• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Osama who? (Never heard of him.)

Lucidthots

Banned
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
979
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Does anyone remember when America was going to get Osama bin Laden?

And then the troops ended up in Iraq?

That is odd.
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Lucidthots said:
Does anyone remember when America was going to get Osama bin Laden?

And then the troops ended up in Iraq?

That is odd.
People say that Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq.

If so, then why is there Al-Qaeda terrorists blowing up civilians in Iraq?

I think the reason that we haven't found Osama is because we aren't being aggressive enough. If we offer $1 billion, he'll turn up pretty damn quick!
 

Lucidthots

Banned
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
979
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Nez Dragon said:
People say that Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq.

If so, then why is there Al-Qaeda terrorists blowing up civilians in Iraq?

I think the reason that we haven't found Osama is because we aren't being aggressive enough. If we offer $1 billion, he'll turn up pretty damn quick!
I thought Osama was in Pakistan?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Lucidthots said:
I thought Osama was in Pakistan?
From an earlier post...

My theory is that he is, indeed, in the mountains of Pakistan...
here's the issue...

That area is home to tribal groups that live as if they are not
under Pakistani rule...They are Fundamental Radicals when it
comes to Islam. If they could, they would overthrow Mushareef
in an Islamabad minute...

If he were to go into that region with force, the locals would
consider it an invasion, which would result in a civil war and
a possible overthrow(which, by the way, would mean access to nukes).

Mushareef is avoiding this because of the long term interests
of the US(the nukes), but alot MORE for his own interests(survival).

He knows that giving up Bin Laden to the US might mean giving
HIMSELF up to his local enemies. Keeping him "contained" is what
is keeping himself alive...barely...


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=69484&postcount=30

In early 1994, the population of Pakistan was estimated to be 126 million, making it the ninth most populous country in the world

http://countrystudies.us/pakistan/29.htm

Iraq's population is less than 25 million...and is quite the opposite of what Pakistan represents...

Pakistan is a country with a governmental ally of the US with rogue factions against...Iraq is a country where the rogue faction was the government itself...

Also, Pakistan's government has been legitimately cracking down on the radicals in their country...Yes, it would be nice if it was done faster, but it is being done nonetheless...Pakistan does not have the resources America does to complete this task in a fashion that would best serve American interests, but it is well known that the country is not trying to harbor them...President Musharraf is not the best option America would like to have as an ally, but it seems he is clearly the best America could hope for...anything else would be a turn for the worse...

That is why we are not in Pakistan right now...will we be in the future?...Tough call...If Musharraf was assaniated and an Islamic radical regime took over, it would not surprise me if America's focus changes...
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
845
Reaction score
305
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
People say that Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq.

If so, then why is there Al-Qaeda terrorists blowing up civilians in Iraq?
If (Al-Qaeda was there before invasion) then (they remain there afterwards)
This is the 'affirming the consequent' logical fallacy.....right?
 
T

The Real McCoy

He's in a CIA prison right now. He'll be "captured" when Bush's approval ratings drop below 30%. :lol:
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Lucidthots said:
Does anyone remember when America was going to get Osama bin Laden?

And then the troops ended up in Iraq?

That is odd.
excellent point.........no ****. Where in the hell is he? Are we even searching? This whole thing is distorted. Bush is a Nazi idiot.....who thinks he is a king. The war on Iraq is actually unconstitutional as he did not have full support from the house.

How he got re-elected is beyond me.
 

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Befuddled_Stoner said:
If (Al-Qaeda was there before invasion) then (they remain there afterwards)
This is the 'affirming the consequent' logical fallacy.....right?

Exactly. Let's not take things out of context to support our personal views. It would be unbecoming of a moderate{or}.

This rebuttal is specifically directed at CNREDD.

