Is this what you voted for when you voted Bush?

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

I can't help but like the guy - bumbling as he may sometimes be - for having the character to stick to his beliefs and do what he thinks is necessary, be it not the popular choice.

this quote makes me sick, yes lets stand behind somone who constantly wrong

As has been stated numerous times, if President Bush was wrong in his pre-war assessment that Iraq had WMD the world joined him in that error. Russia, Germany, the UN's inspectors, everybody was wondering where a capricious amount of Iraq's weapons were at. Or where the documentation of their destruction was.

I can better admire someone who is true to his goals than someone who flounders around to represent the popular opinion of the moment. Not that he's an especially truthful politician - but then again, when was the last time you could equate politician = truth?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: yllus

Pray tell, where do 8500 litres of anthrax, 1000 tons of chemical agents, and several thousand warheads disappear to? Simple paperwork malfunction right? If those weapons are all gone today, it's staring you right in the face that more than one country's administration thought they did exist.

[/quote]

Try to wrap your mind around this fact. They don't exist. American taxpayers paid over $150 million to have the Iraq Survey Group prove that fact.

They didn't disappear. They didn't exist. They were destroyed following the first Gulf War and your boy Bush knew it. But he needed an excuse to invade Iraq without provocation and he knew you people would believe his lies and even go so far as to defend them after they were proved to be lies.

Anyone who continues to believe Bush's WMD lies is beyond help. You embrace what have been shown by the very same people who told the lies to be lies. You defend their actions based on those lies.

You are incomprehensibly obtuse.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

I can't help but like the guy - bumbling as he may sometimes be - for having the character to stick to his beliefs and do what he thinks is necessary, be it not the popular choice.

this quote makes me sick, yes lets stand behind somone who constantly wrong

As has been stated numerous times, if President Bush was wrong in his pre-war assessment that Iraq had WMD the world joined him in that error. Russia, Germany, the UN's inspectors, everybody was wondering where a capricious amount of Iraq's weapons were at. Or where the documentation of their destruction was.

I can better admire someone who is true to his goals than someone who flounders around to represent the popular opinion of the moment. Not that he's an especially truthful politician - but then again, when was the last time you could equate politician = truth?

OBL seems very determined to destroy the USA. He's called 'evil' and 'terrorist' and almost everyone hates him. But I respect him because he's sticking to his beliefs and hasn't given up yet.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: yllus
Pray tell, where do 8500 litres of anthrax, 1000 tons of chemical agents, and several thousand warheads disappear to? Simple paperwork malfunction right? If those weapons are all gone today, it's staring you right in the face that more than one country's administration thought they did exist.

Try to wrap your mind around this fact. They don't exist. American taxpayers paid over $150 million to have the Iraq Survey Group prove that fact.

They didn't disappear. They didn't exist. They were destroyed following the first Gulf War and your boy Bush knew it. But he needed an excuse to invade Iraq without provocation and he knew you people would believe his lies and even go so far as to defend them after they were proved to be lies.

Anyone who continues to believe Bush's WMD lies is beyond help. You embrace what have been shown by the very same people who told the lies to be lies. You defend their actions based on those lies.

You are incomprehensibly obtuse.

Okay, let's say I agree. Today, they don't exist inside Iraq - the Iraq Survey Group did a proper job in their search.

Then you say: "They didn't disappear. They didn't exist. They were destroyed following the first Gulf War and your boy Bush knew it." You see, this is the mental stumbling block you seem to have difficulty with. The words that emanated from Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix, on January 27 2003:

Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account.

The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date.

It boils down to two possibilities. Either Dr. Blix was in on it with "my boy Bush", or everyone who did not contest Dr. Blix's claims (that would be...nobody!) thought the same way. If there is a third option, please offer it for discussion.

I don't live in the areas you've labeled as "Dumbfuckistan." How nice of you to label your fellow citizens in such a manner - truly the mark of an open mind. I have the ability to recognize that many nations did indeed think that WMD existed prior to the war. Obtuseness would seem to be an ailment that you suffer from, not I.

