• 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.

the War on TERROR IS A LIE

ProudAmerican said:
I dissagree. If congress could prove the president witheld information from them in order to falsley conduct this war, they would take legal action against him, and I WOULD SUPPORT IT.

both sides of the isle are guilty of spewing one thing out of the side of their mouth, and then voting the exact oppossite. B.S. and hypocrisy knows no party line.

I know that the rabid, radical members of the democratic party would have bushes neck in a noose right now if they could prove he intentionall missled them.

Kerry, Palosi, Feinstein, and the likes would NEVER REST if they honestly thought that was the case.

they say one thing to the nutjobs that buy into their B.S. message, and then do nothing about it because they know its false.

We already know that the Presidents Daily Brief is not seen by Congress, nor do I believe it should be seen. Not every bit of intelligence, that crosses that desk in the oval office, should be shared with congress.

However, I don't believe this congress is interested in getting to the bottom of Bush's deceit? I think many of them may be frightened for their political careers?

I also believe that Bush is keeping his collective intelligence under lock and key. Releasing this intelligence would shine further light on the pattern of deception employed by the Bush White House, a deception that was used to take us into war.

It's far easier to delay cooperation, and claim any release of intelligence would compromise national security and put our nation at risk. It makes Bush look like a true patriot.

I have no doubt, that once Bush is out of office, the details of deception will become clearer...especially for all those americans who prefer to stay in the dark, and refuse to listen to the possibility that Bush entrapped the American people and took us into a long, costly, and unneeded war.
 
ProudAmerican said:
I think its the oppossite. I think with each passing day the left is exposed to be the lying party of deception it truly is.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=9439

That's your proof? A document from 1995 to attempt to justify close to 3000 of our young men and women dead in Iraq?

A document...a piece of paper? When Saddam is known to have a history of using false documents to elevate his status in the Middle East.

You see...Saddam wanted to look like a bad dude and he wanted his neighbors to fear him to further cement his grip on power. So, yes, Saddam often lied, and created false plans for WMD and falsified documents in case a defector was ever questioned... then they would swear Saddam had nuclear weapons because they had seen a "document." (Run away! Run away!)

Saddam had dreams of being the Grand Caliph of a united Middle East, and he liked his reputation as one who stood up to the "Great Satan."

So, now we face all these dead, even more wounded, and possibly a good two trillion dollars down the drain, (or in the coffers of no bid contracts)

But, hey! We have that "document," so all is right with the world.
 
That's your proof? A document from 1995 to attempt to justify close to 3000 of our young men and women dead in Iraq?

yep.

all ive heard for months from the left is "show proof saddam had ties to terrorists"

someone shows you the proof, and you change the standard saying "well thats 1995 so it doesnt count"

get real.

why does it matter what year the document is from? please tell us why it makes a difference that saddam collaborated with terrorists in 1995, or 2000.

please explain to us the difference the YEAR he supported terrorists matters.

But, hey! We have that "document," so all is right with the world.

I bet you dont have a problem with taking a document on face value when that document says Saddam was harmless and couldnt harm America.

funny how the left always roots for a document that says we were wrong, but has a problem with a document that says we were right.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Who makes them heros? Maybe you do.

So I am the historians and government who called genocidal murderers like alexander the great, julius ceasar, the pilgrims, cowboys, william the conquerer, and napleon heros? I dont think they were heros sorry....heros are people who stand up for what they believe NO matter what the so-called "society" tell us what is the norm...


I'm a free individual who recognizes that no civilization that denies half of their civilization to contribute will ever compete with a civilization that encourages the creativity and influence that women offer.

My point was can you EXPLAIN how they supressed besides there burkas, ONLY in saudi arabia is where I see anti-womanhood (ya know america's "allies")

I'm a free individual who has seen the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, and Iraq.

And there is none in america, where we tell women to be skinny, have big ****, and be radically superficial and sexist??

I'm an individual who has seen the treatment of women as the property of men and not the equal.

I agree, but christianity and islam are both anti-woman my friend

I'm a free individual with a brain and the ability to use it to gain knowledge of the Middle East instead of passing off ignorance.

So all the middle east are terrorists and jihadists who hate america for our "freedoms"?? If it makes you sleep at night...let me give you knowledge...first off the middle east has been exploited as much as africa has for decades by coporations to make profits...remeber "irans nukes for hostages" means to an end? Yes they have the sudanese kids mining for diamonds for the De Beers family....do research!!





That's who I am.

Saudi Arabia has been an American "ally" long before President Bush. Such ignorance will not work with me. Also, you are very wrong about Saudi Arabia and their engineering of 9/11. You are in need of a lesson. The "House of Saud" (the true lords of terror), are responsible for Radical Islam (I doubt you know anything about it). They are responsible for much of the perversion that has run rampant all over the Middle East. They are also very well aware that American bases keep them safe from uprisings and from fellow Muslim aggression. While their subjects (terrorists) are responsible as the Radical element cheered them on, the elite were not the "engineers." Bin Laden no more worked for the Saudi elite (which he hates) than he stands for true Islam.

