Liberals Eat Babies

[Nono]

Originally posted by www.crossroad.to Today's growing hostility toward those who follow God

Could have knocked me over with a feather. I'd have said that was verbatim from al Qaeda. Sounds exactly like 'em. And there's an interesting point...

[Nono]

Originally posted by Technosoul I find it amazing that we still have a few diehards that believe that President Bush was totally honest about Iraq, as it was a his war of choice and not not one mandated by reality. I am shocked people still repeat those lies as if they were never shown to false. Millions of people world wide know the war was not justified and they are not democrats and do not vote here in America.

I don't find it amazing. It's called partisanship, a phenomenon involving the suspension of rationality as a means to maintain one's loyalty to the tribe, the loss of which would be emotionally destabilizing.

[Kyran]

Originally posted by Scribbler,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why should Bush be different from just about any president in modern history? They ALL do whatever it takes to keep them in office. Believing Bush is above all that is naive.[/b]

My statement was that a large inference was drawn from one fact, as opposed to using psychological studies or opinions to draw such a conclusion. This is sufficient to dismiss the validity of that assertion.

Originally posted by Scribbler,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for what the "liberals here on our forum" are saying, you'd be hard pressed to dispute these claims and , if they are indeed true then Bush SHOULD be removed. Assuming the arguments regarding the economy, education and our global reputation are TRUE, how could you support Bush under these circumstances?[/b]

I'd be hard-pressed? You can pound into a mountain all damn day and it still won't move. Neither will I.

Secondly, don't ask me to assume disproven arguments are true. Ted Kennedy wrote the education bill. The government-administrated economy is normal in my unsubstantiated opinion. If anyone gave a damn about jobs they'd turn off the fascist income tax for two months and watch the economy skyrocket. Course, I would never expect anything the government administrates to succeed; especially an economy.

I don't give two bits about our reputation among liberals abroad.

It's not in me to support a socialist, which IMHO is what Bush is...giving taxpayer money to Boeing, approving of a new social program, approving of existing social programs like public education which guys like me are trying to get the government out of. I don't approve of these things, yet both candidates do.

Originally posted by Scribbler, If true, ONE bomb is not proof of anything more than the POSSIBILITY of WMD's. Remember the "M" stands for MASS destruction and although we know one sarin bomb can take out a subway it is not enough to base invading a country on.

If? A chemical weapon which is capable of killing thousands does not qualify as a WMD? Says who? Regardless of your watery positioning, the truckloads of WMDs that were moved by Saddam prior to the invasion are evidence.

Your statement on the invasion is irrelevant. Bush did not base the invasion upon one sarin bomb. Bush based it upon the truckloads, which were on CNN...which were shown by military footage...to Congress as Saddam again evaded U.N. Weapons Inspectors. He decided to attack before there was an imminent threat from Iraq in the form of terrorism.

Originally posted by Scribbler, Moved to where and where are they now? If we saw them being moved, it seems to me that since we were in Iraq already we should have grabbed them on the spot. At the very LEAST we should know where they WENT if we were interested enough to observe them LEAVING in the first place. Was Powell's report and the CNN broadcast two different things or did CNN report on the SAME report? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ahh, and now you realize military intelligence is still two words that can't make sense. This was a blunder, in my opinion. Perhaps our recon doesn't allow us to precisely track vehicles on the other side of the planet though.

I have posted the link to this article before; check CNN through google. It's there.

Originally posted by Scribbler, To the best of my knowledge, Saddam DID pay the families of the so-called "martyrs" ($5,000 I believe), but the suicide bombers were HAMAS and NOT Al Queda. Is that correct?

Yep.

Originally posted by Scribbler, Forget the fact that a few thousand friends and family of the dead soldiers might disagree, your one sarin bomb, paying off families of HAMAS bombers and your mysterious truckloads of WMD we, according to you, just let pass to wherever they supposedly went do NOT equal a threat to the United States and we have no right to invade a soverign country based on speculation, period! Even BUSH admitted bad intel. Are you saying he was WRONG?

What "might" be reality does not establish fact. Try again.

My "one" sarin bomb? First of all, it wasn't my bomb. Secondly, you can kindly read where I have said Truckloads over and over again, and verify for yourself that this is absolute truth. There is no reason why trucks would be loaded and moved from sites that UN Weapon Inspectors (who are looking for WMDs) are going to hours beforehand.

