Tonight on "Hardball with Chris Matthews"

[umbrella39]

And your endless apologizing has noting to do with Hardball or Chris Matthews either.

 

[Genx87]

genx is a perfect example of a war mongering neocon who can't seem to find reality from a hole in the ground, still perpetualing the lie that 9/11 is why we went to iraq, and iraq was somehow behind 9/11

You are a perfect example of being blinded by hate to the point you cant rationalize why the United States govt post 9-11 took Saddams refusal to adhere to the treaty he signed more serious than it did in the past.

When you see 3000 people being killed by hijackers in a single attack you tend to perk up and take other threats a little more serious.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
And your endless apologizing has noting to do with Hardball or Chris Matthews either.

I find it funny that defending a decision is now the same as apologizing.

Show me where once I have apologized for supporting the war in Iraq?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

You know, with an irrational mind like yours bush could justify exterminating the Eskimos after 9/11 and you'd be lapping it up. What part of, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" don't you understand. You can blind yourself, but you cannot blind the people responding to you in this thread. Your argument is rationalization and illogical crap.

If the eskimos were ramming planes into the skyscrapers in a city near you I might consider the idea.

There is nothing irrational with making sure WMD's that could fall into the hands of the very people who just killed 3000 of your citizens is dealt with.

We screwed around long enough with that security threat during the 1990s. Lobbing a few missiles and hoping he complies with the very treaty he signed is foolhardy.

Hey Gen, can you help me remember what the Iraqi role in 9/11 was again? What was the preliminary conclusions of the UN inspection team that was in Iraq for months before the invasion? What was the results of the TWO YEAR inspection that we conducted into the WMD capabilities of Saddam?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

Termites infest your house.
Some guy in the next street has trouble with the police.
Termite infestion in his street.
The guy has said he wants your house removed since it blocks his view.

Terrible analogy that has little to do with this subject.

your connect the dots skill was terrible as well, lets just leave it at that

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

You know, with an irrational mind like yours bush could justify exterminating the Eskimos after 9/11 and you'd be lapping it up. What part of, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" don't you understand. You can blind yourself, but you cannot blind the people responding to you in this thread. Your argument is rationalization and illogical crap.

If the eskimos were ramming planes into the skyscrapers in a city near you I might consider the idea.

There is nothing irrational with making sure WMD's that could fall into the hands of the very people who just killed 3000 of your citizens is dealt with.

We screwed around long enough with that security threat during the 1990s. Lobbing a few missiles and hoping he complies with the very treaty he signed is foolhardy.

Hey Gen, can you help me remember what the Iraqi role in 9/11 was again? What was the preliminary conclusions of the UN inspection team that was in Iraq for months before the invasion? What was the results of the TWO YEAR inspection that we conducted into the WMD capabilities of Saddam?

There was zero role with Saddam and 9-11. But that has little effect on the reasons for going into Iraq. Saddam simply refused to adhere to the very treaty he signed at the end of the first Gulf War. As a country we could not take the risk the stockpiles he was known to have could end up in the wrong person hands.

The burden was on Saddam to prove known stockpiles were destroyed. Soemthing he failed to do. It was on Saddam to allow unfettered access to his facilities, something he didnt do.

The UN was not in Iraq for nearly 4 years, a prelimnary report doesnt cut the mustard and he was still not cooperating even with U.S. troops massing on his southern border.

This could have been all taken care of he he actually complied with the very peace treaty he signed a decade before.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

Termites infest your house.
Some guy in the next street has trouble with the police.
Termite infestion in his street.
The guy has said he wants your house removed since it blocks his view.

Terrible analogy that has little to do with this subject.

your connect the dots skill was terrible as well, lets just leave it at that

Analogy is terrible, it borders on thoughtless.

Try again.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

When you see 3000 people being killed by hijackers in a single attack you tend to perk up and take other threats a little more serious.

So when did Iraq threaten you? On the other hand, NK did but I don't see troops invading NK. Why is that?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

When you see 3000 people being killed by hijackers in a single attack you tend to perk up and take other threats a little more serious.

