Good debate

[Floyd10]

*lights up*

[TA Pilot]

DougHillman
On a completely off-topic aside, TA, what year is yours?

1979, Nocturn (dark blue).  T-Tops, 66,000 miles.
 I warmed up the 403 w/ cam, heads, intake, headers.  THM 350 auto, 3.08 rear gears.  She'll run mid 13s and will pull hard all the way to redline (~135mph).  Since I did the work myself, I carry a fire extingusher  

In college I had an '81 w/ a 301 turbo - when my dad sold it out from under me I swore I'd have another; my wife bought me the '79 for our 10th anniversary.



 

[DrewKaree]

The very same information that Bush and Co. completely ignored in the rush to war with Iraq. The information coming from the inspectors on the ground in Iraq Re: lack of WMD, the information provided by various experts regarding the disasters that we are now forced to deal with on a daily basis in Iraq (Some of that information coming from Bush I, and Cheney themselves).

So you mean Bush should have heeded the information he ignored...and by "Bush and Co"....is the "Co" short for "Congress", or "Senate Intelligence Committee" or "John Kerry"...you mean the information THEY ALL HAD?

How do you swallow, what with all the crap you're full of?

Various experts...you mean the intelligence services of countless, DID I SAY COUNTLESS?, yes, countless OTHER COUNTRIES WHO BELIEVED AND STATED THAT SADAAM HAD WMD'S.  Maybe shouting it will get through to you, but I doubt it.  This "info" and "experts" you seek....Kerry had the same stuff to go on, but somehow you believe that NOW he'll pay attention.  I suppose hindsight, in your book, is the way to go about getting things done.  

The information coming from the inspectors!  Beautiful.  You mean the inspectors that were all but led around Iraq on a leash by Sadaam?  What's next, you personally know the third gunman on the grassy knoll?

"regarding the disasters that we are now forced to deal with on a daily basis"  So the beheadings were foretold?  Pray tell, when did Nostradamus write of these things?  Or perhaps you're referring to another "disaster"?  WAIT, I'VE GOT IT!  You're referring to them guarding the Oil stations!  Ya know, guarding them from BEING LIT ON FIRE TAKING RESOURCES AWAY FROM FIGHTING TERRORISTS!....or is that just another crock of shite Kerry threw out there to deflect the spotlight away from his "I'm for it, just not right now" stance?

And now you're willing to quote Drudge  I'm fairly sure it wasn't you pooh-pooh-ing Drudge and the like, but I'm gonna hold my breath until those who said such things to now step forward and chastise YOU for quoting HIM as your source  

Please take a laptop to show your fellow Kerry campaign volunteers our discussions.  In Wisconsin, there are investigations underway of voter registration fraud, due to missing I.D.'s, incorrectly filled out forms, fraudulent signatures, the same misspelled street name on DOZENS of registrations of folks who supposedly live on that street...perhaps if they see my words, they'll have a change of heart, or perhaps my words will raise doubts in their minds about the legality of what they're doing.  

If you're doing this because you're a conservative, and you feel you HAVE TO in order to combat "the other side's efforts", you should be ashamed of yourself.  We'll elect Bush fairly, just like he was last time (WHOA, MrC...that blood pressure spike is gonna give you a headache there! ), and when you're found out, it'll just make folks like MrC more positive than ever that he's doing the right thing.  KNOCK IT OFF!

[TA Pilot]

That site shows how the Bush campaign has misquoted Kerry regarding his stand on Iraq.  It shows that, as Kerry has always said, his position has NOT changed.

I'm not going to say that everything the Bush campaign has put out is 100% on the level, but -clearly- Kerry has, at the very least, tried to take both sides of the issue - he did it during the debate, at least twice.

When the RNC can put togetther a video of Kerry debating himslf on Iraq, there's at leaset SOME substance to the claim.

 
If these terrorists group want to hurt me or my family, they'll find a way to do it.  There's nothing we as a Nation can do to *stop* terrorism.  These groups are generations deep in the stuff.  It's like the Nazi wann-be's and the KKK.  Too blinded by hate to see reason.

Yes.  They are too blind to see reason.
And so you treat them like a rabid racoon.  Huint them, chase them, corner the, kill them.  You -have- to take the fight to them, as no war has ever been won w/o the winner acting offensively.

How do you stop them from wanting to BE terrorists?  Two ways:
-Convince them that doing so will only lead to their deaths w/o any benefit from same
-Provide them with an alternative - that is, see that they have hope.  The democratization of the ME will go a long wat to doing this.



You included an interesting phrase in your qoute "...if they had the chance".  In general, do you feel people should be held accountable for actions they may do "if they had the chance" or for actions they have done?