The point you just made was Osama Bin Laden was NOT some afghani rebel as the american media once told us..he was a saudi arabian and he is a rich one at that and the saudi arabian government is also islamic....if the Saudi government helped bin laden, taliban, and al qeada and america is allies with them...what does that say about president bush and the american government?? How stupid do you feel??
How stupid do you feel?



U.S. Marines are currently in Chad and Ethiopia. I visited Chad early last year to consult on a communications system. Their job is to train the African militaries to repell their Radical Islamists element and to contain the Muslim ethnic cleansings in Sudan. Marines frequently hop across the border to halt any "cleansing" along the border inside the country of Sudan. You're question should be..."where is the UN and all of those high and mighty countries that used Sudan to come down on America for Iraq."

I suggest you refrain from further ignorance and recognize who you are attempting to spar with. I warn you now...you will lose. Anyone with ignorance and emotion as their guide will always fall before an individual who uses experience, knowledge, and insight.

I havent seen any of that on the news at all, please give me a website of that evidence the point is Bush SHOULDNT of went to iraq and caught bin laden but he wont because bin laden is a saudi arabian and bush is allies with them...
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
I just follow the direction of the thread. It's these peaceful moments that 'Billo' can get a break from embarrassing himself (sometimes) and get a break from being pummeled.
Care to post some proof of this or would you just rather keep shooting your mouth off and acting like your some kind of bad a.s.s?
 
ProudAmerican said:
what they prove is that BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE either intentionally lied, or made an innocent mistake.

they prove that when a leftist claims Bush lied and everyone else was missled, they are a partisan hack.

Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied, and most of the members of his cabinet lied to us. LOL You must admit that Congress does not have access to the same intelligence that the president has? Why is that so difficult? Can you imagine the lack of security we'd have in this nation if every elected official in our nation saw the same intelligence that our president sees?

Bush distorted, misused, manipulated and picked and chose only the intelligence he wanted to use to justify taking us into this God forsaken war.

Just the aluminum tube story alone should convince anyone that Bush lied, since he had intelligence that the tubes were designed for artillery shells, and never intended for nuclear centrifuges, yet we have the Bush administration spreading fear with their quotes about those dangerous aluminum tubes and how we might face a 'mushroom cloud.'

ProudAmerican said:
LMAO. thats a hoot. if he had that intelligence, then so did many of your precious democrats that sat on commities that discuss this sort of thing. what do you say about them voting for war?

I'm not pleased about that, in fact, I'm disgusted with the Dems for jumping on the 'war bandwagon.' They were afraid for their political careers and afraid of appearing unpatriotic, which is exactly how the republican spin machine would've labeled them after 9/11. The committees you speak of DO NOT have access to the Presidential Daily Briefs, only what the White House shares, and Bush decided what he would share and what he would hide.

ProudAmerican said:
Im intellectually honest enough to say it is POSSIBLE that bush missled the American people. (if he did I agree with his reasons) but Im also honest enough to KNOW if he did it, then some democrats knew about it and agreed with it.

I won't argue with that, but I'm curious as to your statement about if Bush misled,...."I agree with his reasons."

What possible reasons could you agree with that have a president misleading us into a costly and unneeded war?
 
Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied, and most of the members of his cabinet lied to us. LOL You must admit that Congress does not have access to the same intelligence that the president has? Why is that so difficult? Can you imagine the lack of security we'd have in this nation if every elected official in our nation saw the same intelligence that our president sees?

who said every member of congress has the same information the president has?

I won't argue with that, but I'm curious as to your statement about if Bush misled,...."I agree with his reasons."

protecting America. removing a brutal dictator. freeing a nation. stopping torture chambers and rape rooms. stopping terrorists training camps. whether the left will admit it or not, our reasons for this war were much much deeper than WMDs.

if it takes missleading the members of this country that are too cowardly and self serving to get them to do these things, then so be it.

What possible reasons could you agree with that have a president misleading us into a costly and unneeded war?

your premise that the war was "unneeded" is the real debate now isnt it. if you could prove beyond a doubt that this war was unneeded, we wouldnt have much to talk about.
 
Originally posted by Ivan the Terrible:
You sure about that?
Sure I'm sure. It's not hard kicking Gunny's a.s.s. He's too one-dimensional. He just shoots is mouth off and talks about things that didn't happen. That's why I called him on proof. He can't provide it. Because it never happened. But that won't stop him from saying it did. It's called, "dis-information".
 
Billo_Really said:
Sure I'm sure. It's not hard kicking Gunny's a.s.s. He's too one-dimensional. He just shoots is mouth off and talks about things that didn't happen. That's why I called him on proof. He can't provide it. Because it never happened. But that won't stop him from saying it did. It's called, "dis-information".

Billo, stop talking to a mirror

and pumping you muscles. You reflection looks good, but nobody can see you loking at yourself in your bathroom.
 
Originally posted by justone:
Billo, stop talking to a mirror

and pumping you muscles. You reflection looks good, but nobody can see you loking at yourself in your bathroom.
Did you go to school in a long bus or a short bus?
 
Back
Top Bottom