• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

PROOF Bush LIED about Iraq!

Showtyme said:
Here's a fun statistic: Dyslexia affects approximately 10% of the US population.

Word scramble...
US troops have been stationed in 2/3 of all terrorist producing countries.

Kind of has a ring to it, doesn't it?

:lol: nice.

I could of swore London wasn't their homeland.

Actually the suicide bombers in London were homegrown. :3oops:

And If I saw foreign troops protecting our homeland, I'd send them flowers, not bombs.

If you were raised as these people were, lived as these people do, and were actually in their position, that is certainly possible. But you aren't in there position so there's no way to say. It's like saying, "If I were a German in the 1930's, I would have never have became a Nazi." It's easy to say, but there's no way to prove it.

I punched another boy in elementary school. I told my dad that it was because he punched me first... For some reason that answer wasn’t acceptable and I still ended up getting my ass kicked.

So the kid punched you, you punced him, what happened after that?
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Actually the suicide bombers in London were homegrown. :3oops:
That just helps me disprove Billo's statement even more. Thank you gandhi, you da man.


Gandhi>Bush said:
If you were raised as these people were, lived as these people do, and were actually in their position, that is certainly possible. But you aren't in there position so there's no way to say. It's like saying, "If I were a German in the 1930's, I would have never have became a Nazi." It's easy to say, but there's no way to prove it.
True. Good Point.

It still doesn't justify what they did.


Gandhi>Bush said:
So the kid punched you, you punced him, what happened after that?
The teacher grabbed me by the ear and I lost recess. lol
 
Showtyme said:
That just helps me disprove Billo's statement even more. Thank you gandhi, you da man.

I thought you were trying to say that it's not true that terrorists don't attack places that they aren't native to, which I agree with. But the thing is, the suicide bombers in London were from the UK. I just thought it was a bad example and I guess I misinterpreted your point.

True. Good Point.

It still doesn't justify what they did.

No doubt, I just don't think you can make a real statement about what you would have done.

The teacher grabbed me by the ear and I lost recess. lol

Do you think without the teacher getting involved that the kid would have hit you back?
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
No doubt, I just don't think you can make a real statement about what you would have done.
Probably not, since I've never "been there, done that."

But by using my infinitely large imagination, I can guess that I would of probably sent a couple gift-wrapped bombs as well. But I'd still have to face the same consequences that the terrorists are facing now.


Gandhi>Bush said:
Do you think without the teacher getting involved that the kid would have hit you back?
Probably not, the little punk was crying.

Without the teacher getting involved I probably would of hit him again. lol :smile: . Kids these days...
 
Showtyme said:
Probably not, the little punk was crying.

Without the teacher getting involved I probably would of hit him again. lol :smile: . Kids these days...

Did you have any other encounters with the kid?
 
Originally posted by Showtyme:
Here's a fun statistic: Dyslexia affects approximately 10% of the US population
Why did the dyslexic cross the road? To side to the other get to the!
Originally posted by Showtyme:
I could of swore London wasn't their homeland.
Not that you noticed but London has troops in Iraq too.

Originally posted by Showtyme:
And If I saw foreign troops protecting our homeland, I'd send them flowers, not bombs.
Protecting from whom? The Iraqi's? They didn't do anything to us. Yet we attacked anyway.

Originally posted by Showtyme:
I punched another boy in elementary school. I told my dad that it was because he punched me first... For some reason that answer wasn’t acceptable and I still ended up getting my ass kicked.
By the boy or your dad?
 
BillO_Really-Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history.
Of course not, Saddam was doing the killing for them!
According to HRW/ME, "at least fifty thousand rural Kurds ... died in Anfal alone, and very possibly the real figure was twice that number ... All told, the total number of Kurds killed over the decade since the Barzani men were taken from their homes is well into six figures." "On the basis of extensive interviews in Kurdistan and perusal of extant Iraqi documents, Shoresh Resoul, a meticulous Kurdish researcher ... conservatively estimated that 'between 60,000 and 110,000' died during [al-]Majid's Kurdish mandate," i.e., beginning shortly before Anfal and ending shortly afterwards. (Randal, After Such Knowledge ..., p. 214.) Other Kurdish estimates are even higher. "When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000 -- a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. 'What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?' he is said to have asked. 'It couldn't have been more than 100,000' -- as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds." (Iraq's Crime of Genocide, pp. 14, 230.)Iraq Genocide Source
 