When you go after a terrorist group, you're going after people that WILL do something, if they havent already.  I have no problem whatsoever with taking out a terrorist cell or group or whatever before they actually attack us.  None.  Pre-emption against terrorists that could level a city is a necessity - and to hell with a 'global test'.

[DrewKaree]

*lights up*

Hey Floyd, where'd you say you lived?  Now that I've got a pic of you to pass around to all the local authorities, I'd like one of 'em to stop by and "check on you"....make sure you're all right  

'Course, "all right" is kinda subjective....I'll ask 'em to make sure your eyes ain't all bloodshot and you don't smell like a patchouli factory  

[TA Pilot]

It seems like the same thing could be accomplished with four snipers.
Then they wouldn't have to deal with a huge controversial war.

Killing Saddam doesnt change thee regime.  It just puts one of his sons in charge.

[TA Pilot]

If you think podium pounding and chest puffing will lead us on a path to victory, and you're comfortable with a false sense of security for you and your loved ones, while our perceived imperialistic policies increase the ranks of fundamentalist groups around the globe...then vote Bush.

This is amusing.
Tell me what Kerry is going to do differently that Bush in the war on terror.



Right. *Kerry* has problems. Somehow I'm not suprised you wouldn't take issue with a weak little chickenhawk who'd send our troops to die and not have the courage to face the nation with dignity.

You forgot to call Bush and "idiot", and make metion that the war is all about profits for Haliburton.  You need to check your DNC talking points more often.

[DrewKaree]

If you think podium pounding and chest puffing will lead us on a path to victory, and you're comfortable with a false sense of security for you and your loved ones, while our perceived imperialistic policies increase the ranks of fundamentalist groups around the globe...then vote Bush.

This is amusing.
Tell me what Kerry is going to do differently that Bush in the war on terror.

Hellooooo?  Didn't you hear?  He won't go to war unless France, Germany, or Russia will also play...well, mainly just France.  Oh, and he'll ask the terrorists nicely if they'll stop flying planes into our building, pertty please....and if not, he'll ask them again, in sterner language (i.e. dropping the "pretty please").  Then, if they STILL won't give up, he'll ask everyone on each side to form a line and join hands, and whoever wins the World Red Rover^tm comptetition will give up to the other side.    

[TA Pilot]

Well, simple. The very same information that Bush and Co. completely ignored in the rush to war with Iraq.

The war came after 12 years and 17 UNSC resolution, at least three of which stating that Saddam had one final chance.  Thats a "rush to war"?



The information coming from the inspectors on the ground in Iraq Re: lack of WMD

"Iraq has not made the fundamental decision to disarm"
-Hans Blix, 26 FEB 2003.

Given that 1441 put inspectors on the ground in order to detemine of Iraq had complied w/ 1441, et al - what more to you need than the above statement to show that Iraq was not in compliance?


the information provided by various experts regarding the disasters that we are now forced to deal with on a daily basis in Iraq (Some of that information coming from Bush I, and Cheney themselves).

Huh?



Kerry promises to heed these things FIRST and foremost when making decisions of such importance.

Oh, he "promises".

You'll note that Kerry himself argued about the importance of action against Iraq - pre-emptive action w/o UN support if necessary.

The ONLY argument he has here is that he (and his supporters) do not believe that action WAS necessary when it was taken - that it could have waited.

Given that Blix himself said that Iraq had not even made the basic decision to disarm - why wait?



Bush has already proven he feels above such petty things. He wanted the war, not the information saying it was a terribly disasterous idea. He failed. He's fired.

Theres those DNC talkin gpoints again.

[TA Pilot]

Hellooooo?  Didn't you hear?  He won't go to war unless France, Germany, or Russia will also play...well, mainly just France.  

Given his line about a "global test", you can't really reach any other conclusion, eh?

[DrewKaree]

hey, ya know what we need?  We need shmokes here!  Mebbe I offended him with that "wanna be the Hulk" comment about not being ALL green, just his face.  Shmokes, c'mon buddy!  You, at least, I can stomach reading. _sometimes  

[DrewKaree]

Given his line about a "global test", you can't really reach any other conclusion, eh?

Ya, I'm just wondering which "globe" he's using, because there are an awful lot of countries on his "globe" missing.  

My other question regarding that, what if, in administering this 'global test"....what if some countries fail?  You know, like Oil for Food and selling Sadaam weapons?  Or does Kerry not view those as "failing the global test"?  Seems pretty clear-cut to me that those countries have a decidedly biased interest in us NOT going to....wait, isn't that what happened?  

[TA Pilot]

So you mean Bush should have heeded the information he ignored...and by "Bush and Co"....is the "Co" short for "Congress", or "Senate Intelligence Committee" or "John Kerry"...you mean the information THEY ALL HAD?

