A VIDEO THAT WILL FOOL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

[Stopper]

yada, yada, yada....

or are likely to be found.

.... THIS IS AN OPINION....NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH FACTS... I am aware that there are many people, much like those in Europe just before Hitler invaded Poland that are of the belief: "Well, lets just wait to see what happens before we take action." Unfortunately ALL WE HAVE is our intelligence sources. If they say there is a threat..... I for one would rather be safe than sorry. There are way too many whinny babies around to win this or any war.

Which part of the Iraq Survey Group's conclusion do you not understand? They said all WMD's capability was destroyed in 1991, and that no weapons could have been produced until at least the sanctions on the regime were lifted. Those sanctions were never lifted until America invaded Iraq. Saddam's regime never even had the capability to produce any kind of WMD's.

But we knew all this already because the UN weapons inspectors were saying as much before the war.

Just how many people need to go in and find no evidence of WMD's, or indeed even the capability to produced WMD's, before you accept this?

Of course, I think you also believe the EU and China are going to go to war with each other - something to do with armageddon, I think. So my continuing to argue with you on this is definitely against my better judgement.

Just because he doesn't know what it's called doesn't mean he's pathetic. Just because he's not up to date on another countries intelligence agencies.

I did not say he was pathetic. I said that what he typed was pathetic.

[mandalorian2298]

yada, yada, yada....

or are likely to be found.

.... THIS IS AN OPINION....NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH FACTS... I am aware that there are many people, much like those in Europe just before Hitler invaded Poland that are of the belief: "Well, lets just wait to see what happens before we take action." Unfortunately ALL WE HAVE is our intelligence sources. If they say there is a threat..... I for one would rather be safe than sorry. There are way too many whinny babies around to win this or any war.

I am aware that there was many poeple in Germany, after Hitler invaded Poland, who thought that it would be traitorous to speak ill of their leader or their army in those trying times.

[jay_a2j]

yada, yada, yada....

or are likely to be found.

.... THIS IS AN OPINION....NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH FACTS... I am aware that there are many people, much like those in Europe just before Hitler invaded Poland that are of the belief: "Well, lets just wait to see what happens before we take action." Unfortunately ALL WE HAVE is our intelligence sources. If they say there is a threat..... I for one would rather be safe than sorry. There are way too many whinny babies around to win this or any war.

I am aware that there was many poeple in Germany, after Hitler invaded Poland, who thought that it would be traitorous to speak ill of their leader or their army in those trying times.

If Bush invaded Canada I'd be the first to "speak ill of him". With the information we had on Iraq (true or false) it wouldn't be wise to ignore it. If we could have proven the information false BEFORE we invaded then you might have a gripe. WE can't just leave now.


Oh, and I have spoken ill of Bush many times.

[MeDeFe]

If I remember correctly large parts of the information WERE proven false or deemed dubious before the war.

[vtmarik]

It seems that all of this involuntary extension of tours is having a negative effect on our boys:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20288335/

So it seems that the only way to get out of service is a choice between desertion, injury, and tying a yellow ribbon 'round your neck.

[Stopper]

If we could have proven the information false BEFORE we invaded then you might have a gripe.

Wrong again, jay. The UN weapons inspectors were never given the chance to properly assess whether Iraq was likely to have WMD's. As Hans Blix said on 7 March 2003, "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found." He was never given the time to investigate further before the US advised him and the weapons inspectors to leave. But of course, as we know, the WMD's thing was just a trumped-up charge that the Bush administration didn't want disproven.

For someone who claims not to be a supporter of Bush, you're doing a really good impression of one.

[jay_a2j]

If we could have proven the information false BEFORE we invaded then you might have a gripe.

Wrong again, jay. The UN weapons inspectors were never given the chance to properly assess whether Iraq was likely to have WMD's. As Hans Blix said on 7 March 2003, "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found." He was never given the time to investigate further before the US advised him and the weapons inspectors to leave. But of course, as we know, the WMD's thing was just a trumped-up charge that the Bush administration didn't want disproven.