There is no reasonable evidence that suggets that Al Qaeda and Hussein have or had any ties. Only one person has served to unite Al Qaeda in Iraq... and his name is not "Bin Laden". His name is "Bush". Had we left Iraq alone and not attacked it under the veil of "national security" regarding WMD and the proliferations there of (falsifications)... we wouldn't see such manifestation of terrorist insurgency there-in.

Instead what has happened is that a lie was put forth by the administration of our government that Hussein did pose a threat to our NATIONAL SECURITY and did HARBOR TERRORISM... all the while there is no proof of this. Now desperate right wing, extremist, neo-con want-to-be's have no pot to **** in aside from taking the facts out of context and vehemently attempting to paint Hussein as the culprit of terrorism. In fact by the virtue of the word.. the bombs that we have dropped on Iraq have been nothing but a form of terror to the indigent population of that nation.

The attempt to liberate a country has no direct or logical bearing on, or does not justify the use of pre-emptive force. You can not uphold a law or policy by disregarding it. Nor can you lay a case for war but change your mission objective part-way through the war in terms of justification. This is an absurdity. It is not our job to liberate the planet. To force democracy by the use of munitions and explosives is one as the same as attempting to force dissent by the uprising of insurgency. If a nation were to create a war and occupy the United States based on a false pretense... then later after it was proven that such a pretense was false... would YOU sit by idly as YOUR NATION was being overrun by foreign aggresors? Would you just say "oh well, the just want to liberate us"? Seriously. Would you? I find Bush to be just as tyrannical as Hussein... and highly comparable to hitler in terms of political dictation. Why am I wrong? Answer my questions. Debate me civily. Do not discount my inquistion so conveniently as to attack my belief or character. Let's just deal with facts and let's keep them in context. Let's not cite blogs, or the media. Let's just deal with unconditional facts and debate them objectively. Can you do that (esteemed moderator)?
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Instead what has happened is that a lie was put forth by the administration of our government that Hussein did pose a threat to our NATIONAL SECURITY and did HARBOR TERRORISM... all the while there is no proof of this. Now desperate right wing, extremist, neo-con want-to-be's have no pot to **** in aside from taking the facts out of context and vehemently attempting to paint Hussein as the culprit of terrorism. In fact by the virtue of the word.. the bombs that we have dropped on Iraq have been nothing but a form of terror to the indigent population of that nation.
no matter how many times the left spews this garbage, it will NEVER be true.

-----------------------------------

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

--------------------------------------

the fact is, many on BOTH sides of the isle agreed. and they werent intentionally lying either.

eithere everyone was wrong, or everyone was right and we havent found the evidence yet.

you can not logically say one person lied because of party affililation, while the others were simply mistaken, due to party affiliation.

thast intelectually dishonest.

and Saddam harbored Abu Niadal, and paid terrorists families for terrorist acts. thats a FACT.....not some made up neocon fantasy.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ProudAmerican said:
no matter how many times the left spews this garbage, it will NEVER be true.

-----------------------------------

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

--------------------------------------

the fact is, many on BOTH sides of the isle agreed. and they werent intentionally lying either.

eithere everyone was wrong, or everyone was right and we havent found the evidence yet.

you can not logically say one person lied because of party affililation, while the others were simply mistaken, due to party affiliation.

thast intelectually dishonest.

and Saddam harbored Abu Niadal, and paid terrorists families for terrorist acts. thats a FACT.....not some made up neocon fantasy.
I do believe Bush honestly thought he had WMD, but I think there was a flip side of it to. I think he let his emotions get the best of him and you cannot do that as a president. I think he had an agenda anyway, because Hussein threatened his fathers life.

Why are not pursuing bin laden?
 

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ProudAmerican said:
no matter how many times the left spews this garbage, it will NEVER be true.

-----------------------------------

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

--------------------------------------

the fact is, many on BOTH sides of the isle agreed. and they werent intentionally lying either.



eithere everyone was wrong, or everyone was right and we havent found the evidence yet.

you can not logically say one person lied because of party affililation, while the others were simply mistaken, due to party affiliation.

thast intelectually dishonest.

and Saddam harbored Abu Niadal, and paid terrorists families for terrorist acts. thats a FACT.....not some made up neocon fantasy.
There is no evidence to be found. Our forces have scoured Iraq.