Well, Kerry may have an alabi-
He did miss quite a large number of SIC briefings.

But, liike Bush said:
Kerry didnt mislead anyone.  He made the exact same argument Bush did.

The only difference:
After the fact and once he decided to run for President, Kerry didnt think the point of 'necessity' had been reached - but neither he not anyone else can point out any pre-war reason to think direct military action wasnt needed.

One has to wonder what Kerry (and the other leftists, so happily deriding Bush) thought of Clinton's actions in December 1998, when he made war on Iraq for ~4 days after making the -exact same- argument Bush made in 2002/2003.



How do you swallow, what with all the crap you're full of?

Lots of practice?  



The information coming from the inspectors!

Yeah.  The guys who, in 1998, had a long list of Iraqi WMDs and related materials that were not destoyed or accounted for -and were also not accounted for in the december 2003 declaration.

Where -did- those materials go?

[DrewKaree]

Oh, and has anyone else noticed the interesting trend in presidential elections?
The taller cannidate has always won. (really)

Was Bush really taller than Gore?!  Of course, that was a few years ago, but it never occurred to me to look at that.

Anyway, that WOULD explain why the Supreme Court threw the election for Bush.....yer hona, clealy da defendant is da talla of da two men...I rest my case.

Or, lemme guess MrC, Gore was the taller one, they just never said what they determined "won" to be....or else winning means actually winning, BEFORE he lost.  I anxiously await your reply to THIS theory of why Bush won...just to see the convolutions you'll go through to tell us all Bush really didn't win.

Why isn't Gore debating Kerry?  Oh yeah, HE LOST!.  

[TA Pilot]

just to see the convolutions you'll go through to tell us all Bush really didn't win.

If Bush didnt win the election on 2000, and was, indeed, appointed by the USSC, does that mean he can run for term #3 in 2008?


Note that Kerry might argue that he's taller than Bush, but will likely change his mind.

[DrewKaree]

Note that Kerry might argue that he's taller than Bush, but will likely change his mind.

Clearly, he was shorter...BEFORE he was taller!  Waddaya know, a position in which a Kerry flop is actually easy to understand!

[Floyd10]

lolol. both suck. Just accept the fact.

[GGKoul]

lolol. both suck. Just accept the fact.

Dude, your too young to vote.

[Crazy Cooter]

TA, if you were president would anyone be alive?

The crap with Halliburton and KBR is well documented.  It's been around for a few years.  They've got their fingers all over the place from Oil to Generals conference rooms to Toilets for the troops.  And then there's the Pentagon audit findings that they overcharged the government hundreds of millions of dollars...

During the 12 years prior to Bush ordering in the troops, what was the consensus of our Government?  They thought it wasn't a good idea.  They couldn't find a way to get back out.  Then Bush came in and said "go".  That WAS a rush to war.  Did he have an exit strategy?  No.  Did the people who had been analyzing it for the past 12+ years say it was a good idea?  No.

Why wait?  See above.  No plan man.  No friends.  nobody has "our back".

And anyone can put together a video editing it to say whatever they want it to.  Have you seen those GI Joe vids floating around the net?

Your shoot first ask later attitude can't work in todays world.  People & Nations get held responsible for their actions.  Do you really expect us to create a baby US in Iraq?  And then that the baby will spread across the Middle East and terrorism will be over while Bush is held on our shoulders?  Yeah right.  That whole area has always been a meat grinder and always will be.  Saddam is out, time to concentrate on terrorism (which we should have been doing all along) and Nations that actually pose a threat.

Why did Bush want to go into Iraq (a possible threat) but wants to talk with North Korea (a definate threat)?
Can I start waving my flip flops?

[DrewKaree]

lolol. both suck. Just accept the fact.

Dude, your too young to vote.

Hey there, hi there, ho there!  Ahem....Dude, you're too CANADIAN to vote!  

What difference does it make if he's too young to vote?!  Are you inferring that since he's too young to vote that he should keep out of it?  I don't see any other reason for you to post what you did, and I'm someone who disagrees with James and his politcal views.  

If YOU can post to these threads re: American politics, you CERTAINLY have nothing to say concerning anyone ELSE posting to these threads, other than to disagree with their points.  

I'm surprised you could read his posts, what with that plank in your eye  

[DrewKaree]

The crap with Halliburton and KBR is well documented.  It's been around for a few years.

how many years?  It seems to me the big bad companies were around and getting contracts in the Clinton administration too....where was your wailing and putting on of sackcloth then?  Please, again, since this is so well documented, show it.  For Savuul's sake, back up your charges, man!

