In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

FYI, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, the pilots have left the ship, and they're back in Iraq, you stupid, giggling jackass! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Did you forget you posted that once, or is it a echo in that empty head of yours no balls?

Did you forget you posted that once, or is it a echo in that empty head of yours no balls? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You are too stupid to notice that it was not the same post, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. But since you're such a jackass, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, it's standard operating procedure to hit the likes of you multiple times on your head to gain your attention ... as any good muleskinner would tell you. And as a reminder, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, the pilots have indeed left the ship, and they're still back in Iraq.

You are too stupid to notice that it was not the same post, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. But since you're such a jackass, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, it's standard operating procedure to hit the likes of you multiple times on your head to gain your attention ... as any good muleskinner would tell you. And as a reminder, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, the pilots have indeed left the ship, and they're still back in Iraq. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

[SIZE="3"Then you do admit it was a echo in your empty head no balls . Glad you have admitted the legal immunity for our troops has been given. So you can quit disrespecting them.[/SIZE]

Not to mention the ones "spotting" ("painting") the ... errr.... "targets"!

Oh, yea, .... for those naive "in the room" ...

"U.S. officials also stressed that the American intervention was narrowly aimed at the protection of American diplomats and officials living in Irbil, where the large U.S. consulate has swelled with evacuees from the embassy in Baghdad and where the U.S. military runs a joint operations center alongside Kurdish forces."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...f8a_story.html

When you "think" .... "pulled out all the troops" .... "think" ...

"you can keep your doctor"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Remember, they (the White House) has already admitted to sending about 800 soldiers back into Iraq. Wait! They called them advisors didn't they.




American traitor Jane Fonda and some other traitor standing next to her. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

WTF are you two trying to grab the (dumb and dumber) award for yourselves. Fucking babbling dimatards.

WTF are you two trying to grab the (dumb and dumber) award for yourselves. Fucking babbling dimatards. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

How could anyone else possibly compete with you? You got it hands down!

Especially the "babbling" part ...

.. which you have refined to an " art form" ...

Rhymes with "fart forms" ... your stinky hot air with no substance.

How could anyone else possibly compete with you? You got it hands down!

Especially the "babbling" part ...

.. which you have refined to an " art form" ...

Rhymes with "fart forms" ... your stinky hot air with no substance. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Lexie lacking, you are so far ahead of me in the stupidity race I have been lapped. Your feeble attempts at a put down is in competition with your idiot in law Judy, kinda like I saw in Jr high.

Then you do admit it was a echo in your empty head no balls . Glad you have admitted the legal immunity for our troops has been given. So you can quit disrespecting them. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Stop with your stupid-ass deflection, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. What is at issue here is your earlier, stupid contention that the U.S. was "out of Iraq" -- even after the U.S.S. Bush deployed -- and that no U.S. pilots would be making airstrikes, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. You continue to demonstrate how drinking Odumbo's Kool Aid to excess makes you think and act stupidly, Ekim the Inbred Chimp

Stop with your stupid-ass deflection, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. What is at issue here is your earlier, stupid contention that the U.S. was "out of Iraq" -- even after the U.S.S. Bush deployed -- and that no U.S. pilots would be making airstrikes, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. You continue to demonstrate how drinking Odumbo's Kool Aid to excess makes you think and act stupidly, Ekim the Inbred Chimp
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As usual you are making shit up because you are desperate no balls. I did not state any of the bullshit and you know it . Again you lied

.... you are so far ahead of me in the stupidity race I have been lapped. Your feeble attempts at a put down.... Originally Posted by i'va biggen

That was no "put down" .. just fact.

Hot stinky air with no substance just about sums you up.

That was no "put down" .. just fact.

Hot stinky air with no substance just about sums you up. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If you wish to deal in facts, here is one. You are a moron. Your hot stinky air comment is right out of grade school.

If you wish to deal in facts, here is one. You are a moron. Your hot stinky air comment is right out of grade school. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

LLIdiot loves to lend the outward appearance that he is "above the fray."

Truth be known, he is extremely well versed at making hate-filled, childish remarks as it relates to those he disagrees with.

All the while, he is critical of others when they choose to reciprocate.

A strong case can be made that hate-filled, childish remarks is LexiLiar's modus operandi.

