both of you two parties go away and let some stuff start getting done. 

I just wish there was a way right now to put both major parties in a room and let them just point fingers at each other for eternity while the rest of us get on with our lives and fix this country.

---

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. While I am registered Democrat, I'm really a "Holy **** these are the only two choices!?" as Jon Stewart of the Daily Show put it.

One thing I will say however, is that Bush is quite incompetent, no matter how much you agree with his policies. His grasp of his native tongue of English is questionable at best, and laughable most of the time, as he invents words regularly ("They misunderestimated me"). In press conferences, he regularly avoids any questions he doesn't want to answer by claiming not to be able to hear, or making fun of the person asking with bad jokes, like he did recently, asking a legally blind correspondant if he was "Going to ask that question with shades on". The thing is, he's an embarassment to our nation. Other countries sit back and laugh. I would be right there with them if I wasn't stuck with as a leader. Republicans, this statement is not Anti-republican, I may have voted your way, if it wasn't for the fact that you put up a very incompetent man up for office. I can't wait for '08, when we can put this embarassment behind us and start moving forward again.

---

Originally posted by Necran
My sources have informed me America has over 2000 nuclear bombs, also they invented pretty much all the chemical and biological weapons known to man, someone should really stop them if you ask me.

---

---

Originally posted by Dakaas
Reviewing this forum has been a joy. I can take comfort in these uncertain times that somethings in the universe will always remain constant. Liberals will always be irrational, loud mouthed, out of touch retards. Good to know, I can sleep more comfortably at night knowing I'm not one of them.

---

why nobody in the middle east, 'cept us (israel) can have nukes----

maybe the reason we dont want iran to have nukes... is becuase then we cant invade them if they refuse us oil?

nobody has ever instigated open war against someone with nukes.  why?

i think thats pretty obvious. remember the cold war?

remember when we starte alqueda, and funded saddam, and the prince of iran, and osama, and the contras?

those were all under the tables battles with 'communism'

why?

cause you cant attack a country who has nukes directly.

if iran gets nukes, the entire middle east can form a coalition to quit selling oil to america.

then, we'll want to instantly invade...

but they'll have nukes.

---

Originally posted by wearehack

---

Originally posted by baff

---

Originally posted by Necran
My sources have informed me America has over 2000 nuclear bombs, also they invented pretty much all the chemical and biological weapons known to man, someone should really stop them if you ask me.

---

Not so, they are relative new comers to WMD. We invented all the good stuff.

P.S. Fox news is clutching at straws. We really did bomb all those weddings. Let our dogs shag people, drive tanks through peoples gardens, massacre tens of thousands, completely destroy an entire countries system of law and order and shoot up a load of children on a false perspective. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.

Also when a country has over 2000 nuclear bombs you shouldn't try and stop them. That would be a mistake.

---

I'm wondering if you ever ask yourself, Why do terrorists hate us?, Why would someone do something like 9/11? Beause you just answered both questions.

---

way to state the facts.

the things we do in war, are probably far better than the things we do outside war.

ie sweatshops, WTO, sanctions.

we killed thousands of iraqi children, simply by denying them basic medical supplies.

the united states doesnt care who it kills in the interest of the rich.  we're no better than hitler or saddam, because we're willing to sacrifice anyone for our goals.

hitler wanted to control europe, help  the german people, have a unified flag for a master race.

rich people today have transcended nationalities with corporations. the WTO is really all that matters, local governments only exist to serve them, and pacify us with the idea that we 'the people' are in control of the world.

you cant report a war crime...

if the war crime was against the reporters  =)

or if the war crime was perpetuated by the reporters /cough fox news.

---

Originally posted by lardmouth
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the confederate flag.  It is part of history and is a distinguishable icon of the south.  Before there was such a thing as a confederate flag the slave trade flourished under the US and other nations' flags.  Perhaps, those too should be done away with too?

---

the only difference between slaver in the 18th century, and slavery in the 21st century, is that you used to have to give your slaves enough compensation to feed themselves, give them a place to sleep etc.

now were all mired in equality, and destitute poverty together.

aparrently 'equal rights' means we all have equal rights to be ass raped by the WTO.

---

Originally posted by shmig
I skimmed alot of your posts, some random lines for you all to think about:

Treason is a relative thing;
democrats and republicans all but changed sides 45 years ago so bashing on democrats for something done in the 1860s is irrelevant to contemporary politics;
there are no wmd's in iraq, chuck norris lives in texas;
look up the rally-round-the-flag effect, and try comparing it to Bush's political agenda and the republican party's support of that agenda;
war tends to inflate national expenditure, but it never comes down.

