bbcrackmonkey

eye got an alibi. :P

Before you start believing all of this crap--remember the world before we removed Saddam. Realities were different. Saddam was SAYING he had WMD. Saddam was SAYING he was paying terrorists to kill Americans. Saddam was SAYING he loved what that Bin Laden Fellow did.

Now, President Bush, who takes people at their word, was mindful of the threat posed by this guy who was abusing the Oil for Food program to once again build up his military against all UN resolutions, (14 of which he blatantly violated) was shooting at American and British planes enforcing his no-fly zones, and was still torturing and killing innocent people--goes before the UN and says we gotta do something about this guy. He's out of control, and you aren't doing anything. If you don't enforce your will, I will. France surrenders, Germany whines, and Russia holds it breath.

We step and do something--with the largest coalition of nations in the history of all warfare (62 nations committing some kind of support either up front or behind the scenes) and tell Saddam get out or we'll get you out.

Saddam is the bad guy. Saddam was the liar. Saddam was the killer. Saddam was the reason for this war.

North Korea is bad, but they haven't invaded any of their neighboring countries since 1950. Saddam has invaded or attacked 4 countries since 1980. There's the difference.

Iran is bad. But, they haven't invaded anyone else. Saudi is bad, but they haven't invaded anyone else.
Syria is bad, but they haven't invaded anyone else.

See a pattern here?

We did the right thing in Iraq. We did the right thing in Afghanistan. History will prove that just like Reagan, Bush saw the long term picture, and took the right risks at the right time in history. 20 years from now, the Middle East will be a more stable place because of the leadership of the United States.

Look at the Libyan example. Qaddafi knows that Bush is serious and will follow through with his plans to rid terrorist nations of WMD, and he pulled a France and surrendered all of his to us.

Iraq as a free nation is that silly off colored Domino that you set up to tip over the rest of the domino lineup.
As soon as freedom begins to spread in that part of the world under the tyranny of Fringe-Islamic Fascism, people will begin to see the light, and world will be a safer place for all of humanity.

Soon, the freedoms in Iraq will begin to spill past its own borders and people will begin to realize that living in 1304 isn't as much fun as 2004, and Western civilization will begin to take shape.

May God bless George W. Bush and his administration for having to courage and foresight to end the bloody Saddam regime and actually work to geniune world peace.

/that is all

waltvm
This report is strictly dealing with Iraq's responsibility or lack thereof on 9/11. Not Iraq and it's ties with al-quaeda. Nobody has ever denied that Iraq and al-quaeda have done plenty of talking and even some training together. But this report is saying as far as 9/11 is concerned, Iraq was not found responsible.

Thought I'd help by repeating it ... especially since many here don't seem to want to actually read before they spew their liberal propoganda. But, hey, that's the Fark way!

Intruiging. Liberal propaganda. I thought I'd post some actual quotes from the actual article, to, you know, "help spread communism".

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

"Two senior bin Laden associates associates have adamantly denied" any relationship, the report said.

The real reason we went there is to bring them the gifts of freedom and peace. The Iraqi people are all peaceful and free now.

The US does these things because we're good. We see a wrong and we right it, even if it means we lose some of our own.

/sarcasm

Pollexbator, true dat, but our official support of Iraq was cut off when he started using chemical weapons on the Kurds.

Course the fact that it took him gassing Kurds to stop our official support makes my stomach churn.

2004-06-16 11:21:19 AM Cyansis said:

What scares me is you have not even taken the time to look into the record of the man you are going to cast your vote for. Thank God for the electoral college...

---------------------------

I know!! You are so right Cyanisis!!!

It's amazing how few people have looked into Bush's sleazy past! The drunk driving convictions, cocaine use, etc. Not to mention the big oil contracts his little, unexperienced oil drilling company got in the Mideast while his dad was president.

How can people be so stupid, Cyanisis? Thank god for the electoral college, indeed!

A little Lohan to help cleanse the palate before more arguing:

Never mind Iraq and Al Qaeda.

I'm much more perturbed by the rumoured link between Iran and Al Roker.

Delete one has from 2004-06-16 11:42:40 AM please.

The words "apparently" and "appear" are not exactly concrete proof.

Thank you Kangaroo Ralph - for providing nothing to the thread.

I guess those who died on 9/11 were also "casualties of war"? And US soldiers (or any soldiers) are expendable?

Scratch that, I don't even really care what your responses would be. F*ck off

2004-06-16 11:38:37 AM Zman68

So it was ok to sit back and let Saddam slaughter hundreds of thousands ... [the invasion] pales in comparison to what happened under Saddams rule.

Which could well pale in comparrison to the number of people who die from this fark up in the long run, as anyone who can look past the end of his nose will see. I'm not looking forward to the Iraq civil war (which is likely to happen as any leader won't be able to appeal to all three main groups). I'm also not looking forward to Iraq becoming close allies with Iran, when the Shiite government get in, next election, or the one after.

It's all a lottery, and you've just invaded a country without any evidence the situation after will be better than before. The US has already underestimated the world backlash, and have made even more dangerous enemies.

How much time and money did they waste on this? I could have told them that in 5 minutes for a pint of lager and a handful of Pringles.

FKA
RTFA for Christ's sake MattLugar. "No credible evidence" means "No. Credible. Evidence."