Quote:
Originally posted by BillO_Really:
BillO_Really-Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history.
Originally posted by stsburns:
Of course not, Saddam was doing the killing for them!
Quote:
According to HRW/ME, "at least fifty thousand rural Kurds ... died in Anfal alone, and very possibly the real figure was twice that number ... All told, the total number of Kurds killed over the decade since the Barzani men were taken from their homes is well into six figures." "On the basis of extensive interviews in Kurdistan and perusal of extant Iraqi documents, Shoresh Resoul, a meticulous Kurdish researcher ... conservatively estimated that 'between 60,000 and 110,000' died during [al-]Majid's Kurdish mandate," i.e., beginning shortly before Anfal and ending shortly afterwards. (Randal, After Such Knowledge ..., p. 214.) Other Kurdish estimates are even higher. "When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000 -- a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. 'What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?' he is said to have asked. 'It couldn't have been more than 100,000' -- as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds." (Iraq's Crime of Genocide, pp. 14, 230.)Iraq Genocide Source
What are you saying? That Sadaam gassed the Kurds, therefore, Iraq had suicide-bombers! This doesn't make any sense. In addition, no one is saying Hussein was a good guy. He was a tryrant in every sense of the word. But to use this as an excuse for why we attacked is pretty bad. Let's use your reason and your source to prove why.

If you remember, towards the end of the first Persian Gulf war, George Bush Sr. indicated publically that this would be a good time for a coup. And when the Kurds acted on this, thinking that the US would come help them with some aid, they attacked the Revolutionary Guards. When we did not help, Hussein took revenge. Here is a statement from the source you quoted:

Baghdad’s refusal to allow UN experts to inspect the presidential sites on which chemical and biological weapons were allegedly hidden was taken to justify a new bombing campaign on Iraq last month. Times have changed. Ten years ago, the systematic gassing of the Kurdish population of northern Iraq had far less impact on America. Only six months after the slaughter at Halabja, the White House lent Saddam Hussein another billion dollars. And in 1991, at the end of the Gulf war, US troops stood idly by while Saddam’s presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising by the Kurds for which the American president had himself called.

Here's another quote from your source when you read a little further down:

The international community must accept a share of the blame for Saddam's genocide against the Iraqi Kurds. For the duration of the Iran-Iraq war -- which also witnessed most of the horrors against the Kurds -- Saddam was considered an important bulwark against the spread of Iranian-style Islamic fundamentalism to the strategic and oil-rich countries of the Middle East. Accordingly, the West supplied and armed him throughout his campaigns against both the Iranians and the Kurds, eventually providing the critical intelligence information that allowed Iraq to emerge victorious in the war against Iran. In August 1988 -- with the Anfal campaign nearly over, and in the wake of a year-and-a-half of vicious chemical attacks on civilian populations -- "the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights voted by 11 votes to 8 not to condemn Iraq for human rights violations. Only the Scandinavian countries, Australia and Canada, together with bodies like the European Parliament and the Socialist International, saved their honour by clearly condemning Iraq." (Nezan, "When our 'friend' Saddam was gassing the Kurds".)

This is why that bad Hussein rap doesn't wash. We new about him 20 years ago and did nothing. Now, all of a sudden, we react. That's BS!

I will give you this. Saddam was vicious with his own people. I wanted to see him gone just like anyone else. But not at the expense of 1900 American lives.

One last thing. I find it interesting how you care so much about those Kurds when Hussein was killing them, but you turn a deaf ear when told about those same Kurds being slaughtered by American troops. Bet you shop at "Pic 'n Choose", in mean "Save". Sorry, my bad!
 
Bravo stsburns, bravo! :applaud

Billo_Really said:
Not that you noticed but London has troops in Iraq too.
Believe it or not I did notice. My point was that the suicide bomber wasn't defending his homeland, he was terrorizing someone else's.


