What will the democrats do?

[Gibberish]

Really. And so why didn't I ever, EVER think that Iraq was involved w/ 9/11?

Because your only news source isn't from political speeches or your local news at 10. I would say most voters do not follow politics so closely, which is why they can be swayed off simple advertising campaigns that are worded correctly.

There are many on the left that openly disagree with you.

There are many people who are blinded by partisan hate. The same type of people who label any and all people that disagree with them as terrorist loving liberals or nazi neocons.

The facts of Bush's intelligence are openly present by his transcript and IQ scores. If he can put his ego and/or pride aside when making decisions is another matter. Many people in leadership roles are elitist and cannot acknowledge they need help or made incorrect decisions.

Having an open mind on all aspects of a conversation is the only true way to come to a conclusion. I base my conclusions off facts presented, not on my political stance. I have no problem changing my opinion even if it goes against my choose political party. I have done so many times in the past on these boards based on new research conversations led me to.

We all base our opinions on the facts presented, and we never have all the facts.

 

[Hatuey]

This isnt rocket science.

Saddam was known to have 100 eggs.
Sadddam war ordered to get rid of his 100 eggs.
Saddam said he got rid of his 100 eggs.
Saddam did not prove he got rid of his 100 eggs.

Thus, the burden of proof is on Saddam, and it doesnt have anyting to do with him proving he's not the tooth fairy.

Now, this is simple logic -- either you people just dont get it, or you just dont want to get it.

Lol you're funny. You're still in the wrong even with your egg analogy. We invaded saddams chicken farm and found that his 100 eggs were no longer there. Proving he didnt have his eggs anymore and making us look like silly farmers with pitchforks. Great logic.

 

[Goobieman]

Lol you're funny. You're still in the wrong even with your egg analogy. We invaded saddams chicken farm and found that his 100 eggs were no longer there. Proving he didnt have his eggs anymore and making us look like silly farmers with pitchforks. Great logic.

I'll put you in the "dont want to get it" column.

 

[Hatuey]

I'll put you in the "dont want to get it" column.

You put ridiculous on a different level. I'll go as far as saying that Saddam didnt prove he "didnt" have them. But what did we prove? That he didnt have them? The same thing we asked him to prove? Thank You. Farmer Goobie, I'll put you on the "doesn't want to get it" column.

 

[Goobieman]

You put ridiculous on a different level.

Pot, meet kettle.

Had you bothered to read the entire thread, you'd know that the argument was over the idea that we asked Saddam to prove a negative, a logocal impossibility.

That argument has been proven wrong, as he was asked to prove that he destroyed something he was known to have, which is clearly NOT a logical impossibility.

And so, as I said, you either dont get it or you dont want to get it.
I'll let you choose.

 

[Hatuey]

Pot, meet kettle.

Had you bothered to read the entire thread, you'd know that the argument was over the idea that we asked Saddam to prove a negative, a logocal impossibility.

That argument has been proven wrong, as he was asked to prove that he destroyed something he was known to have, which is clearly NOT a logical impossibility.

And so, as I said, you either dont get it or you dont want to get it.
I'll let you choose.

You dont understand we proved that he destroyed whatever he did have by not finding anything .

 

[Topsez]

You dont understand we proved that he destroyed whatever he did have by not finding anything .

Did you read this link: http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/iraq/cortright.htm the UNSCOM and IAEA still had clipboards of unaccounted weapons at the end of inspections and were asking for six more months when the US administration concluded Saddam was not fully cooperating and restarted hostilities...

 

[hipsterdufus]

Try this poll next time:

Q: Do you still beat your wife/husband (etc)?

1. Yes
2. No

It would be about as valid as this poll.

 

[Hatuey]

Did you read this link: http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/iraq/cortright.htm the UNSCOM and IAEA still had clipboards of unaccounted weapons at the end of inspections and were asking for six more months when the US administration concluded Saddam was not fully cooperating and restarted hostilities...