Meanwhile, the Patriarch of the Notorious Idiot Klan, errr Clan tries to remain "above the fray."

IBJunior.

Days later, you're still a wannabe. Wannabe part of the discussion... Just don't have the jizz, as Tommy Smyth says.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

lustylad accurately points out that you entered into a self-destruct mode with that one post. Your response consisted of not even addressing anything that I said, instead you assigned the very traits that you display onto me.

JDIdiot is now trying to turn this ridiculous thread into a debate on Bush's honesty.

Good luck with that, boyz. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

President Bush was being honest when he said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In any thread like this, that fact has to be pointed out.

Yssup Rider: Actually, that's not true.

Your side of the argument needs to present the truth before you accuse our side of not presenting the truth. Throughout this thread, the conservative side of the argument has been presenting the facts and have been identifying the realities surrounding the main topic of this thread.

The liberal side of the argument has done nothing but present regurgitated, disproven, talking points.

Yssup Rider: YOU brought Bush into the conversation as it pertains to uranium.

This is no different than the opposing side of the argument consistently bringing Bush in when things go wrong in Iraq or elsewhere under Obama's watch. You people seem to have an aversion to accurately pinpointing blame to where it belongs.

The cold hard reality is that the terrorists overrunning Iraq was part of the sequence of events that started with the failure/lapse of judgment on Pres. Obama's part.

Yssup Rider: Had you just argued that terrorists had acquired uranium from somewhere

You people consistently refused to argue the main topic of this thread or to argument. You people consistently refused to concentrate on the topic that you were addressing, choosing instead to take the opposing side out of context. You don't have a leg to stand on when demanding that he should've argued a specific topic, or should've focused on a specific area.

Until your side of the argument does what you demand here, you don't have a leg to stand on demanding that anybody on my side the argument should post a specific way.

Yssup Rider: which YOU presumed to be Iraq,

Both of you guys are in error. The terrorist picked up uranium from a university in Iraq. This wasn't something that was hidden in the desert somewhere.

Yssup Rider: then it would just be a stupid statement.

The stupid statements are coming from your side of the argument, including from you.

Yssup Rider: But what you posted above makes it a LIE!

How is it a lie that the terrorists in Iraq picked up some uranium? That's precisely what happened. His statement is much closer to reality than any of the statements that you've made in this thread.

Yssup Rider: Oh and it's really called propaganda. And you are living proof of how effective the GOP propaganda machine is on the weak minded, the frustrated, the xenophobe and the insecure.

Given that my profession also includes counter propaganda, let me give you a clue about what propaganda is.

Propaganda is non-truth. If you want to get a good example of a propaganda, look at the arguments that you, and those on your side of the argument, are advancing. Also, look at the left leaning mainstream media. Those are perfect examples of propaganda.

If somebody gives you the truth and reality in an argument based on the facts, then they're not giving you propaganda. They're giving you reality.

You erroneously assume that we go to the GOP to get our arguments. You assume wrong. We do our own research. Based on the research that we do, we come to our own conclusions. If we're coming up to similar conclusions to what the GOP's coming to, it's because we are independently coming to similar conclusions based on looking at similar facts.

Weak minded people refuse to answer my simple questions. One of the jobs my simple questions do is to force weak minded people to see how wrong they are. If you people weren't so weak minded, I wouldn't need to create those questions.

The major fact that you guys could plow on with your anti-Bush, anti-conservative, propaganda, is proof that the Democratic propaganda, propagated via the left leaning mainstream media, is extremely effective.

In psychological warfare, your posts as well as that of those on your side the argument, are what we would call impact indicators. These are answers to what we call, "measures of effectiveness." Mainly, how effective was a mainstream media's argument in convincing the people to believing and acting a certain way?

Our refusal to just let the illegal aliens flood into this country doesn't constitute us being xenophobes. It constitutes us having the common sense to know that people need to follow immigration laws, and both immigrants and current Americans benefit by immigrants coming here legally.

We don't fear foreigners. What we don't want is irresponsible immigration policies, that look the other way, creating the conditions that allow our social safety net resources to be overwhelmed and to go bankrupt.

When you have a situation where there's no real effort to integrate those coming into this country, then you have the added risk of the death of the America that we know.

