Come on rubs, you have lots of propaganda and pretend to be a self-loathing "blame America first" American, but when facts are presented, you clam up with nothing but insults. I can take the insults all night. Just waiting for you to debunk something and answer why you want terrorists to win in Iraq.
You're asking us to disprove something that isn't known to exist. That's like asking me to disprove god. It's up the person making absurd claims to prove it, rather than us to disprove it. I don't want terrorists to take over. I want their government to handle it. If they can't do it in three years, than that only shows Bush's incompetence. Maybe if he didn't go against the advice of his generals, we'd be in better shape.
Incorrect. I'm presenting a multitude of evidence that wmd were found. And you are stumbling all over yourself. So you don't want terrorists to win. Do you support the military?
Here's the post once again: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 How does something that doesn't exist get looted? What are mustard and sarin? What makes a dirty nuke bomb? Hint...plutonium. How much of it was found in Iraq and shipped back to the states?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html Chin up, man. You'll learn to read eventually. THEY WERE MADE BECAUSE WE ATTACKED THEM. Does it get funnier than this!
So you admit wmd were found in Iraq now? And you obviously couldn't debunk any of them, so the best you could muster up was this one (out of all that are documented) was after the invasion? I can live with that I'm flattered you can't disprove the wmd that were found in Iraq. Don't feel bad though, AGS couldn't do it either. He just jumps up and down screaming in a hissy fit that none were found.
What are you fucking retarded? There were no WMDs when we invaded. The only thing they found; chemicals (not WMDs) were made BECAUSE and ONLY because of the U.S occupation. If we didn't invade, they wouldn't have made them. Jesus christ, get a fucking clue.
So the ability to make these chemicals magically appeared the day after we invaded? But were impossible to make the day before? Is this what you are saying?
Again with the insults. My skin is thicker than your head. Here's what you avoided (as usual): How does something that doesn't exist get looted? What are mustard and sarin? What makes a dirty nuke bomb? Hint...plutonium. How much of it was found in Iraq and shipped back to the states? Here are *some* of the wmd that were found, of which you've already admitted the chemical stash was found. Not a peep on the others though, eh? Here's the list of democrats that just knew WMD were in Iraq, long before Bush was in office. Here's an oldie, but a goodie! I just know you'll love this one! http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ Let's review what Clinton's Secretary of Defense said: Shall we go on defending saddam and blaming America first? Give me a D! Give me a E! Give me a N! Give me a I! Give me a A! Give me a L! Owned
Nowhere in that link does it say the ingredients were in Iraq, or if they were imported from Iran or elsewhere.
That's fine. So you can't really say if they were there or weren't there. Can you? You can make assumptions that they were not, to fit your point though. What you are doing here, is assigning a conclusion (the ingredients weren't in iraq) then casting blame based upon that conclusion which you don't even know to be factual. Isn't this what you are doing? Either way, Gtech more than sufficiently answers this whole point. The WMD debate is pointless to me. But at least acknowledge your fallacy here
I didn't think I would see it lorien but you are getting even worse than GTech for posting complete nonsense. I think you have been supporting GTech for too long, time to break free buddy. Never a bad word for the terrorist Bush.
It does not matter if there is WMD. People forget too quickly that the main reason first is that Bush stated " If you are a terrorist you will be hunted down and killed, If you harbor a terrorist-you then are a terrorist and will be treated as such." GTech has it right!!!!
Your the one who didn't read before trying to post a retort. That isn't my fault. I'll happily bring it up, though, you lizard loving chili dog eater. How funny that you accuse me of following in Gtech's footsteps, but then use his favorite line "never a bad word for _______" against me. Nevermind, that my posting style is clearly different from most other people here. Isn't that why you run crying from every thread I post in? Anyways, back to the subject at hand. Your usual attempt at changing the topic is cute, though. And expected.
Lorien your blog post about Ron Paul is pretty pathetic. Insults to begin the post. Is that a bad thing? The first 9/11 investigation was botched, incomplete, and a total joke the first time. He's not saying 9/11 was an inside job, he wants a REAL investigation. Ah but...you're with us or against us! Standing up for what you believe in is wrong? Least he isn't a flip flopper. * Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) * Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) * Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) * Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000) * Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003) More insults... His views are in sync with the constitution. More insults... Even more insults... You should become a political writer. /sarcasm.
I see you've given up on the original claim of this thread. I'll take this reply as admittance of that. Congrats on having the guts to post in this thread again after the beating you took. Ah! But you do not understand the point of the blog post. I think if you read it again; you'll see the point I am making.
My original post in this thread stated that Bush wouldn't leave Iraq no matter what happened. Nobody fucking wants us in Iraq. The majority of Americans, Congress, and other countries in the world WANT US OUT. Care to dispute that fact? When the president does something that NOBODY else wants, won't listen to anyone else, and even denies advice from his MAIN GENERALS - what do you call that? I call that a dictator.
Poor Rub. Giving up on the WMD debate (sad and crying, no doubt) and now wants to change the topic to Bushitler. You've probably never lived in a dictatorship and are just throwing that word around to sound cool. You should consider increasing your vocabulary just a little.