I didn't reference party affiliation once. I didn't even mention it. However it seems that you have taken defense upon the neo-con strategem.... which technically is not a party but only a discernable characteristic.

I can see how you wish to bring this back to a matter of political affiliation.... bait and switch... tribulate by triviality.

Obfuscate. Occupy. Deny fact. Do not deal with the questions. Do not provide an answer. Instead only attempt to cloud the issue with pseudonyms.

Again another "hero" attempting to take the actions of Hussein out of context to support his political views.... all in the same providing no substantial evidence that IRAQ posed any threat to the national security of the United States and the justification of this war.
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why are not pursuing bin laden?
show me proof we arent and we will have something to talk about.

I believe we still are looking for him. actually, from watching the military channel just the other day, I KNOW we are still looking for him.

the show I was watching was about marines on the afghan, pakistani border.

I suppose one could make the argument they are there for their health, or because its a nice place to visit in the winter time, but im pretty sure those arent the reasons.

and Bush wasnt the only one that thought he had those weapons.
 

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ProudAmerican said:
show me proof we arent and we will have something to talk about.

I believe we still are looking for him. actually, from watching the military channel just the other day, I KNOW we are still looking for him.

the show I was watching was about marines on the afghan, pakistani border.

I suppose one could make the argument they are there for their health, or because its a nice place to visit in the winter time, but im pretty sure those arent the reasons.

and Bush wasnt the only one that thought he had those weapons.
I think you've confused the virtue of "burden of proof" dear boy.

Shall I explain it to you?
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no evidence to be found. Our forces have scoured Iraq.
evidence of what? lets be specific in what we are talking about so that when I show you otherwise you have no excuses.

I didn't reference party affiliation once. I didn't even mention it. However it seems that you have taken defense upon the neo-con strategem.... which technically is not a party but only a discernable characteristic.
clearly the ones making this about "party" are the ones that supported this war effort at election time, but have now changed their stance.

I can see how you wish to bring this back to a matter of political affiliation.... bait and switch... tribulate by triviality.
again, this has been made about party by sniveling morons that thought the war was a good idea, when they could look tough to their voters, but have now changed their minds.

Obfuscate. Occupy. Deny fact. Do not deal with the questions. Do not provide an answer. Instead only attempt to cloud the issue with pseudonyms.
which answer have I avoided? I will be happy to answer anything I can. I must warn you though....I dont know everything. Many times I choose to use nothing more than "common sense" to answer a question. This is a tactic that throws many people a curve ball as they just cant handle clear thinking.

Again another "hero" attempting to take the actions of Hussein out of context to support his political views....
I see, so I just missunderstood when I saw the rape rooms, people being thrown off buildings, streets lined with dead Kurdish women and children, our planes being shot at, ohhh....and all that info about saddam bribing the French and Germans with oil for food must have been a huge missunderstanding on my part as well.

all in the same providing no substantial evidence that IRAQ posed any threat to the national security of the United States and the justification of this war.
this is where the common sense comes into play. see, I take the actions of a person over more than a decade, and I come to a logical conclusion that he was a threat.
whenever someone asks me to prove Saddam was a threat.....I simply ask them to do the same about Al Queda on 9-10 , 2001.

I submit to you that before that date.....Al Queda was EXACTLY like Saddam. A bad group of people that no one ever thought would be a threat to Americas national security.

I belive the security of America is far more important than partisan politics. That is why I would have supported this action in Iraq even if Bill Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi had been president. Ask yourself if your stance would have been the same if that were the case!!

and then rethink your strategy of claiming Im the one making this all about partisan politics.
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Archon said:
I think you've confused the virtue of "burden of proof" dear boy.

Shall I explain it to you?
I think Al Queda are the ones responsible for changing that.
 