Originally posted by: TuxDave
OBL seems very determined to destroy the USA. He's called 'evil' and 'terrorist' and almost everyone hates him. But I respect him because he's sticking to his beliefs and hasn't given up yet.

*nods* Crazy as it may sound, you and I might wish him dead but he is very strong in his beliefs and that strength can be an admirable quality.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Genx87

take an econ class and look at what the defecit is doing to our nation's ability to import goods and the trade deficit and then get back to me. Oh, and the sum of the EU's GDP right now already exceeds that of the US (and is growing faster I believe, check me on that). All they need is a more federal organized constitution, which they're in the process of hammering out as we speak. Think it'll take them 20 years to get the ink dry on that? think again.

The EU GDP growth for 3rd qtr of 2004 was 1.9% compared to 3.9% for the United States.
EU GDP is estimated at 13.7 Trillion
US GDP is pushing 11.8 Trillion

If you want to complain about deficits the EU is reporting a 4% estimated GDP deficit for 2004. That will actually be higher in actual dollars and percentages than the US will have this year.

Right now with an estimated 420 Billion dollar deficit the US will have a 3.5% deficit to gdp percentage.
Apparently collectively the EU is running a 550 Billion dollar deficit for 2004.

I dont see the doom and gloom threads talking about the end of EU here. Maybe they should startup?!?!?!?

Not only that. The unemployment rate in the EU is averaging 9.0%.

Man they are going straight down the crappah.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: theblackbox

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not to mention Europes economy has been stagnant for some time. China however could become the worlds largest economy in the coming decades. Just imagine the avg wage of a person in China at the US level. but instead of 300 million people you have over 1 billion. That is a shatload of buying power.

yeah, but their navy sucks, and they have more soldiers then they have weapons,so we could still kick their ass, or at least occupy their country and keep it messed up for a couple of years as we try to get free elections there.

an invasion of china is impossible for the USA, repeat impossible. They have WAY too large a population to control. Think of how many soldiers itd take to occupy America, and triple that. That being said, China's conventional Army is pathetic and wouldn't stand a chance against the USA. That's why they can't and won't take Taiwan. The minute they try to send ships across the ocean to Taiwan we'd just blow the ships up. Their subs and navy can't compete with us, and their air force is smaller and less advanced than our own.

 

[theblackbox]

we could take hong kong

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: yllus
Pray tell, where do 8500 litres of anthrax, 1000 tons of chemical agents, and several thousand warheads disappear to? Simple paperwork malfunction right? If those weapons are all gone today, it's staring you right in the face that more than one country's administration thought they did exist.

Try to wrap your mind around this fact. They don't exist. American taxpayers paid over $150 million to have the Iraq Survey Group prove that fact.

They didn't disappear. They didn't exist. They were destroyed following the first Gulf War and your boy Bush knew it. But he needed an excuse to invade Iraq without provocation and he knew you people would believe his lies and even go so far as to defend them after they were proved to be lies.

Anyone who continues to believe Bush's WMD lies is beyond help. You embrace what have been shown by the very same people who told the lies to be lies. You defend their actions based on those lies.

You are incomprehensibly obtuse.

Okay, let's say I agree. Today, they don't exist inside Iraq - the Iraq Survey Group did a proper job in their search.

Then you say: "They didn't disappear. They didn't exist. They were destroyed following the first Gulf War and your boy Bush knew it." You see, this is the mental stumbling block you seem to have difficulty with. The words that emanated from Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix, on January 27 2003:

Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account.

The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date.

It boils down to two possibilities. Either Dr. Blix was in on it with "my boy Bush", or everyone who did not contest Dr. Blix's claims (that would be...nobody!) thought the same way. If there is a third option, please offer it for discussion.

I don't live in the areas you've labeled as "Dumbfuckistan." How nice of you to label your fellow citizens in such a manner - truly the mark of an open mind. I have the ability to recognize that many nations did indeed think that WMD existed prior to the war. Obtuseness would seem to be an ailment that you suffer from, not I.