I did read it. Just found it interesting that basically what it says is that the U.S. didnt find out what it wanted in time so it restarted hostilities? Without any proof whatsoever of any WMDs? without any reliable intel? without a proper idea of what we were going after? Putting us in the wrong to begin with. Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991. Which both you and I know so you explain to me how you're still advocating for having invaded Iraq without any proof? If we have had some proof to start with other then some man's irrational need to topple the guy who wouldnt bow to his daddy then I would be right along with you. But alas there is no proof and there never was. It was just a publicity stunt aimed at getting brain dead americans to support the republicans that in the end went wrong and got 2800 Americans killed.

 

[1069]

I believe one of the first things a democrat-controlled House and Congress will do (this wasn't one of your poll options) is initiate a comprehensive investigation into the conduct of the Bush administration as pertains to this war and the events leading up to it. With an eye to the eventual possible impeachment of Bush.

 

[Topsez]

I did read it. Just found it interesting that basically what it says is that the U.S. didnt find out what it wanted in time so it restarted hostilities? Without any proof whatsoever of any WMDs? without any reliable intel? without a proper idea of what we were going after? Putting us in the wrong to begin with. Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991. Which both you and I know so you explain to me how you're still advocating for having invaded Iraq without any proof? If we have had some proof to start with other then some man's irrational need to topple the guy who wouldnt bow to his daddy then I would be right along with you. But alas there is no proof and there never was. It was just a publicity stunt aimed at getting brain dead americans to support the republicans that in the end went wrong and got 2800 Americans killed.

One of the things I noted in the link was Saddam was reluctant to meet his obligations because Prez Clinton had stated regardless of Saddam's compliance the US would never lift embargos against Iraq.

Check out this link http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html and reconsider your position... please recall that Saddam resisted opening certain sites like his palaces and so on... Clearly he wasn't cooperating and was, in fact giving the UN the bird...

I believe one of the first things a democrat-controlled House and Congress will do (this wasn't one of your poll options) is initiate a comprehensive investigation into the conduct of the Bush administration as pertains to this war and the events leading up to it. With an eye to the eventual possible impeachment of Bush.

First of all I don't think the Dem's will take the House or the Senate... but I've been wrong before... Even if the Dem's take both the House and the Senate is disagree that they would do as you state... Oh, lots of hearings but I think, as I stated earlier that Prez Bush will put them in check from day one by stating he will not leave the troops in Iraq without a plan for victory and ask the Dem's to state from the beginning that their plan is to cut and run or stay to victory... By doing this almost all demands will be mute... The house has the checkbook but the executive executes the war... no money troops home... blackmail with the money and the troops come home under the responsibility of the Dem's... Iraq and the ME turns to crap, and I mean really crap then who will take the fall in 08?

 

[Hatuey]

One of the things I noted in the link was Saddam was reluctant to meet his obligations because Prez Clinton had stated regardless of Saddam's compliance the US would never lift embargos against Iraq.

Check out this link http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html and reconsider your position... please recall that Saddam resisted opening certain sites like his palaces and so on... Clearly he wasn't cooperating and was, in fact giving the UN the bird...

So your point is Saddam gave the U.N the bird and only a few clicks later we invaded and found nothing? We gave the U.N. the bird by telling them we'd invade Iraq with or without their approval. We give the U.N. the bird on a regular basis. So what's your point? If we took down every dictator who gives the U.N the middle finger. We'd be in North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China, Zimbawe, Chile and Nicaragua at the same time. So please explain to me what your point is. They wouldnt show us what we wanted them to show us and then we invaded and found they had nothing to show from the start? Oh ok I see it clearly now. Your point makes so much more sense now. I'm starting to see the conservative way now. In case you haven't realized it yet. It's sarcasm.

 

[Topsez]

So your point is Saddam gave the U.N the bird and only a few clicks later we invaded and found nothing? We gave the U.N. the bird by telling them we'd invade Iraq with or without their approval. We give the U.N. the bird on a regular basis. So what's your point? If we took down every dictator who gives the U.N the middle finger. We'd be in North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China, Zimbawe, Chile and Nicaragua at the same time. So please explain to me what your point is. They wouldnt show us what we wanted them to show us and then we invaded and found they had nothing to show from the start? Oh ok I see it clearly now. Your point makes so much more sense now. I'm starting to see the conservative way now. In case you haven't realized it yet. It's sarcasm.

