Is There Really Such A Thing As A Conservative? - Page 4

"The fact that Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum does not mean he had anything to do with the 911."

You said the 9/11 report proved that Saddam had nothing to do with Osama. The fact is that you are wrong and the 9/11 report showed the exact opposite. No one has ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Was there a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda - absolutely.

"There were other countries that offered and GIVE Bin Laden asylum now."

Actually there was only one other - Afghanistan. The Sudan had him and they offered to arrest him and hand him over to the US but President Clinton refused and said that the Saudis should take him - the Saudis didn't want him but the Taliban did. Now I think you know what happened to the Taliban, right?

"And the administration repeatedly insinuated that Saddam Hussein HAD weapons of mass destruction..."

Now answer this question: how many nations said he had weapons?

"He also implied Hussein was in the process of developing more powerful weapons (possibly nuclear weapons). "

The Kay Report proved this to be true.

"And he did not say outright that Hussein had anything to do with 911 but used wordplay to associate and insinuate a stronger relationship between the two that did not exist, knowing full well the wrath of the american public was ripe for leading us into a war that was NOT necessary"

Give me a break - are you admitting to being a fool or you just believe all else fools? I heard on numerous occasions members of the media ask if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and the response was always that the administration had no evidence to suggest it had.

"And, once again, there are many leaders much worse than Saddam Hussein, but I do not imply that we should ignore them. I do imply that the the war against Saddam Hussein was motivated by much more than his "evil" regime."

You're right - it was. One, it gives us very strategic locations in the region and lets us surround Iran, a truly greater threat. It has the greatest potential for peripheral benefits with the least number of casualties. It sends a message to all those other evil leaders you are worried about, it reinforces the fact that if you violate a ceasefire agreement with the US in this post 9/11 age we will respond and respond forcefully. It allows for the establishment of a democracy in what was one of the more educated and secular countries in the region. Maybe if you tried to think outside of the box you would begin to understand all of the reasons why Iraq was an excellent strategic choice.

Give it up, dude. You're arguments are unconvincing, being broad generalities much less valuable that pure circumstantial evidence in a trial. You take small words like my use of plural "countries" to invalidate my statements regarding countries besides Iraq who offered Bin Laden asylum, trying to debunk arguments on irrelevent distinctions. I am neither swayed nor impressed by you, let alone convinced. And I'm sure you will wholeheartedly say the same about me. But I do not feel I am more intelligent or educated than you, just more open to the meat of the facts and alot more humble. Oh, well.

You are the one with broad generalities and what's worse much of what you cite is factually wrong. I'm sorry that you don't like to be corrected but you should actually know what you are talking about before you preach your 'vast knowledge'.

"You're arguments are unconvincing"

Well I'm not surprised since it is doubtful any amount of truth would alter your prejudices. However a majority of Americans disagree with your propaganda and are convinced as is revealed in Bush's reelection.

You are humble? Now that is funny. Why don't you humble yourself and attempt an answer to one of the questions I asked you? Or do you ignore those questions because you know you wont like the answer?

LOL!...The more I read your words the more I realize how irrational you are...And your corrections were not about pointing out my complete errors but simply attempts to smother what was right in my statements with little errors in wording. And, yes, compared to you I am very humble, not feeling the need to make others feel less knowledgable. I've seen you do this many times with many others on this message board. And as far as your questions, it seems to me you never really expect an answer because, once again, the questions are irrelevent to the facts. Face it, Xris, you have a problem and such an angry little boy you are. Oh, well.

"The more I read your words the more I realize how irrational you are"

That's a subjective statement - try to remain objective - especially since it is your ideas that you are trying to impress upon us. No one cares about your emotional blathering.

"And your corrections were not about pointing out my complete errors but simply attempts to smother what was right in my statements with little errors in wording. "

No I was pointing out that you were pontificating erroneous data. You claimed that the Bush admin claimed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 - that was a lie - then you backtracked and claimed they let foolish people believe that (I guess you believed it?) then I pointed out that was also a lie - they always said there was no evidence to support such an accusation. You said that Saddam was not in the process of developing more powerful weapons (possibly nuclear weapons) - that was also incorrect and not bore about the facts of the Kay report You also said that Saddam had no link to Osama according to the 9/11 report - that is also wrong as the 9/11 report established a direct link between the two men. You also stated that the Bush admin 'sidetracked the American people's vengeance away from our true enemy, Al Qaeda and, specifically, Bin Laden' which is also completely untrue - the Bush admin has taken actions to specifically wipe out the sources of strength by which al Qaeda derives its power - the nation states that aid and harbor them.

I am not trying to make you feel less knowledgeable - I am trying to make you realize that on these issues you are less knowledgeable. You have two options - you can feel bad or you can educate yourself on the facts so you wont make so many mistakes in the future. Start thinking with your brain and not your gut.

"it seems to me you never really expect an answer because, once again, the questions are irrelevent to the facts."

They are not irrelevant - they are extremely pertinent which is why you wont answer them - the truth is you know the answer already and you know the answer diminishes your attacks against President Bush. Instead of being fair or humbling yourself and admitting that your attacks were unfair you just avoid the questions.

Just like you did before you accuse me of being angry through a rabid angry emotional post. LMAO I think I have only been angered once here and it was when okcityboi said the US was the most evil nation in the world. That angered me - rightfully so - but nothing you say makes even the slightest emotional impact because I'm not here to debate my feelings. I am not a girlie man. Man this country has become so effeminate.

Lol!...Xris, OK, OK...You win. I'm not really that concerned about trying to convert you to my way of thinking. You're really not that important to me. And, of course, maybe I'm not exactly overflowing with useless bits of current political information but for all the data you have imparted to me regarding your own point of view, none of it is convincing (and only vaguely relevent to any issues I have with the Bush Administration). Nonetheless, you win. Um, so, uh, how's the weather out there?

Wiz - I could really care less about winning or losing. Thanks for the concession but it wasn't warranted.

The data I imparted really has nothing to with my point of view, either. Its about correcting the misinformation and laying the record straight. Just because my facts corrected your errors does not mean that my support of the war is any more right than your rejection of the war. Each of must decide what is best for our nation and each of must be held accountable to our own conscience. These are serious issues and it is intrinsically good that they be debated. I'm just asking that the debate be grounded in fact and not emotional jargons.

The weather here is great: thunder and lightning.

quote:

---

Then answer is obvious to anyone that hates tyranny and islamo-fascism. Those that are apathetic about terrorist attacks, numerous American and other innocent civilian deaths and the rapid spread of radical jihad do not want us to go to war. They prefer to turn a blind eye and let others worry about it. Such cowardice!

---

How did the 9/11 commision suggest that we end terrorism? Read it.

There is no reason we should have gone to war in Iraq. Saddam was on his way out. If we would have waited, we would have seen his resignation without a war. But we couldn't wait for that, because if we did, we could not have control of the oil.

I am the mouthpeace of truth. Saten will mix the truth with a lie. So if the terrorists should repeat my words mixed with their lies, then so be it. Will God shut up truth because Saten does this? One should never be ashamed to say the truth.

quote:

---

You say you served? If you look at my age then you would be familiar with enough facts about military requirements that you would realize how stupid a statement that is. I know - you only play Gomer Pile online.

---

I have asked you seven times - if you are too ashamed to answer, then I can only assume that we won't like the answer.

Are you on the payrole?