So when Bush admitted bad intel...did he mean those trucks were empty...or did he mean there was a mistake made like I described and you have realized?

Hang on a second, you are challenging my rights. The government enforces justice. In order for the government to carry out justice, justice must be the right of individual human beings. How does one obtain the right to use Force against a human being? Simply when that person has initiated Force first; and it doesn't have to be against us.

Originally posted by Scribbler, What the hell are you talking about? Bush signs a bad bill and you blame it on H. Clinton because she shook hands with him?

Straw man. Read it again.

Originally posted by Scribbler, Blame went to the Bush ADMINISTRATION, which Bush is the head of. Where do YOU think the buck stops?

The buck stops at the persons committing the act. What are the names of the persons who tortured prisoners at Abu-Graib?

<!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler,@
That's a lie and you know it. Show where one person said a bill EXPIRING was Bush's fault.[/quote]

My lead singer. Therefore, I know it is on the tips of some tongues around here. You want to see a picture of him?

<!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler,
He had the AUTHORITY, and he USED it! Congress didn't declare war on anything. So now Bush isn't responsible for his own undisputed actions, as in HE went to war after Congress ALLOWED HIM TO! I thought you were above that idiotic, senseless partisan bullshit. Of COURSE Bush is responsible for going to war with IRAQ, tell me who else would be?[/quote]

Oh he did eh? What part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to authorize the Executive branch, or any other persons, to Decide to commit the United States of America into war, an act of war, or "military action?"

Again, I asserted an argument against the notion that Bush is solely responsible for the war in Iraq. Congress has the power, and Congress is solely responsible for this war. Congress can tell Bush to bomb Moscow tomorrow.

Your usage of capital letters shows your aggravation at this point. I suggest taking a breather and remember that I am not arguing to be an asshole. I am just telling you what my take is on the whole situation from top to bottom. We are two different people and there's no reason why any of our beliefs, opinions, or ideas should match in the first place.

As for the rest of you in this thread, I suggest reading this post to get all your questions answered and working together to come up with an actual tangible argument to defeat me with.

[Nono]

Saddam would dearly have loved to zap us with WMD. Unfortunately for him, his dream was crushed over a decade ago.
In the meantime, North Korea just might. Or Iran eventually. But with US forces tied down in Iraq and the country's credibility in tatters, Bush is fervently looking the other way.

Writing in the Toronto Star, Linda McQuaig explains how obvious the real reason for the invasion was.

Even as the discovery of new oil fields slows down, the world's consumption speeds up (...) Particularly worrisome is the arithmetic as it applies to the U.S. With its oil production already long past peak, and yet its oil consumption rising, the U.S. will inevitably become more reliant on foreign oil. This is significant not just for Americans, but for the world, since the U.S. has long characterized its access to energy as a matter of "national security." With its unrivalled military power, the U.S. will insist on meeting its own voracious energy needs — and it will be up to the rest of the world to co-operate with this quest. Period. (...) But we're supposed to believe that, as the Bush administration assessed its options just before invading Iraq in the spring of 2003, the advantages of securing vast, untapped oil fields — in order to guarantee U.S. energy security in a world of dwindling reserves and to enable U.S. oil companies to reap untold riches — were far from mind. What really mattered to those in the White House, we're told, was liberating the people of Iraq.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Kyran+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kyran)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>*Ted Kennedy wrote the education bill.[/b]

Are you talking about "No child left behind" Which left children behind? The program required specific new materials which went completely unfunded at a time when schools in my state were closing and teachers were being layed off. NCLB had its own horrors, depriving children of more important curriculum already functioning just fine. NCLB is a farce. http://nochildleft.com/2004/jun04fair.html

Just like the "Clear Skies Initiative" that cleared birds from the skies. This little gem was a gift to Bushs oily friends. It imposed more lenient pollution controls than were already in place.

<!--QuoteBegin-Kyran
*the truckloads of WMDs that were moved by Saddam prior to the invasion are evidence.[/quote]So is Jimmy Hoffa's body. So what.


Edit to add link
and change "NCLB was a farce" to "NCLB is a farce"

[gr8fuldaniel]

*

Originally posted by Kyran+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kyran)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It's not in me to support a socialist, which IMHO is what Bush is...giving taxpayer money to Boeing,....[/b]

Thats not socialist, thats the Neo Con plan to shift all the countries treasure to the elite 5% of the population. (I could be wrong on this point, but, that what it seems like to me)

*

Originally posted by Kyran@ How does one obtain the right to use Force against a human being? Simply when that person has initiated Force first; and it doesn't have to be against us.

