if i assume that is true, there are still many many more reasons to go to war, do you disagree with those too? or do you think it is prudent foreign policy to agree to end a war because of agreements and then do nothing when the agreements are not honored?
[21:37] <htr> we were like "yeah bring emm on ... that ****ing ******* how about he send his girls so we can **** emm going down the road getting shot at .. that sob"[/QUOTE] That statement right there tells me all I need to know about you and the element you converse with. The military, while usually tending to attract the better elements of our society, is not perfect. Like any other segment of society, it has it's malcontent pieces of sh*t, too, i.e. ten-percenters. Having served, I feel perfectly justified in saying this, because I've seen it firsthand. These guys usually don't get very far in the service, and almost always have an axe to grind. You've obviously looked hard enough and under enough rocks and found one of those pieces of sh*t, just so you can make some kind of half-assed argument...provided this individual is even in the armed forces.
I agree with all that, but it's beside the point. The issue is that Bush did not tell her brother the TRUE justification, and that he died on lies. It could very well be that he would have been happy to fight for Bush's TRUE reasons; our soldiers who put their lives on the line are entitled to the truth. And then Bush mocked their sacrifice with his sick joke. I am quite aware of Islamist hatred for the USA, and I believe I have a good idea of its causes. I would be the last person on earth to defend religious extremism. This war was not sold on that "larger picture" basis. It was sold on nuclear weapons lies. If Bush had presented his case honestly there's a fair chance the country would have strenuously objected. Many voted for him because he had promised not to engage in nationbuilding; he told nuclear lies to scare the public into agreement. ONCE AGAIN... HOW OFTEN DOES THIS HAVE TO BE REPEATED: Saddam was not an Islamist. He didn't attack the USA. He was not in partnership with Al Qaeda. To say we attacked Iraq to fight Islamists there is complete bull****. It's quite obvious this soldier was not made aware of Bush's larger vision, and it's quite obvious to me he was entitled to that information. For Bush to mock that man's sacrifice is disgusting.
I am calling Bullsh!t on this. Yes, he WAS allowing inspectors go to whever they chose, but not WHENEVER they wanted access. They would literally wait at gates of compaounds and palaces for days on end sometimes before eventually being allowed in. This was as recent as 2002. One can wonder why a gate takes several days to open even though there are obviously people on the other side........
It's like me saying that Rex has free reign to look for something the size of inflatable pool floaties anywhere in the state...We're just going to track your every move, and if you think we haven't hidden them and figured out ways to ensure if you're on the way, their on their way away from them... If an illegal alien can sneak into the US, then I think a WMD can be sneaked into Syria... It's as if those WMD were supposed to be nailed to the floor...Or put on display... It's also as if everyone has forgotten the UN Resolutions that Iraq had continually breached that authorized the use of deadly force to enforce compliance by Iraq and their old regime...No one talks about those...I can link them word for word on the net...1441 was linked to two earlier Resolutions, both of which had been breached for the better part of a half decade... No one that's voting for Kerry wants to talk about it. They want to continue to stick their head in the sand or dust under the rug the holes in their argument, even as the water slowly seeps out of their bucket... Still trying to tell you their bucket is full, you realize their heads are just empty...and their hearts are just filled with spite, hate, and a desperate attempt to misconstrue and do as Lincoln was done by Douglass in the Senate race in Illinois so many years ago... He replied to Douglas on the subject of Popular Sovreignty... "You are trying to say that I called a horse chestnut a chestnut horse." It just won't fly...and it just don't make sense...But, then, that's the whole point...and that is why GWB will be returned to office.
Did I read this right, Rex? Are you actually inciting your nephew to commit a federal offense and desert? That would be a federal offense in and of itself on your part.
TigerEducated spouts the stupid Republican argument... that our invasion of Iraq is justified just because somebody MIGHT have sneaked WMDs into Syria. Of course, there is no credible evidence of any WMD transfers to Syria, and that lack of evidence was enough in his mind to waste 1104 American lives. TigerEducated would also have you believe that Saddam was not complying with Resolution 1441, which is a lie: Saddam was allowing access to anywhere by the UN inspectors, and dismantling everything those inspectors were demanding him to dismantle. 1992, 1996, 2000 were not relevant. It should not have mattered in 2003 if Saddam had made technical violations of Resolution 1441 in the previous decade. What was important was the present situation. The only thing that should have mattered is whether Saddam was in practical compliance in 2003, and whether the only way to contain Saddam was by warfare that would surely kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. (oh wait... Bush told Pat Robertson there would be no casualties.)