We base that concern in historic trends, and on human history.

My side of the argument has been presenting an argument that has substance. Your side of the argument plowed on despite being proven wrong, despite being unable to answer simple questions. The themes in your arguments, as well as that of those on your side the argument, shows insecurity on your part.

Continuing the debate despite the fact that your side of the argument lost is a sign of insecurity.

The breakdown post that you made is an example of you being frustrated.

Yssup Rider: Ahhh. IGNORance is bliss! (Posted after my last reply)

You're speaking from experience.

Well, JDIdiot, I've got your new asshole buddy on ignore now, so you'll have have to save your "booby traps" for those of us who are intellectually inferior to you ...

Ooops. I guess you'll be preaching to a choir of one.

But at least you now admit you deliberately LIE on this board ("to see who takes the bait")

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Says the guy that tap danced in the booby traps that I set up in my replies. JD didn't admit to any lying, he made an accurate assessment of your side of the argument.

You think he honestly took America to war over bad information. It took months to whip the country into a froth. You HONESTLY think he didn't try to confirm it in that time? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No, that wasn't bad information but good information. The intelligence at the time indicated he had weapons of mass destruction. If you listen to the video that I posted earlier in this thread, you'd see that Saddam Hussein moved the bulk of those weapons out of Iraq in advance of the invasion.

This isn't a case where someone took bad information and then used it to whip people into a frenzy. We just had the biggest terrorist attack on US soil happen, and we had a knucklehead that refused to come clean with his WMD program.

Again, under asymmetrical warfare conditions, that's like standing in a room full of easily flammable liquids with a man that's playing with matches. We had to go when and invade Iraq. After the invasion, sarin, mustard, and blister agents were used against our troops through IED's.

Those agents are chemical agents, one of the agents to make up weapons of mass destruction. Those agents are weapons of mass distraction.

No president will send military into a country, for purposes of an invasion, without solid information. You assume that he did not try to confirm it when in fact that's precisely what he did.

I don't think you're naive, JLHomo. I think you're a dipshit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're ignorant, based on the argument that you have advanced on this thread.

Bush took us to war. And I believe he and Cheney and Rumsfeld knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

In the sense that you're arguing here? That's a resounding no. In the sense that I have argued on this thread? That's a definite. They knew exactly what they were doing, and it was precisely along the lines of the reasons I've argued here.

Thousands died unnecessarily. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're dead wrong about that opinion. If you paid attention to the video that I posted here, on a U.S. Army Ranger, you'd see that those deaths weren't "unnecessary," quotation marks used strongly. The vast majority of the veterans of the Iraq war strongly supported that war, and still strongly standby their actions.

If you've met the Iraqis face-to-face in the streets of Iraq on a prolonged basis, and I know for fact that you haven't, you would've also learned that thousands of Iraqis also died, willingly, to help us accomplish our objectives over there.

A lot of the deaths that happened over there were done at the hands of the terrorists. I don't see you on here complaining about terrorists caused death.

Either we change the geopolitical environment in that area, or the radical elements in that area will change our culture here. That change will not be bloodless. The change that our enemies have for us here on US soil involves thousands of dead Americans.

Using history as a guideline, a lot of death is involved when a kingdom/country/nation state is converted into Islam. This is what you are advocating when you ignorantly argue that that thousands have died "unnecessarily," quotation marks used strongly.

Bush was convicted of war crimes and is wanted by an international tribunal. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You do realize that this happened in Malaysia, do you? Malaysia is a predominantly Islamic country. The people that convicted him of war crimes are many of the same people that want the females in your family to live as second-class citizens. These are the same people that will call for the execution of any of your female family members who dare go on their own without a male family member chaperone.

What matters to me is US law. This is the law that should matter to anybody here on this thread when looking at that phony conviction. George Bush broke no US law. By trying to give legitimacy to that conviction, you're telling us that you support Islamic Law, and are placing that above common law in the US.

Malaysia is "welcome" to try to deploy their military to US soil to try to capture him, and the others that they convicted, in order to deliver punishment.

The major fact that you are using their conviction speaks volumes about what you consider as serious. If you respected US law, and held that law as supreme on US soil, including on a message board ran by an American in US territory, you'd easily dismiss that Malaysian conviction.

