Fence_Sitter

congrat man! but now you wont get that shot at bein a full-fledged climbing bum! oh well i guess if you really want to do that, you know what to tell your boss! congrats man

antsiprasau

exactly...i have been sayign taht the entire time...

the point of having nukes is deterence. if they had nukes they would have given indication of owning them to prevent an attack. they did (in my opinion) sadam said that if the U.S. attacked, they would be sorry and that they had a 'secret' that would 'change things'... that is what i got out of the situation

what we should first agree on, is to not support repressive regimes/factions whenever it suits our purpose, then we can talk talk about existing dictatorships. i completely agree...and i think it has been our bigest mistakes ... only time will tell if we will learn form this...but i am thinking that we will not...

he wanted nothing short of getting his way (all the way), even if that included going to war as is evident from year old neocon documents and military preparations for such an eventuality only in an attempt to get broad international support for military actions (with us or against us). obviously most people were not fooled. moreover he could have given all the time imaginable, it would not have procured nukes the iraqis did not have. that is pure opinion that they have no nukes... i thouroughly disagree... i believe that they do have them... based on the speeches of saddam and the tactics of his 'government'

erik? (caps)

i KNOW it was a good idea... i think we should invade rwanda and other nations that rigorously persecute their citizens. but, i feel that the whole western world must be united in this... have you seen the bodies from the latest mas grave where many were buried alive? this happens all over the world and i liken it to the holocaust...partisan discrepancies aside, this should be somehting we all shuold agree on....

that was a necessity in either of two ways...1) he knew and was just covering up...2) he realized taht the document was fake, so he went to his secondary reason for ousting saddam... it is not like he wanted a war... he gave an extreme amount of time too first allow saddam to give his "state of the nukes" and later so that he would leave... are you really taht angry about being deceived? or just being deceived by a repub.? every president has lied to you...from kennedy railing lines in the oval to watergate, monika, vietnam, korea, kuwait, kosovo the lsit goes on forever... i just know that you were a lil' less vocal when it was your leader clinton...i know you say that you are non-opartisan...bull shit..then answer my question...do yuo see the colrrelation between kosovo and iraq? that will tell you if you are a partisan tool or not...

for sure...but i am proud of them for not toally selling out to ads....i woulda! to timm@y and jon

but matt... i haven't found proof that bush knowingly lied... that is my point...it is all about intentions...he was given a facts sheet which was flawed... we CANNOT know if he knew this or not...i wish to reserve my judgment until i know more facts...

hmm...4,000 pop-ups that must be the answer...

pauvre bebe

i'll join ya ifn ya'll have me when where?

tru dat stephen- i said that earlier likewise how clinton and his cronies will do the same with even less motivation... clearly you are tryoing to make this a partisan matter (which it is not)...by implying cronies...you are stating republicans...i am not one, but i do feel that it is far too early to start writing the history of the 2nd conflict in iraq... give it a bit more than 3 weeks eh? hell they are still fighting!

i never said that... i was addressing ursa's point... as for the document... the 'higher ups' didn't know it was invalid as far as i am aware..the creators did for sure... do you really think bush would have a clue as to what goes on in africa as per illegal arms sale? i dont believe he knew...i am opedn to the fact that it is a possiblity that he knew (which is more than i can say for the lib. on this board about clinton's premtive strike lies) but i cannot say that he lied without proof....the same proof you are asking for from bush... shit i have ADd and i can wait longer than you chaps...

i assume that it is sattelite imagry... you know...WMDhave capability for mobility...therefore...if they saw them on sattelite imagry and then they moved...they would opnly have the proof that they were in iraq during that time period...there are many other options...

you...there was a treaty with iraq similar to the treaty of versialles wich require d iraq to prove that they didn't have these weapons and also to register plastics, and otehr industrial plants. The U.S. has aready proven taht they haven' t done this...the burden of proof ws on them ....we took the burden of proof on ourselves...you want teh answers now...well her eit is..we have already found iraq to be in violation of the treaty... it has barely been a month since the war has stopped and their is still looting in the streets... you expect a country the size of iraq to be able to be searched in less than a month while there is civil disorder? no f-in way...GIVE IT TIME... i could follow your line of reasoning and ask for proof that i am not lying that you have not proof that i have no proof that you have no proof...but that would be silly...

as I've said before, PROVE IT As I've said before, they've proven it by not providing the evidence they based their justification for war on. and as i said before you sound like dan -

really? what points have you made that i didn't refute?

i did too address that point...i said that they are searching freaking huge country and have only been done wiht fighting for about a month now...you think that is ample time to search every square mile of a country that large? i think not...

and i dont like poeple going to wasr for lies either...my buddy just got back from near 4 years in germany/ kosovo... who's fault was that? peace i am off to nuke some dinner...

i did not mention a party did i? and i already did mention the lie...it is the sam ething that you are accusing bush of doing right now...that is deceiving the nation as to the motivations for the war.... clinton said that his motivation was freeing the ethnic albanians in the kosovar conflict (which was obviously false) ... this is exactly what you are accusing the current president of doing... again i never said even the names of any party, yet your mind is drawing conclusions in my words that are not there... read the posts for what they are....not what you wqnt them to be... i am not a pol. party either...i just can see a correlation and i am calling it out.

yes it does...i am saying that i am willing to admit that bush might have fucked up if he didn't know where th missiles were...but you are willing to say that clinton fucked up even tho we KNOW that his motives were not the ones that were broadcasted to the people of the U.S. who were funding the war....your right there is a difference...we know clinton lied about his war....but we dont know yet whether or not bush lied about his

Where is the evidence that he *didn't* lie? If they had enough evidence to go to war about it, why haven't they found it yet? DAN!?!?!?!