So when did Iraq threaten you? On the other hand, NK did but I don't see troops invading NK. Why is that?

There was a very real threat the stockpiles known to have existed and never accounted for could end up in OBLs hands. All Saddam had to do was prove where the stockpiles went and allow the UN to do their jobs. Something he failed miserably at.

How long should we have let him continue his reign of power without having to adhere to the cease fire agreement he signed? I am actually interested in hearing how many months, years, or decades you were willing to let him run amok without knowing if he has WMDs and if they are in OBLs hands.

As for NK, NK is a prime example of why we needed to deal with Saddam earlier than later.

If the Clinton administration took care of the issue in 94 like it should have then we wouldnt be in a position with a madman at the helm of a nuclear tipped weapon pointed at seoul and the millions who live there.

Right now NK has us by the ballz and all we can do is hope to starve them out.
In 1,2,3, 7, 10 years you could have replaced Kim Jong with Saddam and good luck with that as he lobs a missile at Israel and the entire ME is turned into a sheet of glass.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

you're aware that the policy (as admitted by rumsfeld and condi) over IRAQ prior to invasion was that he wasn't a threat to anyone let alone us and he had no stockpiles of WMDs.

Really? This is news to me.
Got any credible links?

Sure. Oh, sorry, it was Powell and Condi not Rumsfeld.

Powell and Rice declare Iraq is at bay

Even a video with their own words .... say it with my now class "OOOOOOHHHHHH AWWWWWWEEEEEE"

Powell and Condi video

quoted text from link provided.

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Oh yes before 9-11.

Please reread my question as I clearly stated "after" 9-11.

Here is my question again

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

this deserves an LOL.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home

Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed

hans blix anyone? what? huh?

Terrorists are all from the Middle East.

how many were from iraq again? Oh yes, thats right, none

Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

3/4 the world feels that way. Perhaps we should overthorw there governemnts as well?

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

:roll:

perhaps we should preemptively invade russia so they don't invade argentina? thats a worst case scenario in russian/argentine relations, so shouldn't we deal with it before it happens?

 

[imported_Pedro69]

I asked you when Iraq threatened you. And according to your fellow Bush supporters in the DMS thread the burden of proof lies on the accuser which in this case is the US. But a guess this rule does not apply when it doesn't suit your agenda

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Genx87

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

There WERE inspectors there. Remember Hans Blix? The inspectors said there were no signs of WMD's, and sure enough, there were no WMDs.

If they believed that after nearly 5 years of no access and a timeline of Saddam covering things up and changing their declarations. Then why didnt the UN suspend the sanctions on Iraq?

Funny how so many of the other countries thought the inspections were working. Oh wait. they found NO WMDS. I guess the inspections did work, huh.

Working eh? They werent even in Iraq for nearly 4 years.

they had been in iraq four months. certainly thats compliance.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

genx is a perfect example of a war mongering neocon who can't seem to find reality from a hole in the ground, still perpetualing the lie that 9/11 is why we went to iraq, and iraq was somehow behind 9/11

You are a perfect example of being blinded by hate to the point you cant rationalize why the United States govt post 9-11 took Saddams refusal to adhere to the treaty he signed more serious than it did in the past.

When you see 3000 people being killed by hijackers in a single attack you tend to perk up and take other threats a little more serious.

so to do this you go around running around making up threats while ignoring the reals threats and the causes of the real threats.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

You know, with an irrational mind like yours bush could justify exterminating the Eskimos after 9/11 and you'd be lapping it up. What part of, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" don't you understand. You can blind yourself, but you cannot blind the people responding to you in this thread. Your argument is rationalization and illogical crap.

If the eskimos were ramming planes into the skyscrapers in a city near you I might consider the idea.

There is nothing irrational with making sure WMD's that could fall into the hands of the very people who just killed 3000 of your citizens is dealt with.

We screwed around long enough with that security threat during the 1990s. Lobbing a few missiles and hoping he complies with the very treaty he signed is foolhardy.

but apparently it worked.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

When you see 3000 people being killed by hijackers in a single attack you tend to perk up and take other threats a little more serious.