For someone who claims not to be a supporter of Bush, you're doing a really good impression of one.

It took us 14 months to finally invade Iraq! Not sufficient time? Saddam wasn't allowing the inspectors in! Now if he HAD NO wmd's why not let the inspectors in? Had he.... he might still be alive.


I support staying in Iraq until the job is done not Bush.

[mandalorian2298]

yada, yada, yada....

or are likely to be found.

.... THIS IS AN OPINION....NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH FACTS... I am aware that there are many people, much like those in Europe just before Hitler invaded Poland that are of the belief: "Well, lets just wait to see what happens before we take action." Unfortunately ALL WE HAVE is our intelligence sources. If they say there is a threat..... I for one would rather be safe than sorry. There are way too many whinny babies around to win this or any war.

I am aware that there was many poeple in Germany, after Hitler invaded Poland, who thought that it would be traitorous to speak ill of their leader or their army in those trying times.

If Bush invaded Canada I'd be the first to "speak ill of him". With the information we had on Iraq (true or false) it wouldn't be wise to ignore it. If we could have proven the information false BEFORE we invaded then you might have a gripe. WE can't just leave now.


Oh, and I have spoken ill of Bush many times.

"With the information we had on Iraq (true or false) it wouldn't be wise to ignore it."

Your logic doesn't even resemble our Earth logic, does it?

[vtmarik]

"With the information we had on Iraq (true or false) it wouldn't be wise to ignore it."

Your logic doesn't even resemble our Earth logic, does it?

Reminds me of Bush's comments on Intelligent Design: "You're asking me whether or not people should be exposed to new ideas, and my answer is yes."

Translation:
"Sir, should people be exposed to new ideas or not?"
"Yes."

[jay_a2j]

yada, yada, yada....

or are likely to be found.

.... THIS IS AN OPINION....NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH FACTS... I am aware that there are many people, much like those in Europe just before Hitler invaded Poland that are of the belief: "Well, lets just wait to see what happens before we take action." Unfortunately ALL WE HAVE is our intelligence sources. If they say there is a threat..... I for one would rather be safe than sorry. There are way too many whinny babies around to win this or any war.

I am aware that there was many poeple in Germany, after Hitler invaded Poland, who thought that it would be traitorous to speak ill of their leader or their army in those trying times.

If Bush invaded Canada I'd be the first to "speak ill of him". With the information we had on Iraq (true or false) it wouldn't be wise to ignore it. If we could have proven the information false BEFORE we invaded then you might have a gripe. WE can't just leave now.


Oh, and I have spoken ill of Bush many times.

"With the information we had on Iraq (true or false) it wouldn't be wise to ignore it."

Your logic doesn't even resemble our Earth logic, does it?

Your daughter says she has been molested by her babysitter. The babysitter is coming over tonight to watch her again. Whether the information from your daughter is true or false a wise person would act on the information until PROVEN false. THAT is logical.

[mandalorian2298]

yada, yada, yada....

or are likely to be found.

.... THIS IS AN OPINION....NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH FACTS... I am aware that there are many people, much like those in Europe just before Hitler invaded Poland that are of the belief: "Well, lets just wait to see what happens before we take action." Unfortunately ALL WE HAVE is our intelligence sources. If they say there is a threat..... I for one would rather be safe than sorry. There are way too many whinny babies around to win this or any war.

I am aware that there was many poeple in Germany, after Hitler invaded Poland, who thought that it would be traitorous to speak ill of their leader or their army in those trying times.

If Bush invaded Canada I'd be the first to "speak ill of him". With the information we had on Iraq (true or false) it wouldn't be wise to ignore it. If we could have proven the information false BEFORE we invaded then you might have a gripe. WE can't just leave now.


Oh, and I have spoken ill of Bush many times.

"With the information we had on Iraq (true or false) it wouldn't be wise to ignore it."