Dont forget, We were his allies in those attacks.
So you are saying; American Diplomats should be on trial along side Saddam Hussein, as accomplices in assaults which used WMDs that WE provided him? Donald Rumsfeld would look good in leg irons.

*<!--QuoteBegin-Kyran
The buck stops at the persons committing the act. What are the names of the persons who tortured prisoners at Abu-Graib?[/quote]

No, Bush policy has played with words to bypass Geneva Convention and Universal Human Rights. GWB should swing from a tree in the rose garden, for renaming POWs to enemy combatants, thus authorizing, from the White House, the torture and rape and murder of POWs, including little children. In front of relatives.

Edit to add:
Imagine hearing the screams of your favorite neice or nephew or your father or mother or your daughter in the next cell. You cannot do anything to help because you dont fucking know where Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Ladin is. Imagine the screams of little kids being anally raped, because GWB authorizes it.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Forget abou GWB, lying with 16 words in the State of the Union Address in the previous year, to take us to war.
While he was making his speech this year, as he spoke there was torture happening at Abu Ghraib, that he knew about. Condi was informed as well as Rummy.
From GWB State of the Union Address 2004(appx. 23rd paragraph)
"Had we failed to act,..... Iraq's torture chambers would still be filled with victims, terrified and innocent."

The torture chambers werent closed, only "Under New Management"

[Sonart]

If? A chemical weapon which is capable of killing thousands does not qualify as a WMD?

No, because it couldn't have killed thousands. See, the reason the thing was discovered was because...

--"Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, (the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a "very small dispersal of agent."--

Says who? Regardless of your watery positioning, the truckloads of WMDs that were moved by Saddam prior to the invasion are evidence.

Says who?

If anyone gave a damn about jobs they'd turn off the fascist income tax for two months and watch the economy skyrocket.

Y'know, I've never quite figured it out. Bill Clinton RAISES taxes on the richest Americans and we experience the longest and strongest economic boom in our history, all while turning a record deficit into a record surplus.

George W. Bush CUTS taxes, and our economy continues to slowly struggle it's way out of recession, all while turning a record suplus into a new record deficit.

Go figure.

What "might" be reality does not establish fact. Try again.

Ah, truer words were never spoken. Would that Boy George and the NeoCons had understood them, we might not be up to our eyeballs in an Iraqi quagmire we can't win and can't get out of, with Afghanistan slowly falling back into the hands of the Taliban, world terrorism increasing, Osama bin Laden laughing at us, the rest of the world pissed at us and don't trust us a lick, and a 1,000 brave Americans dead and thousands more maimed and shattered.

To quote Will Smith, "Somehow, 'I told you so' just doesn't quite say it."

you can kindly read where I have said Truckloads over and over again,

What truckloads? Where?

The buck stops at the persons committing the act. What are the names of the persons who tortured prisoners at Abu-Graib?

You mean the 'Scapegoat Seven'?? The ones who experienced "Lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and no supervision." The ones working with interogators operating under rules established by Donald Rumsfeld himself? Those persons?

Again, I asserted an argument against the notion that Bush is solely responsible for the war in Iraq. Congress has the power, and Congress is solely responsible for this war. Congress can tell Bush to bomb Moscow tomorrow.

[kharmajunkie]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Bushs spankin new lie: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6093447/

Gr8tful, could you give a synopsis of what that link said, it's coming up "file not found" when I went to the site. Thanks.

[gr8fuldaniel]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6093447/

[SIZE=2]Troop documents conflict with Bush claims [/SIZE] Fewer Iraqis to be trained by end of year than president cited Updated: 7:41 p.m. ET Sept. 24, 2004 WASHINGTON - Fewer Iraqi security forces will be fully trained by the end of this year than cited by President George W. Bush and it will take until July 2006 to fully train the police force, according to Pentagon documents. With interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi at his side, Bush said on Thursday that nearly 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel are already working and this number would rise to 125,000 by the end of this year. But documents prepared by Defense Department officials and given to lawmakers show that fewer than 100,000 will be trained by the end of this year. The Pentagon also said on Monday that only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty now have undergone training. The documents, obtained by Reuters, show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. And it will be July 2006 before the administration’s new goal of 135,000 fully trained police is met. The White House stood by the 100,000 figure cited by Bush, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. Amid mounting violence, the Bush administration announced last week that it would shift $3.5 billion from water, sewer and other infrastructure projects to improve security. Of that amount $788 million would be used to add 45,000 police officers. 'Urgent priority' “Our most urgent priority right now is security,” said U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who appeared before a House of Representatives subcommittee on Friday to explain the shift. The request has provoked angry reactions in Congress, which must sign off on the changes.