Then Bush came in and said "go".  That WAS a rush to war.  Did he have an exit strategy?  No.  Did the people who had been analyzing it for the past 12+ years say it was a good idea?  No.

so Clinton left, and Bush clapped his hands and said "WHEEEE!" and "pressed the button"  Exit strategy....I think MrC would charge me with "conservative talking points", so I charge you with spewing "liberal talking points".  What was our exit strategy in the World Wars?  What was our exit strategy if the Cuban Missile Crisis went differently?  What was the exit strategy of every war ever gone into?  You guys are NUTS!  You don't go into war and think "now how are we going to get out".  It's WAR!  Things may not turn out how you like it.  For example, you may be losing like crazy, when you thought you would have no problem winning.  Or you may so swiftly defeat your enemy it changes your strategy for what has to be done.  Exit strategy....why not also have a strategy for how to raise the white flag when liberals want us to give up?

No friends.  nobody has "our back".

you must be right.  It'll please Britain to know you think so little of their country, and the deaths of their people....ya know, it isn't even worth continuing the debate about us going in "with no support".  It's clear we had the support of a number of countries, liberals continuing to degrade their efforts serve to prove they don't care about it, they only believe we should never go to war, EVER.  Oh, unless Clinton wants to run our troops all over the globe, HE had the best "intentions", so that makes it ok.  

And anyone can put together a video editing it to say whatever they want it to.

I'm sure if you ask MrC, he can find you a few

Your shoot first ask later attitude can't work in todays world.

how about an "ask for 12+ years before finally acting decisively" attitude?  Still not enough time?  Again and again....HOW MUCH TIME IS ENOUGH?  WHAT would it have taken for you guys to say "yes, NOW'S the time to go to war"?  

That whole area has always been a meat grinder and always will be.  Saddam is out, time to concentrate on terrorism (which we should have been doing all along) and Nations that actually pose a threat.

Like Haiti?  Your faith in humanity is underwhelming.  If that whole area is a "meat grinder", then who's lying?  You, or Moore?  In his movie, I saw a few minutes or so of "heaven on earth" in Iraq.  Wait, lemme guess, it WAS a good place BEFORE it was bad!

Why did Bush want to go into Iraq (a possible threat) but wants to talk with North Korea (a definate threat)?

How about:  Why did Kerry want us to gather this "unilateral support" for Iraq but now wants to act bilaterally with North Korea?  Now we've got 5-6 nations working with us on N. Korea, but we should "go it alone".  I can't even say that's a flip flop....he's working on talking out of all orifices, and he's finally found a way to make the nether regions articulate!

[TA Pilot]

TA, if you were president would anyone be alive?

Yes.  But not for long, should they screw with us.



The crap with Halliburton and KBR is well documented.  It's been around for a few years.

What "crap"?  If its been "well documented", you should be able to specify a few things.

Do you know what Haliburton does?  Specifically?
Or is it just a boogeyman you keep hearing about and fear because you dont understand it?

 

During the 12 years prior to Bush ordering in the troops, what was the consensus of our Government?  They thought it wasn't a good idea.  

Wow.  THATS a stretch.
Do you know when "regime change" in Iraq because official US policy?   It wasnt 2001...



That WAS a rush to war.  

12 years is a "rush".  Right.



Did he have an exit strategy?  No.  Did the people who had been analyzing it for the past 12+ years say it was a good idea?  No.

Did they provide an effective alternative?  No.
What do you do after 12 years of ineffectual policy?  Change it.



Why wait?  See above.  No plan man.  No friends.  nobody has "our back".

"No friends"?
The UK, Australia, and Poland arent our friends?
The other 17 NATO member states arent our friends?
How about the other 20 non- NATO countires currently involved?  Japan?  S. Korea?  The Kiwis?  They arent our friends?

Who has our "back"?  See above.

And please do tell me:   if they dont have our back, who would?



And anyone can put together a video editing it to say whatever they want it to.

That  doesnt make the Kerry video in any way less true or effective.



Your shoot first ask later attitude can't work in todays world.

12 years and 17 reolutions isnt "shooting first".



People & Nations get held responsible for their actions.

Except, apparently, Saddam and Iraq.   If you had your way, anyway.

And when Saddam did give or sell a WMD to the terrorists and they did use them on NYC - you'd blame Bush for doing nothing when he had the chance.



Why did Bush want to go into Iraq (a possible threat) but wants to talk with North Korea (a definate threat)?
Can I start waving my flip flops?

You're arguing that because we invaded one country thats a threat, we have to invade them all.  Faulty logic.

But then, I expect that from people that start their argument with "i hate Bush (R)" and work backwards.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Fundamental question for Drew and TA:

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Thank you. End of story.