Your logic doesn't even resemble our Earth logic, does it?

Your daughter says she has been molested by her babysitter. The babysitter is coming over tonight to watch her again. Whether the information from your daughter is true or false a wise person would act on the information until PROVEN false. THAT is logical.

So I should break into my babysitter's house, kill him/her and try to fill his/hers place in the his/her family with a person more to my liking.

[Simonov]

then WOULD this should be enough reason to invade germany?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUcySug4ZL8

[Stopper]

It took us 14 months to finally invade Iraq! Not sufficient time? Saddam wasn't allowing the inspectors in! Now if he HAD NO wmd's why not let the inspectors in? Had he.... he might still be alive.

Wrong again. While Saddam had been obstructive on many occasions for many years (and some of these "obstructions" are debatable) in 2003, the weapons inspectors had been able to do the investigations they needed to do. Hans Blix doesn't complain of non-compliance in the link I gave.

Your daughter says she has been molested by her babysitter. The babysitter is coming over tonight to watch her again. Whether the information from your daughter is true or false a wise person would act on the information until PROVEN false. THAT is logical.

Your deliberately highly-emotive analogy is so far off, it's un-fucking-believable.

Unless of course, you're suggesting that you'd kill the babysitter before the information was proven false. That might bring it a bit closer. Not much, though.

[jay_a2j]

then WOULD this should be enough reason to invade germany?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUcySug4ZL8

No, there is no immediate threat to anyone. Although the video is disturbing, its not a reason to invade. Now if they were actually killing people of color THAT would be a reason.

The world leaders should bring pressure to Germany to put a stop to this.

[mandalorian2298]

It took us 14 months to finally invade Iraq! Not sufficient time? Saddam wasn't allowing the inspectors in! Now if he HAD NO wmd's why not let the inspectors in? Had he.... he might still be alive.

Wrong again. While Saddam had been obstructive on many occasions for many years (and some of these "obstructions" are debatable) in 2003, the weapons inspectors had been able to do the investigations they needed to do. Hans Blix doesn't complain of non-compliance in the link I gave.

Your daughter says she has been molested by her babysitter. The babysitter is coming over tonight to watch her again. Whether the information from your daughter is true or false a wise person would act on the information until PROVEN false. THAT is logical.

Your deliberately highly-emotive analogy is so far off, it's un-fucking-believable.

Unless of course, you're suggesting that you'd kill the babysitter before the information was proven false. That might bring it a bit closer. Not much, though.

YAY! I guessed right. I have finally mastered etics according to Jay!

[Carebian Knight]

It took us 14 months to finally invade Iraq! Not sufficient time? Saddam wasn't allowing the inspectors in! Now if he HAD NO wmd's why not let the inspectors in? Had he.... he might still be alive.

Wrong again. While Saddam had been obstructive on many occasions for many years (and some of these "obstructions" are debatable) in 2003, the weapons inspectors had been able to do the investigations they needed to do. Hans Blix doesn't complain of non-compliance in the link I gave.

Your daughter says she has been molested by her babysitter. The babysitter is coming over tonight to watch her again. Whether the information from your daughter is true or false a wise person would act on the information until PROVEN false. THAT is logical.

Your deliberately highly-emotive analogy is so far off, it's un-fucking-believable.

Unless of course, you're suggesting that you'd kill the babysitter before the information was proven false. That might bring it a bit closer. Not much, though.

No but if you went to the babysitter's house to find out if it was true and he started resisting you and attempting to kill you, you would defend yourself and kill him.

[jay_a2j]

It took us 14 months to finally invade Iraq! Not sufficient time? Saddam wasn't allowing the inspectors in! Now if he HAD NO wmd's why not let the inspectors in? Had he.... he might still be alive.

Wrong again. While Saddam had been obstructive on many occasions for many years (and some of these "obstructions" are debatable) in 2003, the weapons inspectors had been able to do the investigations they needed to do. Hans Blix doesn't complain of non-compliance in the link I gave.