[kharmajunkie]

Thanks for posting that Gr8.

[RickSp]

This is a very large inference made from One fact. Let's verify whether the allegations charged by Bush's fliers are legitamite or not before we judge them.

I have to shake my head. Kyran, do you really belive that the "liberals" (by which one can only suppose the Republicans mean Kerry) will literally ban the bible? That is crazy. The other assertions you make about Bush don't seem anywhere related to reality either but do you really thing that the claim "that liberals will ban the bible" might be "legitimate" as you suggest?

There is something wildly bizrre about Christians claiming persecution in a country that is close to 80% Christian. Usually those complaining are fundamentaists who are upset that they cannot force others to conform to their narrow views. Not unsimilar to Al Queda's viewpoint actually.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Bushs spankin new lie: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6093447/

Yeah, and when Bush was touting the reformed Iraqi police force earlier this year, Joe Biden said he had been to Iraq and saw that less than HALF of the "new" police even knew how to drive a car!

But Bush said it, I believe it, and that settles it. (I'm just waiting to see THAT surface)

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Scribbler,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why should Bush be different from just about any president in modern history? They ALL do whatever it takes to keep them in office.  Believing Bush is above all that is naive.[/b]

My statement was that a large inference was drawn from one fact, as opposed to using psychological studies or opinions to draw such a conclusion.  This is sufficient to dismiss the validity of that assertion.

Drawn from observation of past events, which don't exactly need to wait for "psychological studies". If you leave out memory and common sense your argument is indeed plausible.

I'd be hard-pressed?  You can pound into a mountain all damn day and it still won't move.  Neither will I.

That is your right, but don't expect to convince anyone of anything with what you have provided so far.

Secondly, don't ask me to assume disproven arguments are true.  Ted Kennedy wrote the education bill.  The government-administrated economy is normal in my unsubstantiated opinion.  If anyone gave a damn about jobs they'd turn off the fascist income tax for two months and watch the economy skyrocket.  Course, I would never expect anything the government administrates to succeed; especially an economy.

You are changing the subject, Kyran, and it won't wash. The point was that Bush SIGNED the bill, and not who wrote it or how good or bad the bill was. It was just a part of your "just blame Bush" rant.

I don't give two bits about our reputation among liberals abroad.

YOU said "liberals", no one else. If you don't care about our relationship with the rest of the world, that's your call. But there are others who realize we must inhabit the same planet as our neighbors. Your xenophobia does not make any sense.

Originally posted by Scribbler,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If true, ONE bomb is not proof of anything more than the POSSIBILITY of WMD's. Remember the "M" stands for MASS destruction and although we know one sarin bomb can take out a subway it is not enough to base invading a country on.[/b]

If?  A chemical weapon which is capable of killing thousands does not qualify as a WMD?  Says who?  Regardless of your watery positioning, the truckloads of WMDs that were moved by Saddam prior to the invasion are evidence.

In the sense of being a threat to US, which the war was based on, your interpretation of ONE shell with sarin gas is a WMD is a stretch. Deadly as it might be, you simply don't base an attack on another nation on one shell.

Your statement on the invasion is irrelevant.  Bush did not base the invasion upon one sarin bomb.

That's right. YOU are basing your argument on it.

Originally posted by Scribbler, Moved to where and where are they now? If we saw them being moved, it seems to me that since we were in Iraq already we should have grabbed them on the spot. At the very LEAST we should know where they WENT if we were interested enough to observe them LEAVING in the first place. Was Powell's report and the CNN broadcast two different things or did CNN report on the SAME report? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ahh, and now you realize military intelligence is still two words that can't make sense.  This was a blunder, in my opinion.  Perhaps our recon doesn't allow us to precisely track vehicles on the other side of the planet though.

You seem to put a lot of stock in the military when it suits you, though.

Originally posted by Scribbler, To the best of my knowledge, Saddam DID pay the families of the so-called "martyrs" ($5,000 I believe), but the suicide bombers were HAMAS and NOT Al Queda. Is that correct?