Originally posted by: TuxDave
OBL seems very determined to destroy the USA. He's called 'evil' and 'terrorist' and almost everyone hates him. But I respect him because he's sticking to his beliefs and hasn't given up yet.

*nods* Crazy as it may sound, you and I might wish him dead but he is very strong in his beliefs and that strength can be an admirable quality.

The area I labeled in the map can also be described as a state of mind, and brother, you're there.

I'm not mincing words any longer. Any people who would elect a president that has done and continues to do what Bush is doing deserves the monicker.

And for the last time, you obtuse blowhard, unnacounted for does NOT equal possession.

IT HAS BEEN 624 DAYS SINCE BUSH UNNECESSARILY INVADED IRAQ. NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND.

Because they don't exist.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
we could take hong kong

What's this "we" BS???

Why don't you go to China and get started? You seem to be quite a warrior behind your keyboard.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Genx87

take an econ class and look at what the defecit is doing to our nation's ability to import goods and the trade deficit and then get back to me. Oh, and the sum of the EU's GDP right now already exceeds that of the US (and is growing faster I believe, check me on that). All they need is a more federal organized constitution, which they're in the process of hammering out as we speak. Think it'll take them 20 years to get the ink dry on that? think again.

The EU GDP growth for 3rd qtr of 2004 was 1.9% compared to 3.9% for the United States.
EU GDP is estimated at 13.7 Trillion
US GDP is pushing 11.8 Trillion

If you want to complain about deficits the EU is reporting a 4% estimated GDP deficit for 2004. That will actually be higher in actual dollars and percentages than the US will have this year.

Right now with an estimated 420 Billion dollar deficit the US will have a 3.5% deficit to gdp percentage.
Apparently collectively the EU is running a 550 Billion dollar deficit for 2004.

I dont see the doom and gloom threads talking about the end of EU here. Maybe they should startup?!?!?!?

Not only that. The unemployment rate in the EU is averaging 9.0%.

Man they are going straight down the crappah.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...pWRzc&refer=europe

European economic growth will trail behind the U.S. through 2006, marking 13 years in a 14-year stretch in which Europe performed more poorly than the U.S., the European Commission forecasts. Third-quarter growth in the euro region's gross domestic product slowed to 0.3 percent from the previous three months, when it grew 0.5 percent, the European Union's statistics office said Nov. 12.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: yllus
Okay, let's say I agree. Today, they don't exist inside Iraq - the Iraq Survey Group did a proper job in their search.

Then you say: "They didn't disappear. They didn't exist. They were destroyed following the first Gulf War and your boy Bush knew it." You see, this is the mental stumbling block you seem to have difficulty with. The words that emanated from Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix, on January 27 2003:

Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account.

The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date.

It boils down to two possibilities. Either Dr. Blix was in on it with "my boy Bush", or everyone who did not contest Dr. Blix's claims (that would be...nobody!) thought the same way. If there is a third option, please offer it for discussion.

I don't live in the areas you've labeled as "Dumbfuckistan." How nice of you to label your fellow citizens in such a manner - truly the mark of an open mind. I have the ability to recognize that many nations did indeed think that WMD existed prior to the war. Obtuseness would seem to be an ailment that you suffer from, not I.

The area I labeled in the map can also be described as a state of mind, and brother, you're there.

I'm not mincing words any longer. Any people who would elect a president that has done and continues to do what Bush is doing deserves the monicker.

And for the last time, you obtuse blowhard, unnacounted for does NOT equal possession.

IT HAS BEEN 624 DAYS SINCE BUSH UNNECESSARILY INVADED IRAQ. NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND.

Because they don't exist.

I find it hard to believe that a literate person can be this ridiculously simpleminded. Do your eyes grow weak at the sight of a backed up quote?

The very Dr. Hans Blix whom you champion as the purveyor of truth in other threads has stated, before the war - in his official capacity in front of the United Nations - his suspicion that the destruction of a number of WMD was unaccounted for.

Firstly, this proves beyond a doubt that more than just Mr. Bush presumed WMD existed in pre-war Iraq.