And when Saddam did give or sell a WMD to the terrorists and they did use them on NYC - you'd blame Bush for doing nothing when he had the chance.

Man you are THICK boy. HE.DID.NOT.HAVE.THEM.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

DID I SAY COUNTLESS?, yes, countless OTHER COUNTRIES WHO BELIEVED AND STATED THAT SADAAM HAD WMD'S

Awww, here we see the Freeper mentality in full effect. How cute. Somehow everyone else is at fault for believing FALSE INFORMATION disseminated by the United States of America. It's THEIR fault the Bush administration lied. It's their fault they had faith in the greatest super power on the planet. It's their fault they'd be so foolish as to trust our president.

We'll as they say in Texas (and probably Tennessee), fool me once........you can't get fooled again!

DrewKaree: Lowering the bar for the U.S.!!!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Bush has already proven he feels above such petty things. He wanted the war, not the information saying it was a terribly disasterous idea. He failed. He's fired.

Theres those DNC talkin gpoints again.

Talking Points? It happens to be the truth.

"NY Times Says Cheney and Rice Knowingly Misled Us About Iraq's Nuclear Capability" (NYTIMES - October 3, 2004
)

"Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, The Times found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of their own experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public."

mrC

[TA Pilot]

Fundamental questions for MrC:

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction and related items that UNSCOM said he had in 1998?

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction and related items that UNSCOM said were unaccounted for in 1998?

Thank you. End of story.


Man you are THICK boy. HE.DID.NOT.HAVE.THEM

The only way you can say that is if you can answer the questions, above.

[TA Pilot]

It's THEIR fault the Bush administration lied

Note that if the Bush administration lied about Iraq WMDs, then so too did Kerry.

Bush said that he doesnt think Kerry misled the people about WMDs.  Is Bush worng?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

TA, if you were president would anyone be alive?

Yes.  But not for long, should they screw with us.

Brave words commando! Too bad Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11, nor were they stockpiling WMD. Otherwise you've got a real good argument there.

The crap with Halliburton and KBR is well documented.  It's been around for a few years.
What "crap"?  If its been "well documented", you should be able to specify a few things.

Three words. No bid contracts.

 

During the 12 years prior to Bush ordering in the troops, what was the consensus of our Government?  They thought it wasn't a good idea.  

Wow.  THATS a stretch.
Do you know when "regime change" in Iraq because official US policy?   It wasnt 2001...

Regime change through ground warfare? Or some other means. Because current members of the Bush clan were dead set against marching our men and women into what they understood would be a quagmire. Cheney, Bush Senior...

Also don't use the tired "chicken-little" defense that "9-11 changed everything". Saddam had nothing to do with it and he was not a threat. 12 years of sanctions and no-fly zones had worked in containing him. Show me proof that it hadn't? (Current terrorist now flooding into Iraq don't count...duh!)

That WAS a rush to war.  

12 years is a "rush".  Right.

George Bush rushed to war with Iraq after 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq and it had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. It does now that we've opened the country up to various fundamentalist movements. Prior to Bush's War, Iraq was a secular nation.

And please do tell me:   if they dont have our back, who would?

Good question now that Bush has completely alienated our country from the rest of the world. Again you seem to be comfortable blaming this on the rest of the world, when the Bush is squarely at fault for invading Iraq. It's somehome their fault for not immediately running to our aid? France, Germany, Russia, etc...very well may NEVER come to help us in Iraq. I can say with the utmost certainty that they will NOT assist under Bush (Who wants all the pie). There is a slight chance under Kerry (whose more apt to use reason and negotiate, something you chickenhaws seem to think is a bad trait). To me, it's better than nothing.

And anyone can put together a video editing it to say whatever they want it to.

That  doesnt make the Kerry video in any way less true or effective.

But is also doesn't make your argument any more valid.

Your shoot first ask later attitude can't work in todays world.

12 years and 17 reolutions isnt "shooting first".

Sanctions apparently worked. Inspectors were gaining ground. Prove otherwise.

And when Saddam did give or sell a WMD to the terrorists and they did use them on NYC - you'd blame Bush for doing nothing when he had the chance.

See my response down-thread to this utterly retarded argument.

You're arguing that because we invaded one country thats a threat, we have to invade them all.  Faulty logic.

Faulty logic? You're basing your entire argument on the premise that Iraq was a threat. They clearly were not.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Fundamental questions for MrC:

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction and related items that UNSCOM said he had in 1998?

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction and related items that UNSCOM said were unaccounted for in 1998?

Thank you. End of story.


Man you are THICK boy. HE.DID.NOT.HAVE.THEM

The only way you can say that is if you can answer the questions, above.

You mean THIS UNSCOM, the one that the prior head, Scott Ritter, basically calls a sham?  Give me a break. Is that the best you've got?