Yep.

But YOU said Al Queda.


<!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler,@
That's a lie and you know it. Show where one person said a bill EXPIRING was Bush's fault.[/quote]

My lead singer.  Therefore, I know it is on the tips of some tongues around here.

Your lead singer, huh? I stand corrected and humbly stand before you in shame. :)

But as for "around here" what is on the tips of people's tongues usually ends up on our screens, and I haven't seen that even once.

<!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler,
He had the AUTHORITY, and he USED it! Congress didn't declare war on anything. So now Bush isn't responsible for his own undisputed actions, as in HE went to war after Congress ALLOWED HIM TO! I thought you were above that idiotic, senseless partisan bullshit. Of COURSE Bush is responsible for going to war with IRAQ, tell me who else would be?[/quote]

Oh he did eh?  What part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to authorize the Executive branch, or any other persons, to Decide to commit the United States of America into war, an act of war, or "military action?"

There is a difference between what IS and what SHOULD BE. But the POTUS CAN go to war for 90 days (or 60) without Congressional approval, but after that time he must get authorization to continue any military action. The Congress did an end run around the constitution IMO to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing in case the war went badly. A cowardly act at the VERY least.

Again, I asserted an argument against the notion that Bush is solely responsible for the war in Iraq.  Congress has the power, and Congress is solely responsible for this war.

(one liner coming...) You are absolutely and completely WRONG!

Congress can tell Bush to bomb Moscow tomorrow.

And like your Mother probably said, "If Johnny told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" Congress can't TELL the president to do any such thing and ONLY the president can declare war.

Your usage of capital letters shows your aggravation at this point.  I suggest taking a breather and remember that I am not arguing to be an asshole.  I am just telling you what my take is on the whole situation from top to bottom.  We are two different people and there's no reason why any of our beliefs, opinions, or ideas should match in the first place.

I don't use caps to illustrate anger or aggravation so much as I use them to actually replace italics for emphasis. Like "where WERE you? You should have been here an HOUR ago!" Or more appropriately, like my line after the words "would you do it" above. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

As for our beliefs, etc. matching. If they DID, this would be one sorry-ass forum, wouldn't it?

[Kyran]

Wow, lots of arguments.

Next time, please take my advice and just form ONE argument together. There's only one of me, and because there are so many arguments, I have to make a 20 page post just to answer it all. I am not holding back anything this time, so make sure to read it all before starting a response.

Originally posted by Sonart,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sonart,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It is if you tell the American people...that another country is on the verge of attacking us[/b]

Bush did not say that Iraq was an imminent threat. The point of pre-empitive striking was to attack before it was. Your conditional statement never happened.

My point of mentioning the sarin there was because the argument had been made previously in other threads that the compound was old and useless despite evidence that it was completely active and capable of killing thousands of people (if properly fired.)

Part of my argument style is to reduce the playing field in which my opponent positions himself through refutation.

Originally posted by Sonart,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sonart,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They misled us into believing Iraq had large stockpiles of B/C weapons and ongoing programs to create more. They misled us into believing that they had an active nuclear program and were only years, if not months, from having a nuclear bomb. They misled us into believing Iraq had close ties to al-Qaeda.[/b]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/03/powell.iraq/
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200408...11235-4438r.htm
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include...&storyid=670120
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include...&storyid=670123

Circumstantial evidence:
--Saddam threatened to kill his own scientists if they divulged info to the UN.
--Trucks were moved across the Iraqi border to Syria before the US-led war.
--Powell has audio from intel of Iraqi guards discussing the hiding of weapons.
--Inspection-tampering by Saddam occurred prior to our invasion.

Insight Mag is sponsored by The Liberty Committee -- Ron Paul's group.

Originally posted by Sonart, Yet a month after The Standard article, the 9/11 Commission reported NO connection between the two (Iraq & Al-Qaeda.)

Why is the 9/11 Commission looking for a connection between a terrorist organization and a foreign country? Isn't that the job of our intelligence agencies? The 9/11 Commission actually reported that there is no evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda's attack on 9/11.

See, you have the story confused. You are taking it out of context and getting the wrong picture of what is being said.

It's fine to ask why we're not attacking Iran or Syria, but I don't have those answers. My opinion is that these events are being played like a charade on purpose, so that years from now terrorists can dig up the WMDs and attack again; rallying people to vote for the war party and increasing our hold on the middle east. This, of course, is highly speculative...but it fits neatly into the scenario.