The point is the UN proved itself to be dysfunctional as it often does. The Prez of the US was acting on not the behalf of the UN but on behalf of the American people… We had been attacked on 9-11 by ME terrorists. We retaliated against Afghanistan because their government gave aid to those who attacked us. OK make a note that I said we were attacked by ME terrorists and not terrorists from Afghanistan… Which countries were and are the axis of evil? Iran, Iraq and North Korea and has it not been proven to be correct. North Korea for obvious reasons… Iran for reasons becoming more and more evident as each day passes… and, Iraq… Why Iraq? Iraq had invaded Kuwait and tried to dominate the ME oil supply control… How, with Kuwait oil revenues combined with Iraq oil revenues and the intimidation of WMD’s Saddam had the entire ME gulf in fear of him… With these factors one could easily conclude he planed to dominate ME oil with threat on any nation failing to agree with his demands, he could simply blow up an oil tanker from Saudi Arabia or Iran and keep them in line. The same is true of where Iran is placing itself in recent months… Back up to the Iran-Iraq War and recall that at one point Iran took Iraq’s only port city to the gulf at one point and what happened? Actions were taken to ensure the action was reversed… why, because it would have the same imbalance destabilizing factor in the ME.

After Desert Storm what changed? Embargos and on and off UN inspections to assure Iraq complied with the ceasefire agreement… other than that nothing changed the neighbors still believed Saddam was still a threat and simply giving the UN the bird until they left him alone to continue his adventure to control ME oil and dominate the region…

Now you argue that Saddam had proven to the world he had practically been disarmed by the UN inspection teams but how did the neighbors view Saddam’s compliance? Hey, guess what they still saw him as a threat as the US and Britain did… How can I back that up, you may ask. Look at the Saudi Arabia neighbor that allowed the thousands of thousands of infidels to invade Iraq in Desert Storm. Saudi Arabia allowed us there because they feared Saddam as they now fear Iran… they allowed us to build US Air Force Bases on their Holly Land to conduct the “no fly zones” enforcements. Was the US asked to leave SA prior to reentering hostilities and removing Saddam from power… the answer is NO and the NO answer is why Saddam was considered a threat just as valid, if not more than America saw him by SA. Then what happened after Saddam was removed… the Clerics in SA immediately demanded the removal of the US Air Force bases from their Holly Land along with the infidels on them, this costs the US tax payers $24 billion of the first installment from the $87 billion. If the SA clerics hated infidels enough to insist we spend $24 Billion to remove the bases then they really hate infidels… explain why we were welcome when Saddam was in power. The US and her allies along with most of the ME and the world saw Saddam as a threat until the indication of searches by a credible search was conducted… So your theory that Saddam was not a threat is melted like a sugar cube in a hot cup of coffee.

Not only had nothing changed since Saddam had been forcibly removed from Kuwait Saddam had proclaimed the US and Britain enemies of his state and of course Saudi Arabia would be on the top of his list for helping us. In fact by repeatedly backing down the UN Saddam appeared even more powerful to the neighborhood… No one in that area felt he had disarmed… and, the US could only conclude that through his reluctance to comply his intentions were unchanged since his invasion of Kuwait and could foresee him giving WMD’s to terrorists … the enemy of my enemy is my friend… and then pursue his adventure to control the entire ME oil supply and the world economy.

The inability to locate WMD’s does not indicate they do not exist… it only indicates we didn’t find them. As you recall we did find some WMD’s that were swept aside as “old stock” by the Bush administration… but every account of interviews of Saddam’s staff were just as surprised as we were that they were not found. So was it a big lie to his staff by Saddam that convinced the entire world also that he had WMD’s while he didn’t or he simply hid them someplace… we simply don’t know.

 

[dragonslayer]

this is a stupid Poll.

we need to get our troops out of Iraq and start fighting the war on Terrorism.

Is better to kill a terrorist than to create a terrorist. Get the hell out of Iraq now and start taking care of America.:mrgreen: :doh

Democrats will take care of Americans instead of wasting the lives of loyal Americans on Bush's War.