Your daughter says she has been molested by her babysitter. The babysitter is coming over tonight to watch her again. Whether the information from your daughter is true or false a wise person would act on the information until PROVEN false. THAT is logical.

Your deliberately highly-emotive analogy is so far off, it's un-fucking-believable.

Unless of course, you're suggesting that you'd kill the babysitter before the information was proven false. That might bring it a bit closer. Not much, though.

YAY! I guessed right. I have finally mastered etics according to Jay!

Wrong. I'd take measures to PROVE the abuse then call the cops.

[mandalorian2298]

It took us 14 months to finally invade Iraq! Not sufficient time? Saddam wasn't allowing the inspectors in! Now if he HAD NO wmd's why not let the inspectors in? Had he.... he might still be alive.

Wrong again. While Saddam had been obstructive on many occasions for many years (and some of these "obstructions" are debatable) in 2003, the weapons inspectors had been able to do the investigations they needed to do. Hans Blix doesn't complain of non-compliance in the link I gave.

Your daughter says she has been molested by her babysitter. The babysitter is coming over tonight to watch her again. Whether the information from your daughter is true or false a wise person would act on the information until PROVEN false. THAT is logical.

Your deliberately highly-emotive analogy is so far off, it's un-fucking-believable.

Unless of course, you're suggesting that you'd kill the babysitter before the information was proven false. That might bring it a bit closer. Not much, though.

YAY! I guessed right. I have finally mastered etics according to Jay!

Wrong. I'd take measures to PROVE the abuse then call the cops.

So USA should have taken measures to PROVE the existance of WMDs and then report the evidence to the Security Council of UN?

[Carebian Knight]

I'm gonna retell that story a bit.

In the 1990's a friend of your hired a babysitter. That babysitter molested his child. It wasn't proven but it is widely believed to be true. About 10 years later you hire the babysitter. Your daughter then tells you that he molested her. Now maybe your daughter only said it because she knows it's widely believed that he is a molester, but maybe she is telling the truth. So you send some cops over to ask him some questions, he refuses then after a couple of tries just long enough to hide any evidence that he has in the house, he finally complies. The cops find nothing. However you hear from a neighbor that she saw him moving a bunch of stuff before the cops came back, again maybe she is lying maybe not. So you go to his house and confront him about it. He starts to get hostile and grabs a knife and tries to kill you. What do you do? You don't sit down and say I'm sorry I won't believe my daughter or my friend, I'll believe you since you just tried to stab me with a knife. NO you kill him before he can kill you.

Saddam Hussein was put on trial, he was killed for crimes against humanity. We didn't march into his country run into his house and shoot him in the head.

[MeDeFe]

It's still an extremely bad analogy, Saddam Hussein wasn't babysitting anything and neither was he posing a serious threat to any other nation. The US invasion of Iraq cannot be seen as self-defense.

Please take care to use appropriate examples in future.

[Backglass]

While the dwindling minority continues to blindly support this "conflict"...(King George says it isn't a war...remember?) the rest of the US has finally awoken to reality: A very large tactical mistake by a very large presidential mistake.

Bush is a complete moron and an embarrassment to our great nation...and the majority of Patriotic Americans now see this. Too bad it took so long.

[Carebian Knight]

Most president's are criticized during their time in office. Only after you get another president do you realize how much the previous one did for this country.

[Simonov]

Most president's are criticized during their time in office. Only after you get another president do you realize how much the previous one did for this country.

be proud then

reality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgPShicCCTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moutUEfqUQ4

fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFuWaJKraBM

[OnlyAmbrose]

Most president's are criticized during their time in office. Only after you get another president do you realize how much the previous one did for this country.

be proud then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgPShicCCTA

I found it funny how the anchorman stumbled when we was calling Bush inarticulate.

"But is that because he's stupid or just inart - inarticulate."

[MeDeFe]

Might have been pre-planned.