Secondly, WTF does unaccounted mean then? 1000 tons of poison doesn't just get misplaced! The documentation doesn't consist of a simple checklist that someone misplaced! It's a rather large job of transportation and careful destruction of these items. Surely, perhaps with some assistance, you can come to comprehend that?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: yllus

I find it hard to believe that a literate person can be this ridiculously simpleminded. Do your eyes grow weak at the sight of a backed up quote?

The very Dr. Hans Blix whom you champion as the purveyor of truth in other threads has stated, before the war - in his official capacity in front of the United Nations - his suspicion that the destruction of a number of WMD was unaccounted for.

Firstly, this proves beyond a doubt that more than just Mr. Bush presumed WMD existed in pre-war Iraq.

Secondly, WTF does unaccounted mean then? 1000 tons of poison doesn't just get misplaced! The documentation doesn't consist of a simple checklist that someone misplaced! It's a rather large job of transportation and careful destruction of these items. Surely, perhaps with some assistance, you can come to comprehend that?[/quote]

OK, you move up towards the front of the line for top honors of most Brainwashee. Congrats

 

[BBond]

Unnacounted for means Iraq said it was destroyed but didn't have sufficient proof for Dr. Blix. 624 days and hundreds of billions of dollars and NO WMD means it didn't exist.

Even if, as you say, there was a presumption of its existence, what exactly was the reason for the pressing need for Bush's invasion of Iraq, UNPROVOKED, on March 19, 2003???

And, in light of the continuing disastrous results of that invasion, was it worth it?

In other words, how can any "literate person" justify a mistake of these proportions?

And when will you people wake up and demand accountability from those responsible?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OK, you move up towards the front of the line for top honors of most Brainwashee. Congrats

Dave. You've got a thread on the first page of P&N blaming the phone and cable companies for controlling the government. You're a good guy, but you're tossing stones that your glass house can't handle.

Originally posted by: BBond
Unnacounted for means Iraq said it was destroyed but didn't have sufficient proof for Dr. Blix. 624 days and hundreds of billions of dollars and NO WMD means it didn't exist.

Even if, as you say, there was a presumption of its existence, what exactly was the reason for the pressing need for Bush's invasion of Iraq, UNPROVOKED, on March 19, 2003???

And, in light of the continuing disastrous results of that invasion, was it worth it?

In other words, how can any "literate person" justify a mistake of these proportions?

And when will you people wake up and demand accountability from those responsible?

Okay, I'll separate my response here into two areas. What is important when demanding accountability is the facts and state of mind of our leaders before they took an action. They're not bloody prescient.

Dr. Blix: Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

You keep writing ridiculous statements such as,

Originally posted by: BBond
Give it up already. The entire planet knows there were no WMD in Iraq and Blix never said there were.

What does "no convincing evidence for its destruction" mean to you exactly? That they were destroyed but some officer forgot to note as much in their daily log? These aren't quantities or items that are that easily overlooked, BBond. Can you simply accept that, yes, many leaders and organizations around the world did believe before the war that WMD was floating around somewhere in Iraq?

I didn't especially care if Iraq was invaded or not, though deposing a dictator is always a plus in my books. A terrible shame that so many Americans have died these past months in a country that almost all of them don't care about in the least or ever wish to visit again.

Then again, we do remember UN Resolution 678 (29 November 1990) that "authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991.

We do remember UN Resolution 687 (3 April 1991) requiring "the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions".

We do remember UN 707 (15 August 1991) condemning Iraq's non-compliance on weapons inspections as a "material breach" of Resolution 687, and incorporates into its standard for compliance with SCR687 that Iraq provide "full, final and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its programmes to develop" prohibited weaponry.

We do remember the years of deceit, with an example noted in UN Resolution 1115 (21 June 1997) which "condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "[d]emands that [they] cooperate fully" with UNSCOM.

We do remember the dead, wounded and MIA of the first Iraq War in their efforts to extricate the tyrant Hussein from Kuwait.

At least, I remember. Do you?

 

[BBond]

What was the pressing, unavoidable reason for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003???