"Ritter maintains UNSCOM lost focus of its international U.N. mandate in favor of unilateral U.S. aims in the spring of 1998.

The change "went from total UNSCOM control over everything but data processing to no UNSCOM control over anything. The United States was controlling every aspect," Ritter told CNN.

...

In a recent interview, Ritter (prior head of UNSCOM) dismissed talk of an intelligence failure, because, in his view, the Bush administration and CIA knew all along that the Iraqis had no WMDs and were "lying to the Congress and the American people."

Ritter dismissed CIA defenders who say the agency's reports bristled with caveats.

"They lie by caveating. You can write an intelligence report in a manner which protects you (from critics later) because you put in the appropriate caveats," Ritter said. "It's a wink and a nod."

[Crazy Cooter]

Haha, I'm quite aware of Halliburton and one of it's subsidiary companies KBR.  Are you?  I've worked with international construction firms for several years (Mostly based in the Far East but doing projects in the US).  Here's information directly from their site: "...Halliburton, an oil services company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney. In 2001, the company won a multibillion-dollar contract to supply all the logistical needs of the U.S. military in Iraq. ... Halliburton delivers soldiers' mail and washes their clothes. It provides them with food, toilets and bunks. It ships fuel for tanks and builds conference rooms for generals. ... Halliburton has come under attack because of its links to Cheney and Pentagon audit findings that it has overcharged the government hundreds of millions of dollars. ... Halliburton Co. took a major step toward completing a $4 billion settlement of its asbestos-liability problem as a company unit filed for federal bankruptcy-law protection. ...
Go to their own site for starters.  This "boogeyman" is real.

"During the 12 years prior to Bush ordering in the troops, what was the consensus of our Government?  They thought it wasn't a good idea.  

Wow.  THATS a stretch."

How is that a stretch?  There's a lot of countries that we'd like to see a regime change.  It's just not a good idea to jump in with guns blazing.  There's more to world politics than force.

"12 years is a "rush".  Right."
You seem to think there was 12 years of planing an invasion.  Hello?  Is this thing on?

"The UK, Australia, and Poland arent our friends?
The other 17 NATO member states arent our friends?
How about the other 20 non- NATO countires currently involved?  Japan?  S. Korea?  The Kiwis?  They arent our friends?"

Quantify what these countries have put into Iraq in both troops and money.  Compare that to what we put in.  Get the message?  Didn't S. Korea pull all 6 delegates out when they had somebody kidnapped?  That's what I mean by "having our back".  Some "coalition".  If anyone has a current link as to who's putting in what, I'd love to see it.  Here's a link showing casualties and wounded: http://icasualties.org/oif/  Add up the casualties for ALL others and compare it to US forces.  
United States  -  1060 killed
ALL OTHERS    -   138 killed
Notice anything?  If there are 17 other NATO members and 20 non-Nato members, and we are all equally involve as a true coalition... yeah right.  You show 38 countries involved and one country has 88.5% of the mortalities.  This is not and never was a true coalition.

"And anyone can put together a video editing it to say whatever they want it to.
That  doesnt make the Kerry video in any way less true or effective.
"
Haha.  Here's clips from your last post:
"The other 17 NATO member states arent our friends...How about the other 20 non- NATO countires currently involved?...they dont have our back..."
Is that what you meant to say?  Is it true?  Is it effective?  Twisted words man, twisted words.

"And when Saddam did give or sell a WMD to the terrorists and they did use them on NYC - you'd blame Bush for doing nothing when he had the chance."
So you think it's lucky we found all those WMD that Saddam had?  Oh wait...

"You're arguing that because we invaded one country thats a threat, we have to invade them all."
That's not my agruement at all.  My arguement is why send forces into Iraq when other countries are a bigger risk to our security?  You're the one that just said you'd whack anyone who screwed with us.  Who would you whack first, the guy with the possibility of having disassembled parts and an attitude or the guy with the parts assembled and an attitude?

"yes, NOW'S the time to go to war"
Do you hear anyone complaining about going after Osama?  No.  And I've personally been saying for a long time we should stand up to N. Korea.

"Why did Kerry want us to gather this "unilateral support" for Iraq but now wants to act bilaterally with North Korea?"
Unilateral Military Action
Bilateral Talks
Two very different animals.  Kerry also said our talks with N. Korea would be in addition to the current talks, not a replacement for.

"It'll please Britain to know you think so little of their country, and the deaths of their people"
Who ever said that?

"...they only believe we should never go to war, EVER"
Not my view at all.  Sometimes war is unavoidable.  Sometimes it is.  And sometimes, you just bite off more than you can chew.