George Bush is not a war criminal. That's a fact. Your kangaroo court's conviction doesn't change that fact.

Our economy tanked, as did economies around the world. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You could blame decades of government interference in the free market for the American and world economies tanking. The collapse of the housing bubble and the following financial crisis is the free market economy trying to adjust because of that interference.

Republicans tried to warn Congress about that prices long before it happened. They tried to warn Congress for years. Your Democrat buddies refuse to do anything to help prevent that crisis from happening.

Let's not forget that it's Congress that has a power of the purse. Congress was in Democrat control from January 2007 to January 2011.

The best way to tank an economy is to put Democrats in charge of it.

Reports I've read say they found old stockpiles of non-functioning material, stuff which might have been WMDs at one time, but not today. And, that they'd likely be unable to create a weapon with them. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Non functioning? Tell that to the soldiers, both US and coalition, that were adversely impacted by a sarin, blister, or mustard agent laced IEDs. The fact of the matter is that functional WMDs were found in Iraq post invasion.

Whether the old stockpiles had functional material or not is beside the point. When your side of the argument says that they were "no" WMDs in Iraq, it means "no" WMD to include the material that you talk about, or any other WMD related material or programs.

The mere existence of those old stockpiles proved your arguments wrong.

Also, I challenge any liberal to volunteer their refrigerators as storage of that so-called "nonfunctioning material," in proximity to food that they are about to eat. I challenge any liberal to put some of that nonfunctioning material on their dinner plate.

Liberals that do believe that BS would be able to do that challenge. Liberals that don't believe that BS would refuse to take that challenge.

Again, mustard, blister, and sarin chemical agents are WMDs. They were successfully used in Iraq against our forces post invasion. I even posted articles in this thread talking about that. Your statement is flat out wrong.

What is being produced, LLIdiot? What WMDs? Why didn't Bush's administration find them in Saddam's biggest chemical weapons plant before they began backpedaling on the corpses of dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

First, until you answer the questions I've asked you on this thread, you don't have a leg to stand on demanding others answer your questions.

Second, what WMDs? Those used against our forces, via a sarin, mustard, and blister laced IED's, THOSE WMDs.

Third, why didn't the Bush administration find them in Saddam's biggest chemical weapons plant? Again, you'll find the answer in the above General Georges Sada video, where he talks about what Saddam Hussein did with his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Fourth, you don't have a leg to stand on when speaking for those fallen service members. You're clueless about this topic, and you consistently reject the facts that are being presented to you. Again, if you listen to the video of the Army Ranger, you'd hear to philosophy of the majority of the soldiers that died in Iraq.

The vast majority of those fallen strongly believed in Iraq war, as well as in its justifications. What I've argued on this thread is consistent with what the majority of them felt, it's consistent with what the majority of the Iraq war veterans feel.

When you disrespect the veterans on this thread, either directly or by rejecting their arguments based on firsthand experience, you disrespect the war dead. The major fact that you would use the fallen in your argument against the war that the majority of them believed in shows that you lack integrity and honor.

Yssup Rider: You'd think that maybe during the weapons inspections, that the first place they'd look might have been THERE.

Do you honest to God think that if they had any weapons of mass destruction there, that they would keep them there knowing full well that international inspectors were coming? According to Colonel Stanislav Lunev, GRU defector to the United States, the Iraqis had no intention of cooperating with the inspectors.

During the 1990s, Stanislav Lunev was part of a military unit that was an auxiliary to the Russian Special Forces. Their specific task in Iraq was to teach the Iraqis how to hide WMDs, and to inform Iraqis of where the inspectors were going next. Their main mission was to make sure that the WMDs removed away from areas that the inspectors were to look at.

So, it wasn't surprising that the vast majority of the places that they looked contained "no" WMD.

If you've tried to hide something physical from someone, you'd know what I'm talking about. If you continue to insist on your argument, that is blatantly obvious that you're just BSing to sustain an argument that you lost.

Yssup Rider: You'd think that in ongoing operations in Iraq for a decade they might have found them by looking THERE.

Saddam et al, and later the terrorists, did with regards to WMD agents what drug dealers do with drugs. If you honest to God think that they'd leave the WMD in place in advance of weapons inspectors arriving, then you'd also have to believe that people with drugs in their homes would leave them in place and consent to a police search.

