- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Simple yes or no question.
The war was far from perfect, but even as things are today, stoping Sodom from basing his oil on the Euro instead of the us Dollar was the right thing to do.
The war was far from perfect, but even as things are today, stoping Sodom from basing his oil on the Euro instead of the us Dollar was the right thing to do.
Its already beginning to look like the house of cars we built there is already showing signs of stress without the presence of our military to prop it up.
Signatories do. Sorry.
No, they did not. Again, you are factually incorrect. I know you want to believe, I understand. But you are simply factually wrong.
Nope. Just recognizing thehistory of these conversations
You misread. You said:
I read every book I could get my hands on about Vietnam . . .
Yeah your perspective is pretty clear there:
I think a better question would be, ‘who benefited from the Iraq War?’
No, it isn't. If the law says the speed limit is 65 and you're driving 150, you're speeding whether anyone charges you or not. It's not conjecture. It's not rumor. 150 mph in a 65 mph zone is speeding.
I have never understood this silly strategy on the aprt of war supporters. What we signed is not conjecture. It is not rumor. It is written down and accessable for everyone to read.
no. NOT innocentHow about it as a strategy for non-war supporters? I don't "support" the war in Iraq. I think there are plenty of things wrong with having gone into Iraq, and I don't need to make stuff up to be against it. However, unless found guilty...you're innocent.
isn't that mindblowing?Page one had mostly 'no' voters, most seemed to understand we were mislead by the Bush WH into a war that only benefitted the private contractors.
Yet 82 people voted yes. Dare I read the rest of the threat?
Page one had mostly 'no' voters, most seemed to understand we were mislead by the Bush WH into a war that only benefitted the private contractors.
Yet 82 people voted yes. Dare I read the rest of the threat?
Sometimes, I is suspicious of poll counts on this forum. They do some amazing night moves. Could be indicative of what?
Page one had mostly 'no' voters, most seemed to understand we were mislead by the Bush WH into a war that only benefitted the private contractors.
Yet 82 people voted yes. Dare I read the rest of the threat?
It appears you are correct, where are you from my friend you seem to be having a hard time commanding the English language, as i noticed many spelling errors in your post?It appears that the war benefitted Iran and gave the terrorist another front that they could fight from sine neither Iran or the Bin Laden led terrorist could operte out of Iraq while Sadam was still in power
It appears that the war benefitted Iran and gave the terrorist another front that they could fight from sine neither Iran or the Bin Laden led terrorist could operte out of Iraq while Sadam was still in power
For the first time, federal auditors are suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error. Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an office created by Congress, said the missing $6.6 billion may be "the largest theft of funds in national history."
The mystery is a growing embarrassment to the Pentagon, and an irritant to Washington's relations with Baghdad. Iraqi officials are threatening to go to court to reclaim the money, which came from Iraqi oil sales, seized Iraqi assets and surplus funds from the United Nations' oil-for-food program.
It's fair to say that Congress, which has already shelled out $61 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for similar reconstruction and development projects in Iraq, is none too thrilled either.
On March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz told the House Appropriations Committee[42] that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war; he testified his "rough recollection" was[42]: "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but ... We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."[43] By October of that year, "Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said 'prewar estimates that may be borne out in fact are likelier to be more lucky than smart.' [He] added that earlier estimates and statements by Mr. Wolfowitz and others 'oozed with uncertainty.'" Di Rita's comments came as a much less optimistic secret Pentagon study—which had been complete at the time of Wolfowitz's testimony—was coming to public light, and when actual production results in Iraq were coinciding with those projected in the less optimistic Pentagon study.[42]
How about it as a strategy for non-war supporters? I don't "support" the war in Iraq. I think there are plenty of things wrong with having gone into Iraq, and I don't need to make stuff up to be against it. However, unless found guilty...you're innocent.
no, we don't.
and yes, they did. I realize that it's inconvenient for you, but a series of "just-so" statements does not wash away multiple Security Council Resolutions, however long you repeat them, or however much you insist that their existence is "factually incorrect."
well that certainly is true - though you have skipped ahead to the part where you abandon even the pretense of responsibility to provide evidence.
no. NOT innocent
only not (yet) found guilty
there IS a difference
Not making up reasons. Stating fact. Not being charged is not equal to being innocent. Even when tried, they rarely declare someone innocent. You're deliberately trying to miss the point. As I said, the document is there to read. All one needs is average intellegence and a willingness to honestly read it.
Well, that's just a fundamentally un-American attitude, right there. See, I've always understood it to be innocent until proven guilty...
They don't have to declare them innocent...they ARE innocent, unless proven guilty.
You confuse many things. Odd that. again, if the speed limit is 65 and you're going 150, you're speeding. Now, we have the document, and if we break our agreement, we broke it. Being charged, let alone convicted, has nothing to do with it. You can read and look at actions as well as anyone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?