---

why not compare the use of 'rally round the flag' effect by  bush, fox news, rupert murdoch, and the WTO today.......

to the 'rally round the flag' effect used by adolph hitler to enslave the working class, kill jews, and start a devastatingly useless war/genocide.

'victory is in our flags' - look it up on google images, it's a famous nazi propaganda poster.

---

Originally posted by hlampert
I've  got a few things to say about the "war":

• There isn't anyone who still seriously expects to find in Iraq the kind of stockpiles of WMDs and delivery systems it would take to threaten the United States or any allies, yet we are still there spending 6 Billion plus  dollars a month...  building permanent bases.... Why?

because we plan on living there, and 'borrowing' their oil fields.   we'll probably throw in some abu-graibs to piss off the muslims into fighting us, so we can sustain troop presence there forever.

• Are we there to promote Democracy?  Then why don't we give a serious rat's ass about democracy in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia? EVERYONE knows it was NOT about democracy, it was SUPPOSEDLY about the WMD's that do NOT exist in any kind of quantity to justify an invasion.... where's the "OK, we made a mistake, cya?"

we dont care about democracy in china, bangledesh, africa, or any other 3rd world country, because that would mean the end to unhindered human rights abuses by u.s. corporations there.

i mean really, if people could vote for laws, they'd probably create a minimum wage, or ban child labor,  or ask u.s. factories to control their emissions or something. 

that's just un-american.

silly poor non whites... you're about to experience globalization!

• Are we fighting terrorists?  There weren't any terrorists there before we made it the Disneyworld of terrorism!

you're trying to suggest that had we not invaded poland... er iraq that the 40,000+ plus US soldiers, 'terrorists', children, civilians that died wouldnt have.... so what?    

if the slave trade taught us anything, it's that when people and profits go to war with each other, you can be sure our rich, landowning, aristocratic elite will be there to make a decision-  for you.

it's so rigged, that conflict of interest would be a euphemism to apply to the situation.

but hell, you voted for them, because the advertisements on t.v. said they were out there for the little people.  

you were free to vote, after being propagandized, lied too, and jerrymandered, but it's cool.  cause guess what?  soon as they're in office, you cant get rid of them no matter what they do.  not even if they start a war that slaughters your own people in the name of free trade!  huzzah!

good job educated voter!

you realized people have multimillion dollar campaigns--- to help you--- understand who the weathly party promoted canidate was!  then you cast your ballot!

not becuase they'll make huge returns by passing laws to screw you over!

   it's an american value.

honestly, who really cares about all the poor people that died.  halliburton made a killing, finacially speaking.

• The "war" does serve one purpose however:  It allows George W. Bush (or more likely the unknown people behind him - Cheney, et al) to declare they can do whatever they want and FU to the constitution, established law, etc. Take you off the street, declare you an suspected terrorist, fly you to Deer Hunter land and wire up your nuts to a car battery.... well, it's a "war" isn't it?  Listen to all your phone calls, read all your e-mails, examine all your banking records, well, we need to stop the terrorists don't we?  Except what kind of moronic terrorists would actually those things?

the patriot act sure is fun.  we've really destroyed so many american laws and international treaties that the UN pretty much realizes it's powerless to stop rich people in america.

whenever children ask what the bill of rights is for, you can now safely answer-

'to marginalize our rights according to how rich person x says they should be'

- thats what i call a safer stronger america for tommorrow.  visionary....  now rich elites will control us forever...  kinda like having a king, or being raised in a facist nation... hm...

democracy in action.  good work democracy.

police state anyone?

• It's pretty obvious the real justification for the war is a powerplay by the elitist powers of neoconservatism - just watch what happens in the midterm elections if you doubt this....

what?  poor people like dying for the WTO.  they're trying to help us poor people. 

dont be fooled by intellectualism.

questions answered by slap me 7 times

Heh, I found this on page 10 of this thread and it gave me a chuckle.

"The point is simple, if the military thought there were any WMD in Iraq, the troops would be issued with chem suits. They aren't."

Hmmm, last time I checked, i was issued a chem suit (actually called MOPP gear). Also, last tiime I checked, not all WMD were chemical related. So what the hell would a chem suit do for a nuclear explosion/radiation???