You either don't have any common sense, or you're deliberately arguing as if the people that we're arguing about aren't human, just for the sake of your weak argument.

Yssup Rider: BUT NOOOO.

Says the guy that acts like he has never read, heard, or seen a situation where people would try to hide contraband.

Yssup Rider: Bush was right all along, right LLIdiot?

Yes, George Bush was right, I know that for a fact.

Yssup Rider: The PRESS covered up his administration's findings! Right LLIdiot? SNICK!

Actually, they either ignored the reports proving that he was right, or try to deemphasize them, in order to continue to sucker the sheep viewers into believing many of the same things that you're arguing here. It worked. You're propaganda susceptible.

He never found any either, IBDumbasshit.

NOBODY DID.

Yeah, ones that had been shut down. Why is this so difficult for the Bushatrons to swallow?

Fact is, they didn't find any. They kept looking. They still didn't find any.

Now, more than a decade later, they suddenly find "something" they couldn't find before in the most likely place to look.

And it's shit they can't use.

OK.
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Wrong. They found WMD in Iraq post invasion, throughout the war. Keep in mind that sarin, mustard, and blister agents are chemical agents. Chemical agents are WMD. These agents were used on WMD laced IED against our forces post invasion.

What they didn't find were the stockpiles of WMD that the media made this out to be. That, according to General Georges Sada, was moved out prior to the invasion.

Sarin, mustard, and blister agents were consistently being found, in Iraq, even when I was there. They were also found when something else was being looked for.

Why is this so difficult for you Obama zombies to swallow?

I'll believe those with firsthand accounts (who side with my argument) before I'd "believe" the nonsense accounts of those like you who argue from recycled propaganda.

I wonder if Martin Luther King believes that. Whir-LIE-turd, you seem to know what MLK believed. Why don't YOU enlighten us? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Like the other liberals that I've argued against, you expect things to be given to you. What MLK has said is available on the Internet. I'd tell you to research that information, but it's painfully obvious, with your statements, that you don't bother researching the nonsense that's forced down your throat by your liberal propaganda masters.

Also, until you answer my questions truthfully and factually, per to parameters I set, you don't have a leg to stand on demanding to others answer your questions or to "enlighten" you.

Where you wrong when you accused me of claiming to be the only veteran on the board? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Where you wrong when you said that you refuse to quote my entire "voluminous" post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste those questions, along with those "yes" and "no" options to your reply. Put an "X" in the bracket that represents your reply. Spare me any additional nonsense that you're going to want to add to this question.

Since you failed to answer the following question, I'm going to ask it again:

Where, in this thread, did I threaten you?

I'm sorry, but quoting where I say that I'm going to keep asking you a question if you don't answer it isn't a threat unless you know for a fact that you're wrong.

Well maybe they should have went city by city and secured the area as they went, instead of just marching into Bagdad. I remember watching TV coverage with a couple of WWII vets who couldn't believe they weren't securing the area as they went as they did in Germany. It would have prevented some of the looting of weapons and lawlessness that happened. Originally Posted by cowboyinjungle

Based on that statement, I have doubts and whether those guys were WWII veterans or not. After World War II, the allies had to deal with an insurgency in Germany. They were called the "SS Werewolf." They did things like conduct assassinations of Germans helping the allies, plant roadside bombs, string decapitation wires across roads, and other sabotaging attempts to destroy allied equipment in order to frustrate democracy building efforts.

The allies dealt with this insurgency in Germany after World War II was officially over.

In 1946, an article was written about post World War II Europe titled: "America Losing the Peace in Europe." Based on the description of that article, it was blatantly obvious that we did not have enough troops over there to create conditions that would've prevented these people from seeing that we were "losing" the peace in Europe.

Most actual World War II vets, and definitely soldiers that were deployed to Germany after World War II, would not have made the above commentary.

The United States does not have effective military or police control of every block in every city. Crimes happen, shootouts happened, people get killed, but there is no complaint or demand that we should have enough police or military to control each block.

The cold hard reality is this: unless they were there or unless they had a clue about what they were talking about, they have no legs to stand on criticizing Iraq war.