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Proud American

Thanks for assuming that I'm a democrat. You're wrong.

Thanks for assuming that your constant reference to political affiliation may somehow invoke an irrational response on my part. You're wrong.

Most importantly, thanks for not answering or rebutting any of my original concerns on this issue and clearly identifying with those who carry no conscience or concern of the welfare of our nation but only the promotion of their political affiliation. I have nothing further to say to you.

Assumption is a dangerous thing. It is what has created this blunder of a war, dear boy.
 
Last edited:

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Thanks for assuming that I'm a democrat. You're wrong.
I didnt assume you were a dem as much as I assumed you werent a conservative. if Im still wrong...my apologies.

I have nothing further to say to you.
after that last link I posted....that doesnt really surprise me.
 

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ProudAmerican said:
I didnt assume you were a dem as much as I assumed you werent a conservative. if Im still wrong...my apologies.



after that last link I posted....that doesnt really surprise me.
Apology accepted.

BTW I am a conservative, not that you have any clue what the word means.....

HINT (it says nothing about pre-emptive force in regard to dictating political belief)

Thanks for your input though.
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Archon said:
Apology accepted.

BTW I am a conservative, not that you have any clue what the word means.....

HINT (it says nothing about pre-emptive force in regard to dictating political belief)

Thanks for your input though.
care to discuss that link? after all, thats what you wanted right? a response to the topic of the thread.

try not to get so upset and personal here.

if you think Iraq is simply about trying to dictate political belief.....well, I suppose thats another thread entirely.
 

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ProudAmerican said:
care to discuss that link? after all, thats what you wanted right? a response to the topic of the thread.

try not to get so upset and personal here.

if you think Iraq is simply about trying to dictate political belief.....well, I suppose thats another thread entirely.
So you just want to hid behind your link? No I did not want some dingleberry who thinks some (conflict-of-interest) link support the (lack of) an objective for our administration. I was hoping to find someone who is willing to debate me word for word based upon knowledge of indisputiable fact. I made that very clear.

Upset? Personal? How so?

As usual I doubt you will even answer these questions let alone substantiate them.

I hide behind nothing and I am capable of speaking for myself. If You want to have a true debate then you'll have to do the same. I thought I made that clear originally.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Archon said:
Exactly. Let's not take things out of context to support our personal views. It would be unbecoming of a moderate{or}.

This rebuttal is specifically directed at CNREDD.
The name is never capitalized...not even the first letter...

Archon said:
There is no reasonable evidence that suggets that Al Qaeda and Hussein have or had any ties. Only one person has served to unite Al Qaeda in Iraq... and his name is not "Bin Laden". His name is "Bush". Had we left Iraq alone and not attacked it under the veil of "national security" regarding WMD and the proliferations there of (falsifications)... we wouldn't see such manifestation of terrorist insurgency there-in.
Considering I've never mention one word about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, I'll consider this a lack of comprehension...Not a good start...

Archon said:
Instead what has happened is that a lie was put forth by the administration of our government that Hussein did pose a threat to our NATIONAL SECURITY and did HARBOR TERRORISM... all the while there is no proof of this. Now desperate right wing, extremist, neo-con want-to-be's have no pot to **** in aside from taking the facts out of context and vehemently attempting to paint Hussein as the culprit of terrorism. In fact by the virtue of the word.. the bombs that we have dropped on Iraq have been nothing but a form of terror to the indigent population of that nation.
I would say "strike two", but you're not even swingin'...

If you read my comments again, you will see I just answered the question...

I thought Osama was in Pakistan?

How you turned that into a rant about neo-cons is beyond me...

Hold it...Now I know...Liberal tactic...A(any thought in life)=B(I hate Bush!)