So when did Iraq threaten you? On the other hand, NK did but I don't see troops invading NK. Why is that?

1) no oil
2) not easy
3) not easy
4) no convenient terrorist tie in
5) no oil

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

If the Clinton administration took care of the issue in 94 like it should have then we wouldnt be in a position with a madman at the helm of a nuclear tipped weapon pointed at seoul and the millions who live there.

i believe thats the 2nd time you've refered to someone as a madman in this thread.

Right now NK has us by the ballz and all we can do is hope to starve them out.
In 1,2,3, 7, 10 years you could have replaced Kim Jong with Saddam and good luck with that as he lobs a missile at Israel and the entire ME is turned into a sheet of glass.

when you say starve them out, you do realize that they are literally starving. When you say that you hope it works, you realize that NK has been starving for a decade and that hasn't really hurt the regime, right? Like you siad, the place is run by a madman, i doubt he cares if the people starve.

 

[her209]

My question is "Where the fvck are the (then unnameable) Iraqi 'defectors' that supposedly confirmed the WMD evidence?"

 

[2Xtreme21]

I hate how people can be so easily spoonfed. For God's sake, Bush has changed his reason for invading Iraq, what, 3 times now? First it was the "Stockpiles of WMD's and Saddam's unwillingness to disarm (proven wrong)," then it was how "Iraq sponsored terrorists (al Qaida, specifically) were responsible for 9-11 (proven wrong)," now it's about how "we went to war because we were attacked... (again, NO LINK BETWEEN 9-11 AND SADDAM)" Do your opinions just magically change based on whatever mood Bush is in? I'm sure we'll have another 4 reasons or so that we invaded Iraq before his term ends. Quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he just said because God told him to... which, apparently, 52% of you would believe.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

Its going to take more than a WMD attack to get the Big Business types to give up their illegal labor.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

You know, with an irrational mind like yours bush could justify exterminating the Eskimos after 9/11 and you'd be lapping it up. What part of, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" don't you understand. You can blind yourself, but you cannot blind the people responding to you in this thread. Your argument is rationalization and illogical crap.

If the eskimos were ramming planes into the skyscrapers in a city near you I might consider the idea.

There is nothing irrational with making sure WMD's that could fall into the hands of the very people who just killed 3000 of your citizens is dealt with.

We screwed around long enough with that security threat during the 1990s. Lobbing a few missiles and hoping he complies with the very treaty he signed is foolhardy.

Multiple choice for you Genx... who was behind the attrocities of Sept 11, 2001:

A) Osama Bin Laden and a gang of mostly Saudis and not one Iraqi.
B) Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

You know, with an irrational mind like yours bush could justify exterminating the Eskimos after 9/11 and you'd be lapping it up. What part of, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" don't you understand. You can blind yourself, but you cannot blind the people responding to you in this thread. Your argument is rationalization and illogical crap.

If the eskimos were ramming planes into the skyscrapers in a city near you I might consider the idea.

There is nothing irrational with making sure WMD's that could fall into the hands of the very people who just killed 3000 of your citizens is dealt with.

We screwed around long enough with that security threat during the 1990s. Lobbing a few missiles and hoping he complies with the very treaty he signed is foolhardy.

Multiple choice for you Genx... who was behind the attrocities of Sept 11, 2001:

A) Osama Bin Laden and a gang of mostly Saudis and not one Iraqi.
B) Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people.

give him a minute....he needs to consult his god.

i read GenX's post and was about to RIP him a new one, goatse style, but I feel it's been done fairly well.

 

[Drift3r]

Why bother with someone like GenX ? It's obvious that he is nothing more then a ideologue whore who cant see past his own spoon feed political beliefs.

 

[slyedog]

Why bother with someone like drift3r? It's obvious that he is nothing more then a ideologue whore who cant see past his own spoon feed political beliefs

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: slyedog
Why bother with someone like drift3r? It's obvious that he is nothing more then a ideologue whore who cant see past his own spoon feed political beliefs

:thumbsdown: