[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

Ahha, lucky you, rather.

deadworm, I don't quite understand what the hell you are saying...LOL. First you said no one cares about me enough to kill me. Ummm...ok. So I said lucky them. My intention with that comment was to say that if someone intended to kill me, they'd find more than they were looking for. I thought we were joking around? Frankly, I don't have any idea what you are doing here...

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Not only has Bush solidified support for al Qaida and transformed them from a ragtag bunch of rebels into a legitimate army, he has also taken out one of their biggest enemies and granted them access to a country full of potential new recruits that was off-limits under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

LOL! Where do you get your news?! More scare tactics. They were and ARE a ragtag bunch of rebels. A "legitimate army" of terrorists? What a JOKE. I find it truly sad that you believe this.

Originally Posted by mag

Saying 9 in 10 terrorists want Kerry is insane.

Okay, 8 in 10. Look at it this way...if terrorists wanted Bush in office, Hezbollah wouldnt be trying to help Michael Moore with the distribution of his movie. LOL.

Originally Posted by mag

Just because all evidence shows that they were following orders doesn't mean anything. These were just a few bad apples.

You never provide any of the evidence you claim shows this or that. That's your biggest flaw when it comes to adventure game board debates. lol.

Originally Posted by mag

Yeah. That, plus any person who has actually been there.

Who do you think I'm referring to? People on vacation nearby? I'm talking about people who have been there. They complain about the FOOD for crying out loud. And about how their friend's friend's friend had got beaten up...

Originally Posted by mag

Yeah, and what if there's no such place as England? And maybe we're not really alive at all. Maybe this is all just a big dream...

Now you're just being silly. But that's to be expected I guess when you have no defense.

Originally Posted by mag

Al Qaida is nothing if not patient. And all inidicators show that the "War on Terror" has only made them stronger.

LOL! What "indicators"? For someone with so much "evidence" and "indicators" you have mastered the art of proving NOTHING.

Originally Posted by mag

Besides, terrorist attacks in other parts of the world have increased. They don't need to come to America any more. Bush has put us in firing range.

So fire back.

Originally Posted by mag

That I can actually agree with. Except I think you got the roles mixed up a bit. Because Hussein wasn't the one launching unjustified wars against other countries.

You are a very confused individual. I was referring to Hitler's amassing of a huge military. The point is that none of the countries surrounding Germany stopped him from building his war machine, even though treaties still around from WW1 forbade all of the things he was doing. No one stopped him BEFORE HE STARTED LAUNCHING WARS. Saddam is the same story. There was intelligence reporting that he was doing the same thing. After all, he was turning down the U.N. rules and not allowing weapon inspectors. Why? And the U.N. didn't enforce the rules! Typical. What good are rules if they are allowed to be broken? That's the thing liberals don't understand. They think ALL rules are made to be broken...and when someone tries to enforce the rules, they are evil.

Originally Posted by mag

Hey, it's not my fault adventure gamers tend to be intelligent people.

Don't get me wrong, I like this community of people, but many of them aren't from the U.S. and are basing their opinions on international hearsay and media. Plus the fact that they don't live here and they don't like the idea of the U.S. being a powerful nation. This is not a bash, I love other countries and other cultures. I'm just stating that a vast amount of this 83% or whatever that would support Kerry, won't be voting in this election.

Originally Posted by mag

This is just a lie that's been propagated by the Bush administration. They may have found enough intelligence to cobble together a flimsy case for going to war. But in reality all of the intelligence showed that Bush was wrong. Heck, I knew enough to know Bush was lying. It doesn't even take a whole lot of classified information to figure out. Furthermore, the Bush administration was told repeatedly by several people in the intelligence community that there were no WMDs and that there was no link to al Qaida. This was not a failure in intelligence. This was a failure in leadership.

Then let's dismantle the country right now. If practically EVERYONE in our government decided to go to war on bad intelligence, we all deserve to be shot.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, I guess that makes it okay to kill them then.

Poor, poor misguided liberal. Bush didn't kill anyone. Iraqis did.

Originally Posted by mag

The difference between my "liberal takes on the war" and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is that the sources I read are actually reputable sources. What they report are proven facts.

More reputable sources! More of those "facts" you like to refer to! Holy smokes! But...where are they?

Originally Posted by mag

You mean like these documents?

Sure, if you want. Those documents PROVE nothing, except the first one, which shows he served 120 days in active training.


By the way, I want to apologize to Mattsius. I simply CAN NOT reply to all of these rants. I want to, but I have a life to get back to. A good debate should be between two people anyway, not 5 VS 1.

[Wormsie]

Q: What am I doing here?

A:

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL! Where do you get your news?! More scare tactics. They were and ARE a ragtag bunch of rebels. A "legitimate army" of terrorists? What a JOKE.

A ragtag bunch of rebels can use millions of dollars to destroy WTC?

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

A ragtag bunch of rebels can use millions of dollars to destroy WTC?

They hijacked planes with boxcutters man, lol. They used OUR millions of dollars, and flew them into the towers... Anyone could have done it that owned a box cutter, and had knowledge of flying a plane. Thank goodness airport security is better since then...and yes, I've flown several times since 9/11, so I've seen it firsthand.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL! Where do you get your news?! More scare tactics. They were and ARE a ragtag bunch of rebels. A "legitimate army" of terrorists? What a JOKE. I find it truly sad that you believe this.

Before 9/11 al Qaida was just one of a number of terrorist groups working out of the Middle East. After the attacks and Bush's response to it, al Qaida became a leader of the war against the United States. Bush's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq increased support for al Qaida's cause and justified in Arabs' minds their view of America as "the Great Satan." So what once was just another band of terrorists has now become the driving force in a new Islamic revolution.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Look at it this way...if terrorists wanted Bush in office, Hezbollah wouldnt be trying to help Michael Moore with the distribution of his movie.

It's quite simple. Bush is their Darth Vader. The more people hate him, the more recruits they have. You'll notice that the people they're distributing the film to aren't going to be voting in November.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

You never provide any of the evidence you claim shows this or that. That's your biggest flaw when it comes to adventure game board debates. lol.

I don't see you providing any citations either. But what the heck? I'll play along.

If you've been paying attention to the news, which you obviously haven't, you would know that nearly all of the soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal have said that they were following orders. The only one who has questioned that story is the one who cut a deal with the Army for a lighter sentence. But it gets better. Investigations have shown that the torture started as high as Rumsfeld himself. And the abuses at Abu Ghraib began just after a visit from Major General Geoffrey Miller, commanding officer of Guantanamo Bay, to "Gitmoize" the prison system in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Now you're just being silly. But that's to be expected I guess when you have no defense.

Apparently, you didn't pick up on the sarcasm in that statement. It was a mockery of your previous statement about us not being able to know what went on at Guantanamo Bay. There's about as much evidence for prisoner abuse as there is for the existence of England. You're simply disregarding any piece of evidence that disproves your argument.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL! What "indicators"? For someone with so much "evidence" and "indicators" you have mastered the art of proving NOTHING.

As the International Institute for Strategic Studies reported in May, the war in Iraq has bolstered al Qaida's numbers. This is partly because, as I mentioned earlier, Bush's actions in Iraq increased Arab sympathy for al Qaida's cause. But also because it opened the way for al Qaida to begin operating in Iraq, a country that was off limits to them under Hussein's rule. Iraq is also filled with people who hate the United States, probably even more than the rest of the Arab world. This is due to the fact that in the first Gulf War when Bush I told the Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein and they did, we left them hanging out to dry. There are few people in Iraq who didn't lose somebody close to them during that war.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

So fire back.

Right. And the next time you see a terrorist be sure to shoot him before he blows somebody up.

Do you even know what "guerrilla warfare" means?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

There was intelligence reporting that he was doing the same thing. After all, he was turning down the U.N. rules and not allowing weapon inspectors. Why?

Except for the fact that there were weapons inspectors in Iraq. No, the truth is that the Iraqi military was never rebuilt after the first Gulf War.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Then let's dismantle the country right now. If practically EVERYONE in our government decided to go to war on bad intelligence, we all deserve to be shot.

I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean.

The intelligence wasn't bad. All of the intelligence said that Bush was wrong. The only thing that was bad was our leaders, who selectively picked the intelligence they wanted to hear.

So now the next time you post I expect to see citations for everything.

mag

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Before 9/11 al Qaida was just one of a number of terrorist groups working out of the Middle East. After the attacks and Bush's response to it, al Qaida became a leader of the war against the United States. Bush's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq increased support for al Qaida's cause and justified in Arabs' minds their view of America as "the Great Satan." So what once was just another band of terrorists has now become the driving force in a new Islamic revolution.