Techno, I stopped believing Bush was honest when he got a black eye from a pretzel. Try to disprove my points objectively instead of exclaiming how shocked or surprised you are about my opinions. Your assertion that Powell was "just bluffing" is hard to swallow. Can you substantiate your claim that this was only a factory?

What could Saddam gain by hiding his weapons? Simple. It's just like when someone hides their pot from a cop. They get rid of the evidence so that their friends and family believe they don't have any of the stuff. Why is this not reality?

Can you account for the stockpiles of WMDs that we have record of Saddam having? Then why do you insist on suggesting that they weren't in Saddam's possession prior to our invasion? They gotta be somewhere. Matter does not have an innate tendency to cease to exist. See, if you're going to attack my position, you have to come up with a better one. You can try to argue that he sold them, lost them, dumped them into garbage, and attempt to substantiate facts suggesting that your position is more likely true than mine.

Nono, you seem like you're having fun there talking trash about the character of your political opponents. I'm going to moderate you later.

Daniel, so you have no objection to my assertion that Ted Kennedy (Democrat) wrote the education bill? NeoCon plan to shift...now wait a minute...the rich already own 98% of the wealth...what're they going to take from you and me? Our shoes?

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, So you are saying; American Diplomats should be on trial along side Saddam Hussein, as accomplices in assaults which used WMDs that WE provided him? Donald Rumsfeld would look good in leg irons.

Straw man. I didn't say that, but come to think of it...I don't think very highly of our nation selling WMDs to third world dictators. We'll have to get into this topic on the side somewhere. Start a thread.

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, No, Bush policy has played with words to bypass Geneva Convention and Universal Human Rights.

So I can go to Canada, bomb a subway, and the Geneva Convention will protect me even though I'm not a U.S. Soldier? The Geneva Convention does not cover persons who are not in the direct service of a nation. This raises an issue. Should government have a blank check to use military against civilian enemies?

Ohhh...scary situation. Let me give you one in return. You're stationed in Felujah and your friend disappears. Weeks later he appears on the evening news having his head chopped off. Your countrymen assume you are a nazi and there's nothing you can do about it.

Originally posted by Sonart, No, because it (the sarin bomb) couldn't have killed thousands. See, the reason the thing was discovered was because...

You might as well be saying Michael Jackson's hands couldn't have molested dozens of children. Your argument does not prove that the chemical mixture within the sarin WMD was anything other than a harmful agent.

Originally posted by Sonart, Y'know, I've never quite figured it out. Bill Clinton RAISES taxes...we experience the longest and strongest economic boom in our history, all while turning a record deficit into a record surplus.

What happens when you reduce the supply of currency? The value increases.

Define how you end up with 100s hoopla when I loan you 10 hooplas and I have full control over how many hooplas exist. Better check your position again. I do not share your assumption that the deficit was ever reduced to a surplus. I will accept nothing less than actual financial records from the Federal Reserve substantiating your claim.

Originally posted by Sonart, Would that Boy George and the NeoCons had understood...we might not be up to our eyeballs in an Iraqi quagmire we can't win and can't get out of, with Afghanistan slowly falling back into the hands of the Taliban, world terrorism increasing, Osama bin Laden laughing at us, the rest of the world pissed at us and don't trust us a lick, and a 1,000 brave Americans dead and thousands more maimed and shattered.

1. Define "win" in your quagmire scenario.
2. Substantiate your claim that Afghanistan is coming back under the control of the Taliban.
3. Substantiate your claim that terrorism is increasing.

Originally posted by Sonart, You mean the 'Scapegoat Seven'??

Names please?

Daniel, in response to your article...while it is relevant if you want to prove Bush distorted those facts or deceived the public with them, I have not positioned myself on the "Bush always tells the truth" card.

Btw, thanks for shedding light on that. I believe every insurgent would want to thank you for informing them that their odds aren't as bad as Bush has made them out to be; those guys must feel a lot better.

Scribbler, you get brownie points for calling to attention the fact that half of them can't drive. Do you think we should make public the sleeping hours and exact locations of our soldiers who are occupying Iraqi cities?

Originally posted by RickSp, I have to shake my head. Kyran, do you really belive that the "liberals" will literally ban the bible?