Whoa, wouldya look at that! assup is hysterical! He's gone ballistic! He is fulminating, vituperating, steaming, frothing and drooling! Hey assup, isn't it maddening when someone actually takes your posts seriously and won't stop holding you and your faux arguments accountable?

By the way, you probably ought to use a dictionary too so you can look up the difference between perimeter and parameter.

And don't forget to pop a valium before bed. Originally Posted by lustylad

That's a sign of someone with control issues. He didn't expect the opposition to keep hammering away at him no matter what ploy he used to try to get them to give up. That's also a sign that he seriously lost the argument, and can't handle that fact. He said that under the emotional assumption that his rant "scored him points."

It just shows us that he has a thin skin, and is pretty much like that kid on the playground that everybody teased and spun up because of his reactions to such treatments.

The reality is that he, and those that are arguing on his side of the argument, expect the opposition to stop arguing with them. When they come across someone like me who has absolutely no intention of giving up, and who has every intention of arguing indefinitely, they go ape and start acting like stubborn chimps that aren't getting their way.

To those that I'm debating with, I meant what I said earlier in this thread... I'll argue with you people indefinitely. Quitting is never an option in these arguments. I'll get back with you regardless of how much time passes. The argument doesn't end simply because you stop replying to me, it ends when you stop arguing against my position on the thread. I'll keep asking you my questions for as long as you keep insisting on arguing against that argument while ignoring those questions.

Even Bush admitted he was lying about WMD's.


''Now, look, I didn't -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction..''

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/2...ts_iraq_had_no Originally Posted by WTF

You're bringing up an inductive fallacy. In order to lie, you have to actually say something that you know for fact is a true. For example, the police pulled you over after a night of drinking. You know for fact that you drank 10 to 20 bottles of beer. When the cop asks you if you had anything to drink, and you tell them that you only had "a couple," and you know for a fact that you had more than that, then that would be a lie.

You're erroneously assuming that because he said something that you disagreed with, that "means" that he was lying. In order to assume that, you're assuming that you are "right." You're also assuming that what you thought was right was blatantly obvious to anybody that follows the news.

That's not President Bush admitting that he was "lying." That's him erroneously saying that he was wrong. I disagree with President Bush's latter statement that there was "no" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. See my earlier arguments on this thread.

Chemical agents were found in Iraq post invasion, hence Iraqi had weapons of mass destruction.

Bush said he was lying. I just pointed it out.

I have already pointed it out in the quote and provided the link for when he said it....He said there were no WMD's. Originally Posted by WTF

Nowhere in that George Bush quote does he "admit" to "lying." It's simply him assuming an erroneous reality as opposed to actual reality that he argued in the months leading up to the Iraq war.

He never said that he was "lying."

WTF: If I say there is a Santa Clause or Easter Bunny....I am lying. Just because I find out later there is neither does change that fact.

That's inductive fallacy. As an adult, you know that Santa Claus and Easter Bunny are not real. As a kid, you believed that one or both were real. As a kid, when you include a Santa Claus or Easter bunny in the statement, you honest to God believed that they actually existed. You were not lying in this situation.

As an adult, when you say that you were wrong about Santa Claus being real, that's not you admitting that you were lying. Again, in order to lie, you have to make a statement that you know for fact is not true.

Were our ancestors lying when they claimed that the sun orbited the Earth? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Simply copy and paste that question, and options to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me the nonsense that you'd be tempted to add.

WTF: I never said his intent was to lie....though I believe that it was ,

Your argument, as well as that of others in your side the argument, has consistently been that Bush had "lied." The implication was that Bush didn't believe in what he was arguing. The implication is erroneous.

George Bush made that decision based on the information that he had. That's not lying.

WTF: especially in continually connecting Saddam to 9/11.

If this is where the case, George Bush would've ordered the invasion of Iraq first after the 9/11 attacks. After those attacks, the Bush administration was debating about the next course of action. Someone recommended that they invade Iraq first. George Bush rejected that, and chose to invade Afghanistan first instead.

WTF: Bush's/Cheney intent was to drag us to war.

Their intent was to take a course of action that would've secured our current security and our continued existence as a Western culture.

This isn't a situation where President Bush was itching for a fight. This is a case where an asymmetrical reality forced itself on the American public in the form of the 9/11 attacks. Going into Iraq was the logical second step in the war terror.