Unbelievable. How you swallow this crap. It sounds to me like you're too frightened... Who cares if Arabs view us as "The Great Satan"? They always have, they always will. Oh wait, except for the ones that were cheering and celebrating when Americans arrived to take out Saddam...

http://www.rkcheung.com/Iraq/CandyKids.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2...-6570C-007.jpg

Originally Posted by mag

It's quite simple. Bush is their Darth Vader. The more people hate him, the more recruits they have. You'll notice that the people they're distributing the film to aren't going to be voting in November.

Yes, and what do more recruits mean? More fodder for U.S. guns. These young punks should go to school instead of fueling themselves with hatred.

Originally Posted by mag

If you've been paying attention to the news, which you obviously haven't, you would know that nearly all of the soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal have said that they were following orders. The only one who has questioned that story is the one who cut a deal with the Army for a lighter sentence. But it gets better. Investigations have shown that the torture started as high as Rumsfeld himself. And the abuses at Abu Ghraib began just after a visit from Major General Geoffrey Miller, commanding officer of Guantanamo Bay, to "Gitmoize" the prison system in Iraq.

LOL! This is going to be more fun than I thought. Frankly, your last two links there are little more than conspiracy theories, and seeing as how you supplied me with media that ranges from incredibly left-wing to unbelievably left-wing (CNN, MSNBC, the freakin' SCOOP, the "Guardian" for the love of God)...I will supply you with a healthy dose of reality, otherwise known as Fox News:

Since it appears that your only "evidence" is in the form of testimony from a bunch of sickos (I think making naked human pyramids qualifies someone for this title), I take it you believe whatever people say when playing the blame game as long as it agrees with your beliefs. But try this side...

Some testimony by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba concerning Abu Ghraib. To summarize, a lack of leadership there resulted in: "At the end of a day, a few soldiers … conspired to abuse and conduct egregious acts of violence against detainees and other civilians outside the bounds of international law and the Geneva Convention."

It also states that even though the Guantanamo Bay detention camps do not have to follow the Geneva Convention: "President Bush even wanted Al Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay to be treated humanely."

Oh, and by the way, here are two interesting pieces that you might enjoy about new evidence that could soon prove a link between al Qaeda and Saddam:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html

Enjoy.

Originally Posted by mag

Apparently, you didn't pick up on the sarcasm in that statement. It was a mockery of your previous statement about us not being able to know what went on at Guantanamo Bay. There's about as much evidence for prisoner abuse as there is for the existence of England. You're simply disregarding any piece of evidence that disproves your argument.

There is no evidence aside from the sound bites of a few pissed Arabs and maybe a Brit or two. All of whom share one thing in common...they hate George Bush. Oh, and perhaps they hated the bad food at the prison, as I stated before... Ha ha. And by the way, I picked up on your sarcasm, I just felt that it was beneath even you. It's kind of like the difference between the quality of the humor in American Pie VS that of Stanly Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. Anyone who prefers the former is obviously twelve years old.

Originally Posted by mag

As the International Institute for Strategic Studies reported in May, the war in Iraq has bolstered al Qaida's numbers. This is partly because, as I mentioned earlier, Bush's actions in Iraq increased Arab sympathy for al Qaida's cause.

Precisely. 18,000 potential members scattered all around... This is not what I call fearsome or "stronger". You have not proved that they are a force to be reckoned with or that they have any true organization to rival what they once had. You sent me a link that shows they have 18,000 potential members... That's the most hilarious thing I've read all day. I have actually LOST respect for their numbers, so I can only thank you for that. Apparently the ENTIRE al Qaeda army could fill 1/3 of Yankee Stadium.

Originally Posted by mag

Right. And the next time you see a terrorist be sure to shoot him before he blows somebody up.

Do you even know what "guerrilla warfare" means?

Of course I do, but my gosh...you talk about Texans being scared... This is one of the most shameless displays of fear I've ever seen. RELAX will you?

Originally Posted by mag

Except for the fact that there were weapons inspectors in Iraq. No, the truth is that the Iraqi military was never rebuilt after the first Gulf War.