Billo_Really said:
Protecting from whom? The Iraqi's? They didn't do anything to us. Yet we attacked anyway.
I was putting myself in their shoes. And your statement makes no sense, as usual.


Billo_Really said:
By the boy or your dad?
pa pa
 
Originally posted by Showtyme:
I punched another boy in elementary school. I told my dad that it was because he punched me first... For some reason that answer wasn’t acceptable and I still ended up getting my ass kicked.
Originally Posted by Billo_Really:
By the boy or your dad?
Originally posted by Showtyme:
pa pa
My dad was one of those "Don't start a fight but always finish it" type of guys. He threatened to kick my ass once if I didn't go out and kick the ass of the kid that just beat me up!" Go figure that one.

Oh well, back to the thread.
Originally posted by Showtyme:
And If I saw foreign troops protecting our homeland, I'd send them flowers, not bombs.
Your FOS on this one. You'd do the same thing I and anyone else on this message board would do if he saw foriegn troops on American soil; declare open season and mac-10 their ass!
 
Billo_Really said:
Oh well, back to the thread.
Your FOS on this one. You'd do the same thing I and anyone else on this message board would do if he saw foriegn troops on American soil; declare open season and mac-10 their ass!
lol.

Not if we had a tyrannical dictator who was just ousted, and were left with no military. I'd welcome any friendly army who wanted to lend their protection.

But I'd keep a Mac-10 tucked under my coat just in case. :mrgreen:
 
Billo_Really said:
What are you saying? That Sadaam gassed the Kurds, therefore, Iraq had suicide-bombers! This doesn't make any sense. In addition, no one is saying Hussein was a good guy. He was a tryrant in every sense of the word. But to use this as an excuse for why we attacked is pretty bad. Let's use your reason and your source to prove why.
People died under his control, and people die out of his control? Your "Crowd" defends him, by saying things like "Bush=hitler", "Gitmo is Gulag", and "100,000 deaths" -> in which you later found out was 25,000 deaths! Consistantly critisizing everly little petty thing Bush may or may not do wrong to promote the party for the next election! My reason was to say Saddam killed far more of his own people than we have in our entire campagn + suicide bombers, so turn your blind eye to that!
This is why that bad Hussein rap doesn't wash. We new about him 20 years ago and did nothing. Now, all of a sudden, we react. That's BS!
Yet you defend Saddam again? Actually if Bush Sr. would have done his job, Bush wouldn't being doing it now!
I will give you this. Saddam was vicious with his own people. I wanted to see him gone just like anyone else. But not at the expense of 1900 American lives.
So you would rather have Saddam in power, perhaps helping his North Korea, Iran buddies! Really its a small price to pay! But at least we agree he was an awful dictator. :mrgreen:
One last thing. I find it interesting how you care so much about those Kurds when Hussein was killing them, but you turn a deaf ear when told about those same Kurds being slaughtered by American troops. Bet you shop at "Pic 'n Choose", in mean "Save". Sorry, my bad!
You have lost it! :screwy, Actually Saddam has killed far more than we have, so I miss you math on that! I didn't pic and choose, and too use such slander to say that we were killing them, when Saddam was killing them 70K+ kurds per genocide, so defending that one incedent makes you look petty! :mrgreen:
 
stsburns...

There comes a time in every person's life when he/she should realize that neither whispers nor screams will change the idiotology of Billo Really.

I've been in the same situation you are in now...I've tried...I've used sarcasm, foreign languages, yelling, legal terms, facts, sources...none of it worked for me; and it won't work for you.

Take it from someone who's been in your shoes...The only thing to do is to let him be....Leave him at the kid's table on Thanksgiving day and continue your conversation with the adults.

Just whack him with snide comments...that's all he deserves...any debate you attempt is futile and just more stressful on yourself. You should be debating someone with a more-open frame of mind than someone like Billo.

Terry Schiavo comes to mind.
 
stsburns said:
Actually if Bush Sr. would have done his job, Bush wouldn't being doing it now!

I'm getting close to putting out a new thread on that...Be on the lookout...

PS - It wasn't Bush Sr....It was the UN.
 
Kool!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 
cnredd said:
stsburns...

There comes a time in every person's life when he/she should realize that neither whispers nor screams will change the idiotology of Billo Really.