I anticipate a more gradual slide down that slippery slope. First free speech would have to be compromised so that anyone who is offended by the Bible can sue or jail said christian. Secondly, the society would have to be highly intolerant of literary works and give the government authority to illegalize publications. We believers have common knowledge that this has happened before in history multiple times, even in Canada recently; it can happen again.

Ever read Fahrenheit 451?

Persons who I believe are liberalesque have shown willingness to censor free speech on the radio, television, in churches (where free speech costs money), and even directly to silence political opposition: Fairness Doctrine, McCain-Feingold, Tax-Exempt Status, etc.

I did say we are persecuted here in the states. I never said it was as bad over here as abroad. You would jail me if I barged into your church and pulled a Jesus; interrupting the rituals or preaching my own gospel from its steps.

I explained my points and all you can say is "that's bizarre...that's crazy...I have to shake my head?" I think it's bizarre for liberals to cry Dictator in a country that's 60% liberal.

Now on to Scribbler...

Originally posted by Scribbler, Drawn from observation of past events, which don't exactly need to wait for "psychological studies". If you leave out memory and common sense your argument is indeed plausible.

Really? So draw from observation of Saddam's past behavior, which doesn't need to wait for "studies". If you leave out memory and common sense then you can argue that he didn't have WMDs or want to use them against us?

Nice move though. It's been quite a while since I saw anyone take a complete bogus assumption and place it on such a high pedestal as "common sense." So I thought I'd use the same tactic and see whether you catch on to it's absurdity.

Originally posted by Scribbler, ...don't expect to convince anyone of anything with what you have provided so far.

Is this a dare? I have an inkjet printer.

Originally posted by Scribbler, You are changing the subject, Kyran, and it won't wash. The point was that Bush SIGNED the bill, and not who wrote it or how good or bad the bill was. It was just a part of your "just blame Bush" rant.

No I'm not changing the subject. The point I made was that the left isn't blaming Ted for writing the bill. The left got it past an opposition president, and yet blame that president for what their own bill did that they wrote themselves. Substantially, the complaint about the state of education is nothing more than emotion; it's not about the issues...it's about the people. My opinion of NCLB is negative and it goes both ways, regardless of party or person.

I just wanted to draw that out very clear. Are we at an understanding?

Originally posted by Scribbler, If you don't care about our relationship with the rest of the world, that's your call. But there are others who realize we must inhabit the same planet as our neighbors. Your xenophobia does not make any sense.

I know you aren't being explicit, but read what you just said. Mars may be terraformed someday. Guess what I'd do?

I do not see a need to conform my behavior to the desires of my neighbors. I do sometimes, but I don't like it. From changing my speech to changing my perspective to avoid offending others, it's a lot of brainwork. I'd rather be myself. That's why I like posting on this forum. I don't like being peer pressured by people who want to create social programs funded by the taxpayer; who is forced to pay or serve time. I don't care for the respect of these persons, because to obtain that I must be willing to step on another human being. No.

Btw I'm not afraid of liberals, or people. I believe it's the other way around, and nice insult too. Erase it.

Originally posted by Scribbler, In the sense of being a threat to US, which the war was based on, your interpretation of ONE shell with sarin gas is a WMD is a stretch. Deadly as it might be, you simply don't base an attack on another nation on one shell.

"it's a stretch." No, the interpretation of a sarin WMD as an "old, rusty, useless, harmless war relic that we don't know belonged to Saddam" is a stretch. All I said was that the chemical weapon is a WMD. It's intended to brutally kill people in a way that (IMHO) no one in power should ever conceive of using.

I never based the reason to attack on the sarin shell, neither did Bush. Your assertion was refuted once before, maybe even in this post.

Originally posted by Scribbler, That's right. YOU are basing your argument on it (reason to attack Iraq being one sarin bomb.)

Straw man. No I am not.

Originally posted by Scribbler, You seem to put a lot of stock in the military when it suits you, though.

I seem to be biased in examining information? While that's true sometimes, I try to make sure to listen to other viewpoints to see if there's anything more rational out there. You're paying too much attention to my character. I put my 'stock' in God, Cato, The Liberty Committee, the ACU, and not really anyone else including myself.

Originally posted by Scribbler, But YOU said Al Queda.

No I did not.

Originally posted by Kyran, Complete and utter assumption ignoring 1) the fact that Saddam has paid the families of suicide bombers in the past who martyred themselves in the attack of Israel and

Originally posted by Scribbler, To the best of my knowledge, Saddam DID pay the families of the so-called "martyr