 

[TurtleDude]

this is a stupid Poll.

we need to get our troops out of Iraq and start fighting the war on Terrorism.

Is better to kill a terrorist than to create a terrorist. Get the hell out of Iraq now and start taking care of America.:mrgreen: :doh

Democrats will take care of Americans instead of wasting the lives of loyal Americans on Bush's War.

Democrats will take care of making democrat leaders richer and more powerful. Democrats have proven so far that they don't care what is best for America-that is why they continue to undermine the war effort in order to create a campaign issue

 

[Navy Pride]

this is a stupid Poll.

we need to get our troops out of Iraq and start fighting the war on Terrorism.

Is better to kill a terrorist than to create a terrorist. Get the hell out of Iraq now and start taking care of America.:mrgreen: :doh

Democrats will take care of Americans instead of wasting the lives of loyal Americans on Bush's War.

Translation: CUT AND RUN..........

 

[hipsterdufus]

Translation: CUT AND RUN..........

Bush has lost the war in Iraq already. Period.
Staying just prolongs the agony.

 

[Navy Pride]

Bush has lost the war in Iraq already. Period.
Staying just prolongs the agony.

Like with Dean for partisan political reasons that could be just wishful thinking on your part my friend...........

 

[hipsterdufus]

Like with Dean for partisan political reasons that could be just wishful thinking on your part my friend...........

3 + years.
Chaos
Close to 3 K Americans dead.
Trillions of dollars spent
Little electricity
Those selected to rebuild Iraq booted out.

It's over. Let's go to Afghanistan before Bush loses that one too.

 

[Goobieman]

You dont understand we proved that he destroyed whatever he did have by not finding anything .

YOU don't understand that us not finding anything doesnt mean he destroyed everything, and doesnt in any way shape or form address anything regarding Saddam not proving he destoryed them.

Make your choice.

 

[Goobieman]

I did read it. Just found it interesting that basically what it says is that the U.S. didnt find out what it wanted in time so it restarted hostilities? Without any proof whatsoever of any WMDs? without any reliable intel? without a proper idea of what we were going after?

What part of "Saddam was supposed to prove he destroyed the weapons we knew he had" don't you get?

 

[dragonslayer]

Democrats will take care of making democrat leaders richer and more powerful. Democrats have proven so far that they don't care what is best for America-that is why they continue to undermine the war effort in order to create a campaign issue

I filled in the correct Parties in your little quiz.

RIGHT WING RADICALS will take care of making RIGHT WING RADICAL leaders richer and more powerful. THE NEO-CONS/Right Wing Radicals, have proven so far that they don't care OR know what is best for America- that is why Democrats and Independents continue to undermine the war effort in order to create a campaign issue and get our troops home safely. To hell with Bush. his oil company buddies, and their private little war.

Time to protect the USA, instead of Greed.

 

[Goobieman]

I filled in the correct Parties in your little quiz.

RIGHT WING RADICALS will take care of making RIGHT WING RADICAL leaders richer and more powerful. THE NEO-CONS/Right Wing Radicals, have proven so far that they don't care OR know what is best for America- that is why Democrats and Independents continue to undermine the war effort in order to create a campaign issue and get our troops home safely. To hell with Bush. his oil company buddies, and their private little war.
Time to protect the USA, instead of Greed.

Neo-cons are not right-wing radicals.
If they were, there would not be anywhere near as much spending as there has been.

 

[Hatuey]

What part of "Saddam was supposed to prove he destroyed the weapons we knew he had" don't you get?

LOL I dont think you understand. "We knew he had them" in 1991. We "assumed" he still had them when we invaded. Proven wrong weren't we?

 

[Goobieman]

LOL I dont think you understand. "We knew he had them" in 1991. We "assumed" he still had them when we invaded.

And why did we assume he had them?

Because he had not proven that he had destroyed a known quantity of weapons -- something he was obliged to do.

Tell me:
What happened to the weapons he was known to have had but had not ben proven destroyed, and how do you know?

If you cannot answer this, then you cannot logically impune the assumption that the weapons he was known to have had were still there.