Again, look at the map the Middle East and you'll see the significance of our interventions into Iraq and Afghanistan. The Arab spring was a spinoff, the White House failed to capitalize on that as well.

We're dealing with the threat that has been in existence long before the US came into being. The fight was forced onto us.

WTF: Bush said there were WMD's and the admitted there were not...which one was a lie?

Neither is a lie. Again, for it to be a lie, you would have to specifically state something as fact that you know for fact is false. In both of those instances, George Bush was basing his statements on information that he had at the time he made that statement.

However, he was right when he said that there were WMDs in Iraq. He was wrong when he later concluded that there weren't.

As for your Göring quote, you're comparing apples to oranges. The Germans were instigating a war. They had to fabricate excuses to go to war. That's nowhere near like what you people tried to portray the Iraq war. The Germans had to invent an excuse, the United States had to react to an asymmetrical threat.

In Hitler Germany's case, the lambasting of the pacifists was based on nonsense. In the case of the antiwar people in the United States, in the face of the war on terror, the lambasting was justified. Iraq under Saddam was part of the asymmetrical threat against United States. Together with Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the other radical Islamic entities that opposed the West and non-Islamic world throughout the world, Iraq under Saddam was part of an overall entity that posed a serious asymmetrical threat to United States and to the rest of Western civilization.

Those that opposed the Iraq war were nothing more than useful idiots for our asymmetrical enemies.

Trying to compare World War II Germany, and the way it treated pacifists, and to the 21st century United States and the way it treated its pacifists is like comparing apples to rocks.

It's like beating the crap out of somebody on the street because you want to while giving a BS excuse for doing so, as opposed to beating the crap out of some idiot who just tried attacking you. Two different things.

WTF: Is this why you think you are not a liar?

It's hard for someone to see themselves as a liar when they're basing their argument on the facts and on research. Like I explained above, in order to lie, you'd have to know for fact that what you're saying isn't the fact. It's like telling the cops you didn't have anything to drink when you know for fact that you have lost count of how much you had to drink. That's not what's going on with regards to what President Bush did.

WTF: Because of your ignorance....you weren't lying, you just didn't tell the truth because of your ignorance of the truth. Kinda like you are doing about my homebuilding.

You just explained here why your assumption that he "lied" is BS. The majority of what you said on this thread is based on ignorance. Based on your own reasoning, you lied 100% on this thread.

You're confusing what constitutes the truth, and mistaking a change of opinion based on different data, with what constitutes a lie.

Let's go back to my drinking and cops example. Let's say that you've been drinking all night and you subsequently get pulled over by the cops. You know for fact that you've been drinking all night. The cop asks you if you had anything to drink. If you tell the cops that you didn't have anything to drink, knowing full well that you had plenty to drink, then you're lying in his example.

On the other hand, if you tell the cops that you had plenty to drink, knowing full well that you had plenty to drink, then you'd be telling the truth.

In Bush's case, he was giving his opinion based on information that he had. For practical purposes, he was telling the "truth" in both contradictory answers to the WMD question.

The person that you are arguing with is arguing based on what he has observed of you. That's not lying, but arguing based on something that was observed.

Bush said there were WMD's.

He then admitted there were no WMD's.

Which was the lie? Originally Posted by WTF

First, you're slanting this to erroneously portray reality to match what you assume it is.

How about Bush admitted that they were WMDs then latter said there were none? That statement would've been closer to reality than the one that's in the quote. But to answer your question, neither one was a lie. In both instances, President Bush was relying on certain information to make a statement. He wasn't deliberately saying one thing knowing full well that the other was a case.

Second, the facts indicate that his belief that there were "no" WMDs makes him wrong in the later case; where he was right in his argument leading up to the Iraq war.

If you insist that Iraq didn't have WMDs, then perhaps you could tell the US soldiers that suffer from chemical agent laced IEDs, that said chemical agents were just imaginary.

The fact of the matter is that Sarin, Blister, and Mustard agents were used in Iraq against our troops post invasion. All three of those are chemical agents; hence, WMDs were discovered in Iraq post invasion.

WTF: Why are you lying about me?