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BBond
What was the pressing, unavoidable reason for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003???

According to Yllus and all other Bush supporters it wasn't WMD.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BBond
What was the pressing, unavoidable reason for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003???

According to Yllus and all other Bush supporters it wasn't WMD.

Then they lie on top of a lie.

 

[CocoMunkee]

Originally posted by: slyedog

quoted from a dumb ass lib:
=============================================================

Hey, I make as much sense as the Country electing W again, only fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W's win is burning the little twisted minds of the lib's. and just wait until 2008. poor libs
[/Woooord.

All U Despondent LIbs, Hope...

 

[CocoMunkee]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: theblackbox
we could take hong kong

What's this "we" BS???

Why don't you go to China and get started? You seem to be quite a warrior behind your keyboard.

WTF?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BBond
What was the pressing, unavoidable reason for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003???

What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

How is it unprovoked considering all the UN resolutions I just linked to?

Why do you continue to call the WMD concerns a lie even though we've been over the fact everyone did believe they existed a good dozen times by now?

 

[LtPage1]

get over it already, and join me in my short lived apathy.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: theblackbox

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not to mention Europes economy has been stagnant for some time. China however could become the worlds largest economy in the coming decades. Just imagine the avg wage of a person in China at the US level. but instead of 300 million people you have over 1 billion. That is a shatload of buying power.

yeah, but their navy sucks, and they have more soldiers then they have weapons,so we could still kick their ass, or at least occupy their country and keep it messed up for a couple of years as we try to get free elections there.

an invasion of china is impossible for the USA, repeat impossible. They have WAY too large a population to control. Think of how many soldiers itd take to occupy America, and triple that. That being said, China's conventional Army is pathetic and wouldn't stand a chance against the USA. That's why they can't and won't take Taiwan. The minute they try to send ships across the ocean to Taiwan we'd just blow the ships up. Their subs and navy can't compete with us, and their air force is smaller and less advanced than our own.

IF we were to invade China, there's no way in hell we're gonna occupy it. Just blow it up and sign a treaty that screws them over and move out.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
What was the pressing, unavoidable reason for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003???

What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

How is it unprovoked considering all the UN resolutions I just linked to?

Why do you continue to call the WMD concerns a lie even though we've been over the fact everyone did believe they existed a good dozen times by now?

The dictator was rendered harmless to the international community by a dozen years of sanctions. Dealing with Saddam "with finality" has produced more harm than his supposed refusal to honor the mandates of the UN. And the UN Security Council DID NOT condone, support, or approve the Bush administration's baseless attack on Iraq.

The UN resolutions you linked DID NOT give approval for the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. based on flimsy evidence hyped by Bush to justify an illegal, unprovoked, illegitimate attack.

THE WMD WHICH BUSH CLAIMED IRAQ POSSESSED THROUGH HIS USE OF SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE, MUCH OF WHICH WAS PROVEN FALSE AT THE VERY TIME HE USED IT, WAS NEVER BELIEVED TO EXIST BY "EVERYONE," AND INDEED WAS DECRIED AS FALSE BY THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS AS THEY CONDUCTED FRUITLESS SEARCHES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS WHICH THEY WERE FORCED TO ABANDON WHEN BUSH DECIDED TO INVADE IRAQ WITHOUT UN SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. BUSH AND BLAIR WERE THE ONLY TWO "LEADERS" WHO BELIEVED THEIR OWN LIES. STOP RE-WRITING HISTORY AND STOP TRYING TO CONFER LEGITIMACY ON AN INVASION THAT IS CLEARLY THE PRODUCT OF LIES. THERE HAS BEEN NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ. THERE WAS NO WMD IN IRAQ.

AGAIN, WHAT WAS THE PRESSING, UNAVOIDABLE REASON FOR THE UNPROVOKED INVASION OF IRAQ ON MARCH 19, 2003???

WHAT WAS THE REASON BUSH HAD TO INVADE IRAQ ON THAT DATE?

WHAT WAS THE THREAT?

WHERE IS THE WMD???