::sigh:: You've mastered a new talent. Providing links to stories that everyone has already seen hundreds of times if they follow what is going on whatsoever. The inspectors were FINALLY allowed in, yes. This is old news. Allowed in after all WMDs could have been moved out. Since you like conspiracy theories, I still like the one about how Saddam was delaying the inspectors so he could move his weapons out of Iraq. There's no point in denying that he went against the U.N. and wouldn't allow the inspectors in when they wanted to go in.

Originally Posted by mag

The intelligence wasn't bad. All of the intelligence said that Bush was wrong.

That's why practically everyone who saw the intelligence was in favor of the war. I see.

[Titan]

Well I see that none of y'all watched NFL football today.

LOL mag and deadwood. You're comments concerning the way a lot of these threads go was quite funny. mag always wears me out (he wears everyone out as deadwood states).

It is refreshing to me that Sanjuro has the great talent and energy to respond in kind to the many many more opposite minded posts that have always predominated these type of threads.

A few narrow points - Marek, Ninth brought Texas into this thread so I brought France into the thread. An amusing sidebar both, you're correct that they don't matter. Vietnam however was made germane by Kerry's convention in Boston. Most people here don't really give a damn about it, either the Swift boat stuff or the Air National Guard stuff.

mag, some of those documents of yours are most likely forgeries. They were used by Dan Rather (a liberal guy from Texas) as foundation for his 60 Minutes story, and the superscripting probably wasn't available at the time on the Texas Guard typewriter. Also the intelligence agencies in most of the western democracies believed that Iraq had WMD. Also the U.N. inspectors were only allowed into Iraq after the U.S. started deployment of armed forces to the territory and seas adjacent to Iraq. Without this deployment the Western democracies would still believe there were WMD there.

Mattsius, a much much larger percentage of foreign nationals fighting in Iraq will attain American citizenship than will die there.

[edlglide]

Couple of things I wanted to point out here. First of all, I don't like John Kerry OR George Bush. Nor am I a Republican or a Democrat -- I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others. It's odd really. Anyways, I can't stand Bush's religious fanaticism......so my vote's going to Kerry this time. Were it George Sr., it's possible he could get my vote, but it's not.

Anyways, first of all you using FOX as a source is silly if you won't accept other news sources. Everyone knows FOX is a highly conservative station just like some other stations are highly liberal. They're going to be slanted just like anyone else.

Secondly, people that say Bush is heavily right wing are off base. Bush really isn't close to being extreme right wing. People seem to think that way because of his religious crazyness, but in terms of actual conservatism he's hardly even a conservative. A friend of mine is the head of the Young Republican's Organization at the University of Minnesota and he can't stand George Bush -- he says he wishes a real Republican conservative was running for President who would treat the economy and such the way a Republican is supposed to. I've actually heard a decent amount of highly knowledgeable Republicans speak this way. Of course he's still going to vote for Bush, because there is no way he'd put Kerry in office.

As for the World War II stuff.........neither of you were right about that. But I'm not going to bother writing out an essay on all the inaccuracies you had, because it's really irrelevant.

In the end it comes down to this -- right now political discussions are more or less pointless. The country is so polarized down party lines that no amount of reasonable arguing for either side will be able to dent the opposing party. It'll just be a bunch of rhetoric with both sides claiming the other is blind or naive and believing ignorant lies. It's rather sad.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Titan

Marek, Ninth brought Texas into this thread

I did? I don't think I care enough about Texas to have done so. I'm pretty sure I was referring to the people who wanted to vote for Bush, not to any state in particular.
Now for the wuss nation comment, well, that was a very interesting point, which makes me think that... oh wait, I just don't care.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Hmmm, I've never heard that used to explain it, but maybe you're right. Bush removed a cruel dictator who murdered thousands of his people... Greed = Liberation? Ok, cool.

Ok, even admitting that he didn't put the Iraqi in a worse situation (we'll see about that in a few years, rigth now we can just hope), he certainly didn't do it out of goodness of heart. Believing otherwise is just plain dumb. So why did he do it? I say greed. Or maybe (poor) strategy.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

They hijacked planes with boxcutters man, lol. They used OUR millions of dollars, and flew them into the towers... Anyone could have done it that owned a box cutter, and had knowledge of flying a plane.