[TA Pilot]

 Too bad Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11, nor were they stockpiling WMD. Otherwise you've got a real good argument there.

Where did the WMDs and related items, known to be there in 1998, go?


Three words. No bid contracts.

And why did Haliburton get a NBC?

Whart does Haliburton do?
 



Good question now that Bush has completely alienated our country from the rest of the world.

38 countries ae in Iraq.  18 of 26 NATO members.
"The resto of the world"?  Who among the rest of the world do we need to have help us so that we arent going it alone?  Who among the rest of thr world will 'have our back' if the current coalition does not?




But is also doesn't make your argument any more valid.

Sure it does.   It show he said what he said, in context.

Unless you can sghow its all out of context, is support the argument quite well.


Sanctions apparently worked. Inspectors were gaining ground. Prove otherwise.

Where are the WMDs and materials known to be there in 1998?

And after hand Blix declares that Iraq had not made the fudamental decision to disarm - why do the inspectors need to be there any longer?



Faulty logic? You're basing your entire argument on the premise that Iraq was a threat. They clearly were not.

John Kerry thinks they were.

[TA Pilot]

You mean THIS UNSCOM, the one that the prior head, Scott Ritter, basically calls a sham?  Give me a break. Is that the best you've got?

You arent answering the question.

Where are the weapons and related porgrams that UNSCOM knew to be there in December 1998?

[Crazy Cooter]

"And why did Haliburton get a NBC?

Whart does Haliburton do?"

That's the million dolla question.  The answer?  They take a cut off the top and farm the work out to non-qualified companies.  Huh?  What?
Look to this government document:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_contract_july_21_desc_report.pdf

"Rather than perform the work itself, Halliburton selected an obscure Kuwaiti subcontractor, Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company, to import gasoline from Kuwait. Altanmia had no previous fuel procurement or transportation experience.4 According to Halliburton, Halliburton knew about Altanmia because Halliburton had previously leased real estate from an affiliated company within the same family-owned conglomerate

Halliburton awarded the subcontract to Altanmia in a single day after obtaining quotes from just two other bidders.6 On May 4, the same day Task Order 5 was
issued, the Army Corps requested that Kuwait

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You mean THIS UNSCOM, the one that the prior head, Scott Ritter, basically calls a sham?  Give me a break. Is that the best you've got?

You arent answering the question.

Where are the weapons and related porgrams that UNSCOM knew to be there in December 1998?

Actually, you are not listening. I'm saying, given what the previous head of UNSCOM has been saying, those weapons that have been "unaccounted" for have probably either been completely destroyed without observation, detriorated beyond use, or  we're probably never there in the first place in the quantities previously suspected. It's not like the Bush admin has been entirely up front and honest about this situation, and it's not like they (and their friends) haven't been known to exaggerate numbers and cook the books.

But don't ask me, just ask David Kay, the former lead inspector for the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) Concealment and Investigations team in Iraq, who confessed in January to the Senate: It "turns out that we were all wrong probably ... and that is most disturbing."  and just recently stated "There simply is no evidence of a factual nature that sustains the allegation by the Bush administration or British government that Iraq today possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Or Jay Davis, a veteran weapons inspector, physicist and former head of the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, who states, "The chemicals in the weapons tend to break down over time; only wealthy, technically advanced nations such as the United States, the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and World War II-era Japan ever developed chemical weapons that could withstand prolonged storage. So Iraqi chemical weapons might have deteriorated into uselessness by 2003, he now says."

So there, I answered your question. Am I to believe you are more informed than them? Keep spinning away, the majority of us are going to hold Bush accountable. You can lock yourself in a bunker and wait for the next attack if you wish.

Now you answer my question, when are you going to wake up?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The right is so desperate to spin this debate away, here's the latest sad, sad, sad, attempt:

MYSTERY: DID KERRY HAVE CHEAT SHEET?

Unless that "cheat sheet" had magic dust on it which forced 'W' to stare blankly into the camera for the majority of the debate, it doesn't explain why Bushies performance was so shamefully inadequate.

Plus, new rumor going around is that Bush may pull out of second debate!!!!
What will Bush supporters think of their brave Dear Leader if he backs away from a chance to show Kerry (that latte drinking frenchie) what's what?

This whole period since the debate has been absolutely electrifying for Kerry supporters, if this is true you can expect mass celebration, as they dance on the ruins of the Bush presidency.

[TA Pilot]

That's the million dolla question.  The answer?  They take a cut off the top and farm the work out to non-qualified companies.  Huh?  What?

Thats all you got?   Wow.  I'm impressed.

Haliburton is an oil services company.   Largest in the world.
No other oil services company from any of the nations in the coalition can do what they do at the scale they do it.  And so, they got the contract.