WHY ALL THIS CARNAGE???

THE U.S. HAS LOST ALL LEGITIMACY IN THE EYES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY BECAUSE BUSH LIED. HE SELECTED INTELLIGENCE TO JUSTIFY AN UNPROVOKED INVASION OF IRAQ AND NOW, AS YOU FOOLISHLY, STUBBORNLY INSIST OTHERWISE, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RECOGNIZES THE ENTIRE IRAQ FIASCO AS A PRODUCT OF BUSH'S LIES AND THE COMPLICITY OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE TOO IGNORANT TO ADMIT THE TRUTH.

BUSH LIED. IRAQ IS A NATION OF CORPSES AND RUBBLE. AND YOU RE-WRITE HISTORY TO DEFEND THE DEATH, DESTRUCTION, AND THE LIARS.

WHAT A DISGRACE.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
What was the pressing, unavoidable reason for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003???

What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

How is it unprovoked considering all the UN resolutions I just linked to?

Why do you continue to call the WMD concerns a lie even though we've been over the fact everyone did believe they existed a good dozen times by now?

The dictator was rendered harmless to the international community by a dozen years of sanctions. Dealing with Saddam "with finality" has produced more harm than his supposed refusal to honor the mandates of the UN. And the UN Security Council DID NOT condone, support, or approve the Bush administration's baseless attack on Iraq.

The UN resolutions you linked DID NOT give approval for the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. based on flimsy evidence hyped by Bush to justify an illegal, unprovoked, illegitimate attack.

THE WMD WHICH BUSH CLAIMED IRAQ POSSESSED THROUGH HIS USE OF SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE, MUCH OF WHICH WAS PROVEN FALSE AT THE VERY TIME HE USED IT, WAS NEVER BELIEVED TO EXIST BY "EVERYONE," AND INDEED WAS DECRIED AS FALSE BY THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS AS THEY CONDUCTED FRUITLESS SEARCHES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS WHICH THEY WERE FORCED TO ABANDON WHEN BUSH DECIDED TO INVADE IRAQ WITHOUT UN SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. BUSH AND BLAIR WERE THE ONLY TWO "LEADERS" WHO BELIEVED THEIR OWN LIES. STOP RE-WRITING HISTORY AND STOP TRYING TO CONFER LEGITIMACY ON AN INVASION THAT IS CLEARLY THE PRODUCT OF LIES. THERE HAS BEEN NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ. THERE WAS NO WMD IN IRAQ.

AGAIN, WHAT WAS THE PRESSING, UNAVOIDABLE REASON FOR THE UNPROVOKED INVASION OF IRAQ ON MARCH 19, 2003???

WHAT WAS THE REASON BUSH HAD TO INVADE IRAQ ON THAT DATE?

WHAT WAS THE THREAT?

WHERE IS THE WMD???

WHY ALL THIS CARNAGE???

THE U.S. HAS LOST ALL LEGITIMACY IN THE EYES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY BECAUSE BUSH LIED. HE SELECTED INTELLIGENCE TO JUSTIFY AN UNPROVOKED INVASION OF IRAQ AND NOW, AS YOU FOOLISHLY, STUBBORNLY INSIST OTHERWISE, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RECOGNIZES THE ENTIRE IRAQ FIASCO AS A PRODUCT OF BUSH'S LIES AND THE COMPLICITY OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE TOO IGNORANT TO ADMIT THE TRUTH.

BUSH LIED. IRAQ IS A NATION OF CORPSES AND RUBBLE. AND YOU RE-WRITE HISTORY TO DEFEND THE DEATH, DESTRUCTION, AND THE LIARS.

WHAT A DISGRACE.

And there's nothing you can do about it. Sad isn't it?

 

[poopaskoopa]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
What was the pressing, unavoidable reason for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003???

What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

None, if it doesn't cost American lives and my tax money. But it's cost both, and he's gone, and somehow, I don't feel better. But since it's not like we can have a do-over on stuff like fvcking up another country, or spending billions, or creating a new terrorist playground, so I hope for the best outcome.