I've been in the same situation you are in now...I've tried...I've used sarcasm, foreign languages, yelling, legal terms, facts, sources...none of it worked for me; and it won't work for you.

Take it from someone who's been in your shoes...The only thing to do is to let him be....Leave him at the kid's table on Thanksgiving day and continue your conversation with the adults.

Just whack him with snide comments...that's all he deserves...any debate you attempt is futile and just more stressful on yourself. You should be debating someone with a more-open frame of mind than someone like Billo.

Terry Schiavo comes to mind.
Haha! :rofl Thanks for Supporting me! I like arguing with "Extremist's", as matter of fact, they seek me? Which is strange even in its own sense? I should debate more open minded people, but the extremists seek me to destroy my credibility, and I do the same to theres! I consider it fair game! Thanks for your post! :mrgreen:
 
Billo_Really said:
He threatened to kick my ass once if I didn't go out and kick the ass of the kid that just beat me up!"

So you get beat up twice? Bro that ain't right. I used to tell my son that it's okay to run. Live to fight another day. Or go home and train. I also used to tell him if you start it your in trouble. If they swing first then we'll go fishing while your suspended. There is a time for violence.
 
teacher said:
Sometimes there are posts that can't be countered. That end all debate on a given topic. That sir is one.
True, but I always have a plan up my sleave though! I just wanted to make an example of Billo! :fueltofir
 
Bush has lied about everything since day one of his election. Hell, he even lied his way into winning that. He's a fool, plain and simple. But then again, I wouldn't have voted for Kerry, either. Let's be real: Clinton was impeached for 'getting a BJ in the Oval Office' (yes, I know that is not exactly true, but....), yet this current fool has destroyed the economy, lied about everything, hidden the truth about the goings-on in the White House, etc. Look at the latest bull; the CIA leak, new Supreme Court nominees; hell, if I had to guess, Sandra Day O'Connor resigned because she can't stand Bush's s**t, and not for any other reason. That, on the same token, is probably why Rehnquist WON'T resign. He doesn't want Bush to have any more influence on the Court! Anyway, why hasn't Bush been impeached, evicted, incarcerated, and hung out to dry?
 
Originally posted by Teacher:
So you get beat up twice? Bro that ain't right. I used to tell my son that it's okay to run. Live to fight another day. Or go home and train. I also used to tell him if you start it your in trouble. If they swing first then we'll go fishing while your suspended. There is a time for violence.
My father told me "If you can walk away from a fight do it! But if I catch you running from one, they will be the least of your worries!" That is verbatum what he told me. But I did get away with starting a fight in seventh grade because my mother was going to Hawaii and wasn't planning on taking me until I got suspended for the fight. When we got back the nuns told my mother that the suspension was supposed to be a punishment. She comes back from the meeting and says to me, "Thanks for getting me yelled at!" Then she kicks my ass! Too f-ing funny. I definately would not want to be my parent. I would have hated raising me!
 
And what is the moral to this story?
 
Buzzcut62 said:
And what is the moral to this story?

Insanity is caused through genetics....
 
Am I right in guessing that the 'insanity' you refer to is implicitly directed at 'Billo'?
Personally, I'd like to know why he has to refer to, quote, or plagiarize others. Hey, 'Billo', don't you have your own ideas?
 
Buzzcut62 said:
Am I right in guessing that the 'insanity' you refer to is implicitly directed at 'Billo'?
Personally, I'd like to know why he has to refer to, quote, or plagiarize others. Hey, 'Billo', don't you have your own ideas?

Yes it was...

On this website, you will, obviously, find people who disgree with your thoughts...

But the challenge is to find the ones who can argue, at least reasonably, if not intellectually.

If you said, "I think if Rove is found by the investigation, then Bush should fire him from his Administration and apologize for his actions", I would consider that a valid point.

If you said, "ROVE lied! Bush is a bum! They should all be put in jail! Their right-wing evangelical a-holes!", then I would realize that this subject is simply "undebatable" with them.

I found this out early with Billo...I tried to debate him, but it was just an exercise in futility. I just gave up...It's a lot more fun to point out his inconsistancies with his posts than to actually debate his points.
 
Back
Top Bottom