Your argument against them is that they subcontracted out some of the services?  Thats IT?

AMAZING.   Companies subcontract stuff out all the time - and you think that because Haliburton did it, they're somehow the root of all evil?

[TA Pilot]

Actually, you are not listening. I'm saying, given what the previous head of UNSCOM has been saying, those weapons that have been "unaccounted" for have probably either been completely destroyed without observation, detriorated beyond use, or  we're probably never there in the first place

Yeah?
What about the weapons they listed as STILL THERE in 1998?

Not the ones they could not account for, but the ones they were known to still have?



and it's not like they (and their friends) haven't been known to exaggerate numbers and cook the books.

So...  UNSCOM lied?



 So Iraqi chemical weapons might have deteriorated into uselessness by 2003he now says.

WHICH chemical weapons?
Mustard gas?  VX precursors?  Sarin?
Be specific about which weapons he's describing - because if you can't, your quote is meaningless.


So there, I answered your question.

No.  You didnt.
You did not address the issue as to the weapons that were known to still exist.

Whats happened to them?

[DrewKaree]

Where to start...there's so much misinformation from MrC now that he's awake....and I CERTAINLY don't want to bore shmokes.  

One thing I'm wondering.  MrC, is it a requirement to have ADD in order to keep up with your constantly changing argument towards something you feel you can defend?  I think you'd do well on the streets of N.Y. running your own shell game.  Think about it...giving all your winnings to the Kerry campaign, donating the rest to various organizations.

I think I'll do a TA Pilot and answer multiple questions in multiple posts.  Dontcha just love a dogged investigation and expose of your (mis)information?!  

For my first...what'd you call it, "Link-something"?  I have no problems with linking to things that I view as necessary, rather than your tactic of throwing baseless accusations to see what sticks...and lots of it, in case someone forgets to reply to your B.S.  Do you get paid to be Kerry's misinformation proxy?  It seems as if your shining jewel of "the truth", Scott Ritter, has either taken a page from Kerry, or has taught Kerry all he knows.  Perhaps you'll have further reasoning, "chickenhawk" fashion regarding this story about him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And for my second link, I'll post this and ask - were you such a tenacious defender of Mr Ritter when he was blaming the Clinton administration, reported here?  I suppose not, because at that time, it was your job to be cover for those things.  Perhaps you would come off as more credible if the "source" you use to "refute" the fact that countless (there's that word again!) numbers of leaders, intelligence agencies, and, yes, even U.N. inspectors believed Sadaam to possess WMD's, of which, in resolution after resolution (you know, the ""informed diplomacy" the U.N. used in dealing with him?) weren't one who agreed himself.  

He just decided to change his opinion at the drop of a hat...well, actually, the drop of 400,000 hats

Oh, and BTW, since you seem to now feel comfortable joining our debates, is it possible that an enlightened liberal such as yourself, the peacenik that you profess to be...is it just possible for you to engage in thoughtful debate, and skip the name-calling that has come to be your calling card when the conversation is not going your way?  Clearly it can be done, as shmokes OFTEN exhibits such behavior, while you haven't seemed capable of going less than a few posts without such things?  Perhaps it's just everyone else who can discuss things civilly, and you haven't been taught such things.  Give it a whirl.  Others agreeing with you seem to enjoy it, have a Coke and a smile...or start with a Pepsi and a grimace, in your case.  

[Crazy Cooter]

"No other oil services company from any of the nations in the coalition can do what they do at the scale they do it.  Your argument against them is that they subcontracted out some of the services?"

TA, try reading the link and my post.  The point being they didn't do any the work under that contract.  They subbed out that full contract to a company that had ZERO experience in doing that type of work.  And you say they are the only company that could handle that?  I could have done that.  I guess you've never heard of companies called bechtel or Parsons?  There are others.

As I said before, I'm quite aware of how construction works.  I get paid to know how it works.  We don't need to argue that point.

And no Halliburton is NOT the largest oil services company in the world, they are big, but not the biggest.  And they do more than just oil services.

You demand everyone to provide links and answer your questions in detail but then don't read the links/proof.  What's up with that?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Drew,

Are you F*cking kidding me? You link to an article by REED IRVINE???
Why don't I just give you George Soros number and have him clear up my argument for you...I'm sure you'll listen to him.

"In the 1970s, Irvine endeared himself to the New Right by alleging that the corporate media was a propaganda tool for the Soviet KGB and Fidel Castro. With the end of the Cold War, AIM now assails environmentalists as the "infiltrators" of the media establishment."

I'm sure it sounds sane for you, but personally, I'm not going to bother. Reed is also a columnist for Newsmax...

If this is what you'd put forth as unbiased info, there's no hope for this thread.