Al Qaida had to train the pilots. AL Qaida had to plan where to attack. Those things do cost.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by Titan

deadwood

Nice to see I managed to irritate you.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Titan

Ninth, so you don't see how anyone could vote right. Intelligence has been likened to the ability to entertain an idea or viewpoint without accepting it as accurate. You are obviously not in the entertainment business.

My "ability to entertain an idea or viewpoint without accepting it as accurate" is very wide, believe me (always caused me trouble), but hearing people who are filthy rich throwing a fit because the state takes half their money always mesmerize me. And I know not all people who vote right are rich, it was just an example of what I don't understand.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

Al Qaida had to train the pilots. AL Qaida had to plan where to attack. Those things do cost.

Well, Bin Laden is (or was) a millionaire. You do know (and I speaking to Sanjuro here) that there are some rich arabs, right? And a bunch of them hates the US as much as your average terrorist, only he just have to give money, not to die, so I can't see why he would hesitate (logically, I mean, not morally).

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Unbelievable. How you swallow this crap. It sounds to me like you're too frightened...

I don't understand. What exactly are you disagreeing with? That there are Arabs who hate America? That al Qaida is a central figure in the war against the United States?

And just what is it that I'm supposed to be frightened of (other than Bush winning the election)? All I said was how al Qaida and the United States are viewed in the Middle East. My opinion has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Who cares if Arabs view us as "The Great Satan"? They always have, they always will.

Not true. Most Arabs couldn't care less about America in and of itself. It just happens that we support some of the cruelest governments in the world. That's why al Qaida attacked us. Not because they "hate freedom," but because it's impossible to overthrow any of the dictatorships in the Middle East without finding a way to take America out of the picture. Saudi Arabia is probably the cruelest dictatorship in the world. Without American support it would fall overnight. We give Israel weapons that they can launch against Palestinian children. We gave Hussein weapons that he used to gas the Kurds. That's why Arabs hate us.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Oh wait, except for the ones that were cheering and celebrating when Americans arrived to take out Saddam...

http://www.rkcheung.com/Iraq/CandyKids.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr...D-6570C-007.jpg

Those children aren't cheering. They're trying to get food.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Frankly, your last two links there are little more than conspiracy theories, and seeing as how you supplied me with media that ranges from incredibly left-wing to unbelievably left-wing (CNN, MSNBC, the freakin' SCOOP, the "Guardian" for the love of God)...I will supply you with a healthy dose of reality, otherwise known as Fox News

You haven't turned on CNN or MSNBC in a couple of years, have you? That "conspiracy theory" was written by Seymour f***ing Hersh. And you think that the FOX Propaganda Channel is real news? You obviously either have no idea what constitutes a reliable source, or you are simple unwilling to accept any evidence that disproves what you're saying. Either way, facts are apparently not going to have any effect on you.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Oh, and by the way, here are two interesting pieces that you might enjoy about new evidence that could soon prove a link between al Qaeda and Saddam:

That's your proof? That there were "contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda?" That's ridiculous. The United States has contacts in North Korea. Do you think we're working together?

Saying that Saddam Hussein and al Qaida were working together is utterly absurd. Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator. He's the type of person al Qaida was created to destroy. Hussein and bin Laden were natural enemies. They hated each other a lot more than they hated America. Hussein would have to be a complete moron to give anything to al Qaida.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Precisely. 18,000 potential members scattered all around... This is not what I call fearsome or "stronger". You have not proved that they are a force to be reckoned with or that they have any true organization to rival what they once had. You sent me a link that shows they have 18,000 potential members... That's the most hilarious thing I've read all day. I have actually LOST respect for their numbers, so I can only thank you for that. Apparently the ENTIRE al Qaeda army could fill 1/3 of Yankee Stadium.

You're still thinking in conventional terms. This is a guerrilla army. 18,000 members is huge. And the fact that they're scattered around the world is an asset. They don't have a central location any more. They're much more decentralized. That makes them much more difficult to track down. Since Bush's "War on Terror" has began al Qaida has gained more members, and while America has been alienating all of its allies they have been forging new alliances. The sort of anti-Americanism that has become so prevalent in the world as a result of Bush's actions is the perfect environment for terrorists to operate in.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Of course I do, but my gosh...you talk about Texans being scared... This is one of the most shameless displays of fear I've ever seen. RELAX will you?