Archon said:
The attempt to liberate a country has no direct or logical bearing on, or does not justify the use of pre-emptive force. You can not uphold a law or policy by disregarding it. Nor can you lay a case for war but change your mission objective part-way through the war in terms of justification. This is an absurdity. It is not our job to liberate the planet. To force democracy by the use of munitions and explosives is one as the same as attempting to force dissent by the uprising of insurgency. If a nation were to create a war and occupy the United States based on a false pretense... then later after it was proven that such a pretense was false... would YOU sit by idly as YOUR NATION was being overrun by foreign aggresors? Would you just say "oh well, the just want to liberate us"? Seriously. Would you? I find Bush to be just as tyrannical as Hussein... and highly comparable to hitler in terms of political dictation. Why am I wrong? Answer my questions. Debate me civily. Do not discount my inquistion so conveniently as to attack my belief or character. Let's just deal with facts and let's keep them in context. Let's not cite blogs, or the media. Let's just deal with unconditional facts and debate them objectively. Can you do that (esteemed moderator)?
I would debate you civilly...when you have something civil to debate...

I said TWO lines alluded to Iraq...

1) Iraq's population is less than 25 million...
2) Iraq is a country where the rogue faction was the government itself...

That's less than 5% of the whole comment, yet you turned the question of where Osama Bin Laden physically is into a diatribe against the President...

Not once did you even address the thrust of my comments...and yet you want me to debate on your terms and your topics?...

Laughable...

Come back with a little civility yourself...Your initial impressions are lacking...
 

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
cnredd said:
The name is never capitalized...not even the first letter...

Considering I've never mention one word about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, I'll consider this a lack of comprehension...Not a good start...

I would say "strike two", but you're not even swingin'...

If you read my comments again, you will see I just answered the question...

I thought Osama was in Pakistan?

How you turned that into a rant about neo-cons is beyond me...

Hold it...Now I know...Liberal tactic...A(any thought in life)=B(I hate Bush!)



I would debate you civilly...when you have something civil to debate...

I said TWO lines alluded to Iraq...

1) Iraq's population is less than 25 million...
2) Iraq is a country where the rogue faction was the government itself...

That's less than 5% of the whole comment, yet you turned the question of where Osama Bin Laden physically is into a diatribe against the President...

Not once did you even address the thrust of my comments...and yet you want me to debate on your terms and your topics?...

Laughable...

Come back with a little civility yourself...Your initial impressions are lacking...
So you think that objective readers of this forum will not understand how you defer my inquisition and only write it off as it dares to question the actions of the chicken-hawkish? I am being civil... I didn't at any point attack you or proclaim that your post was "laughable".

The implications that you made about Iraq speak for themself. One only must read the post in which my comments were regarding. Impressions are of little virtue... nor are your words. Regardless of your attempts to save face here the fact is that intelligent and intellectual people will find the truth in the matter. That is my M.O. and has served me well. Say what you will but realize that regardless of your excuse and concession that you have yielded to my concerns. Perhaps I should repost the original statement to refresh your memory?
 

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I love it when people play dumb.. like if they had no clue what they were talking about in an original conjecture... but when you call them on it all the sudden they just don't want to talk about it, don't know anything about it.. and then they point the finger at you.

Indeed that's some high quality debate. Very sincere. Very true.


:2wave: :rofl :spin: :mrgreen:
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So you think that objective readers of this forum will not understand how you defer my inquisition and only write it off as it dares to question the actions of the chicken-hawkish? I am being civil... I didn't at any point attack you or proclaim that your post was "laughable".
Objective readers are only your perception.

Regardless of your attempts to save face here
And what attempts are these?

the fact is that intelligent and intellectual people will find the truth in the matter.
Uh huh.... I am still waiting..... for you to find it

That is my M.O. and has served me well.
Is this another one of your perceptions?

Say what you will but realize that regardless of your excuse and concession that you have yielded to my concerns.
Really? And where and how has he done this? I am just wandering. If you could please explain this to me I would greatly appreciate it.

Perhaps I should repost the original statement to refresh your memory?
Myabe you should. That way I can see what the ruckus is about too.
 
Top Bottom