No, he wasn't lying about you. He was making a very good observation of you based on what you said on here relative to what's actually the case. Neither you, nor the people arguing on your side the argument, have presented an argument that's close to reality.

WTF: Because I'm making you look like a fool in your support of WMD's.

Actually, you're making yourself look like a fool for refusing to look at the facts that has been presented in this thread. It's blatantly obvious that you have no military background. The least you could do is to thank those with military backgrounds for giving you a clue about what WMD are.

When you disregard with actual facts in favor of maintaining your opinion that you are arguing here, people with critical thinking ability see you as a fool.

WTF: At least Bush admitted he was wrong. When will you?

President Bush embraced an erroneous narrative when he "admitted" that there were "no" WMD. Like what I've argued above, WMDs were found in Iraq; hence, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. What I just stated is fact. Anybody that makes a claim that's contrary to this fact is wrong.

Our refusal to go along with your argument is based on our embracing the facts.

Fiddling while Iraq and the U.S. burn.... and smiling about it.

Oh, when you find a DIRECT QUOTE from George Bush saying:

"I lied about the WMD's being in Iraq before the 2003 invasion."

Let me know, and please post it with the link. Otherwise ...

... quit making up shit about what others say. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm going to add this to the list of questions that I've been consistently asking you. I'm also interested in your straightforward answer to that question.

Bad Example?

So do you think we had to go to war with Iraq to keep yellowcake from arriving in Iran?

Iraq who had been at war with Iran?

We go to war with Iraq, install a Iran friendly government there...we sure as fuck better take the remnants of Saddam's nuclear program to Canada! Nothing I have ever read has indicated that Saddam reconstituted his nuclear program.

IMHO the example you used is illogical. It actually shows that Bush knew he had fucked up installing who he had. He should have left the Ba'athist Iraqi government in charge minus Saddam.*

* Not a endorsement of the Iraq war. Originally Posted by WTF

We went to war with Iraq for the reasons I've argued on this thread. Those reasons fit in with the asymmetrical warfare reality that we found ourselves in as a result of the terrorist attacks on US soil back in September 11, 2001.

Yellowcake wasn't THE reason for invading, but it illustrates one of the holes in the "no WMD in Iraq" canard.

Iraq's previously being at war with Iran isn't relevant to this argument, just as the US previously fighting Japan is irrelevant in the argument over what's going on with the East Asia situation right now.

Again, the Iraqi government isn't one that wants to be a willing satellite of the Iranian government. Free elections were held, and it's not surprising that a Shiite majority population would vote for a Shiite leader.

It so happens that the Iranians are predominantly Shiite. The Iraqi people did that on their own. That didn't turn them into a country that's solidly on Iran's side. The Iranian leadership has absolutely no interest in preserving a leadership that allows a democratic system... that goes counter to hard Islamic law... to continue to exist and to serve as an inspiration for the Iranian masses to want that for themselves.

This wasn't a case where we had to invade because of a nuclear program, this was a case of weapons of mass destruction, and for the wider strategy on the war on terror which includes creating democracies in the region.

No, this isn't a case where President Bush "knew" that he "fucked up," quotation marks used strongly. Leaving Saddam's party in charge, sans Saddam, is like leaving a co-rapist free to roam the streets while incarcerating the main rapist. Saddam's party was part of the problem that was oppressing the Iraqi people. They had to go, they represented a minority population, they would've still had friction if your suggestion was implemented.

Oh yeah, you owe some answers to:

Are Super Bowl fans on the football field playing football in the Super Bowl in lieu of the football players on the football field playing football in the Super Bowl? YES [ ] NO [ ]

If I were to go on an internet forum, and say that one plus one equals two, would it be safe for someone reading that to assume that you were the one that made that post because you also agree that one plus one equals two? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Were our ancestors lying when they claimed that the sun orbited the Earth? YES [ ] NO [ ]

"Oh, when you find a DIRECT QUOTE from George Bush saying: "I lied about the WMD's being in Iraq before the 2003 invasion." Let me know, and please post it with the link. Otherwise..." -- LexusLover

Copy and paste these questions and their "yes" and "no" options to your reply and put an "X" in the appropriate option that represents your reply. Find the quote that LexusLover is challenging you to find and post something. Spare me any nonsense reply that you'd want to add to that.