You keep making a lot of assumptions. For the last time, I'm not saying anything about Texas. And what makes you think this is a "shameless display of fear?" All I'm saying is that it's not as simple as just "firing back" when you're dealing with a guerrilla army.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Allowed in after all WMDs could have been moved out. Since you like conspiracy theories, I still like the one about how Saddam was delaying the inspectors so he could move his weapons out of Iraq.

Moved out to where? Where was he going to put them? And I suppose he just moved out all of the facilities he used to build them too. After all, Powell told us that he could build a nuke on the back of a truck. Of course, WE don't have that kind of technology. But I guess Iraq is a few hundred years ahead of us in terms of technology. That makes sense.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

That's why practically everyone who saw the intelligence was in favor of the war. I see.

The people who saw the intelligence that Bush showed them were in favor of the war. Everybody who saw all of the intelligence told him that he was wrong.

Originally Posted by Titan

mag, some of those documents of yours are most likely forgeries. They were used by Dan Rather (a liberal guy from Texas) as foundation for his 60 Minutes story, and the superscripting probably wasn't available at the time on the Texas Guard typewriter.

Yeah, the Dan Rather ones are questionable. Personally, I think that Dan finally snapped and forged the documents himself. This has been coming for a long time. I'm surprised he didn't lose it a long time ago.

But the other documents are good.

Originally Posted by Titan

mag always wears me out (he wears everyone out as deadwood states).

I do what I can.

Originally Posted by Titan

Also the intelligence agencies in most of the western democracies believed that Iraq had WMD.

The only thing they said was that Hussein had WMD at some point in the past. We already knew that because those are the weapons we gave him. And they all went bad years ago. Iraq just didn't have the resources to build any on their own.

mag

[Mattsius]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

By the way, I want to apologize to Mattsius. I simply CAN NOT reply to all of these rants. I want to, but I have a life to get back to. A good debate should be between two people anyway, not 5 VS 1.

No problem. I don't have the energy or the time to start responding to everything that you write anyway, so let's call it a tie and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Titan

Mattsius, a much much larger percentage of foreign nationals fighting in Iraq will attain American citizenship than will die there.

Yeah, I know. It was only for dramatic effect.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by Titan

Well I see that none of y'all watched NFL football today.

I did! That was the way I was able to type so much. If you watched the Dallas game then you know how INCREDIBLY sloppy and terrible it was, so I didn't have to pay any REAL attention. So occassionally I kept coming back here to see what new comments we had from the brainwashed left. It was fun. More fun than the AWFUL Dallas game. Three interceptions? Over 100 yards in penalties? Unbelievable...

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by edlglide

Anyways, first of all you using FOX as a source is silly if you won't accept other news sources. Everyone knows FOX is a highly conservative station just like some other stations are highly liberal. They're going to be slanted just like anyone else.

In the end it comes down to this -- right now political discussions are more or less pointless. The country is so polarized down party lines that no amount of reasonable arguing for either side will be able to dent the opposing party. It'll just be a bunch of rhetoric with both sides claiming the other is blind or naive and believing ignorant lies. It's rather sad.

EXACTLY. You, sir, are a Kerry voter that I can respect because you understand my ENTIRE point. The use of Fox News sources was precisely done to make all of you go, "What?!" Because you guys view Fox News in the way I view CNN, MSNBC, etc. It's...all...politics... So if he's going to throw those half assed sources at me, then I'm going to do the same. I'm pretty much joking around anyhow, I've already stated all of these things to mag. Like you said, the country is polarized, all of this is senseless. But since it requires so little effort on my part, I've just been having fun with him. But thank you, truly, for understanding the situation in this country. And for "getting" my joke.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Ok, even admitting that he didn't put the Iraqi in a worse situation (we'll see about that in a few years, rigth now we can just hope), he certainly didn't do it out of goodness of heart. Believing otherwise is just plain dumb. So why did he do it? I say greed. Or maybe (poor) strategy.

Ninth, hey man, what's up? I don't expect you to actually READ all this crap (I wouldn't either if I wasn't one of the people posting, heh), but IF you did, you would see that I've already explained this. Liberating the Iraqis wasn't a goal, it was just a result. But I disagree on the motive. Not greed or strategy, but they truly believed Saddam had WMDs, and they were tired of watching the U.N. sit around and allow him to defy them over and over. SOMEONE had to lay down the law. If anyone can just defy the U.N., what is the point of the U.N.?