I did RTFA... RTFA I posted before you make ignorant statements such as this. I didn't say that there was a direct link to 911 and Iraq, which is all that the original article states. My post is regarding the war on terror and Iraq specifically, which is what most of the biatching is about on here currently.

I too read two sentences into your rather long post.

Sorry you need (as you said in your post) crayons and a coloring book to understand these concepts. I mistakingly was assuming that most people who would try to involve themselves in political discussion would have at least some education!

Once again, credit to http://thefourthrail.blogspot.com/2004/06/iraq-fitnah.html:

Let me abbreviate the key part for you, and you can go look at the total article (with even more supporting facts) when you're further along in your education than crayons and coloring books. ;)

The first point to make, is that it was unavoidably necessary to invade Iraq. Iraq under Saddam Hussein represented a triple threat: First, Saddam Hussein supported Terrorism. He paid money to terrorist organizations and to the families of suicide bombers who killed Israelis. He stockpiled thousands of explosive vests in military warehouses, where US forces discovered them. He established and supplied terrorist training camps in Iraq, such as Salman Pak . He hosted and sheltered terrorist leaders such as Abu Abbas , Abu Nidal , and Carlos The Jackal. Saddams Baath Party officials had direct meetings with leaders from Al-Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and other international terrorist groups . Second, Iraq tried to invade Iran, and followed up with an invasion of Kuwait. He mobilized his army twice during Clintons terms as US President, forcing Clinton to deploy troops each time . Third, He used WMD against Iran , and against the Kurds , as well as using prisoners to develop bioweapons , including two previously unknown weaponized strains (Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF)) discovered by David Kays inspectors. Saddam broke the terms of his cease-fire by hiding his WMD from inspectors for 12 years, committed an act of war by attempting to kill former President George HW Bush , and used the UNs own Oil-for-Food program to buy prohibited weapons . Saddam Hussein represented a grave threat to the region, a man with a track record of aggressive violence, a pathological hatred of many enemies, and an utter ruthlessness to use any means at hand to advance his aim.

HowlingFrog, oh yeah? Well where were you on the morning of... oh I dunno... SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001?!? Flying your jetliners into buildings, I bet. The thing is, you would've gotten away with it too, if you hadn't stupidly videotaped yourself admitting to it then going off on a bunch of wierd rants about how you had dreams about soccer and exploding buildings.

But world terrorism is at it's lowest poing in 35 yea.... what? That's wrong? Highest in over 20 years? Huh.

Well, but we KNEW where the WMD's were right? What? False? O c'mon!

But we've created a million new jobs lately! They're at McDonalds and Wendys? But the economic growth I keep hea... Only for the rich, you say. Hmmm.

But at least we're safeguarding loose nukes, righ... cut funding for the program, you say... WTF!?

Well at least they're keeping those damn gays in their place and not cutting up fetuses just to save adult lives!

You've got to have priorities... No matter how horribly out of whack they are.

I just don't get the poll numbers. The vast majority of people I know are against Bush. But I'm baffled by the polls.

If Fox News reported today that Bush molests and then eats aborted fetuses for breakfast, his standing in the polls would probably drop 0.00000001%.

2004-06-16 11:41:59 AM Kangaroo_Ralph

Well, it's not like "terrorist" is a subjective term. It's not like the White House called a certain teacher's union a terrorist organization (later retracted and explained as humor). Maybe we should bomb Columbine?

Dinki

Nice spin on my "I don't care" remark. I wasn't even talking about the Bush administartion. I was talking about you and your ilk reciting the same garbage, and discrediting anything that refutes said garbage. Carry on.

Late comment:

Cheney is still saying there was a connection. Did anyone fill this guy in on the report, yet? Are the senior members of the administration even speaking to each other?

/I RTFA.

Cyansis, theconvincingsavant, and bbcrackmonkey, here are the logical fallacies of debate:

1.) Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."

2.) Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

3.) Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

4.) Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid.

5.) Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English translation pretty much says it all.

6.) Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again.

7.) Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true.

8.) Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.

9.) Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.

10.) Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing.

11.) Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

12.) Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.

13.) Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping.

14.) Nature, appeal to. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad.

15.) Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone.

16.) Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises.

17.) Petitio principii (begging the question). This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove.

18.) Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B.

19.) Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

20.) Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies.

21.) Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.

22.) Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error.

Please refrain from committing any of the 22 listed fallacies of debate.

I am the GREAT and POWERFUL NEO-CON SPIN MACHINE!

We attacked Iraq because they were an imminent threat due to their involvement with 9/11 they had an active WMD program they were buying depleted uranium from Nigeria they had HUGE stockpiles of WMD Saddam was a BAD man!

Bow before the GREAT and POWERFUL NEO-CON SPIN MACHINE!

All who oppose me are unpatriotic, commie, liberal piknos!

I just farted

but wait! dick cheney said they had a long history together!! why would he lie like that?

"The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"

-Ronald Reagan

-Jr.

I think if Bush was interested in my vote, he'd rename his foreign policy "Boomstick Diplomacy." That's a cool name.

elchip

If Fox News reported today that Bush molests and then eats aborted fetuses for breakfast, his standing in the polls would probably drop 0.00000001%.

It would be just like Bush to try sucking up to the Baby-Eater Lobby. Too Late Mr. Bush!

The504
So a witchhunt commission...

So, a bipartisan commission, chaired by a Republican, is a "witchhunt commission". Good one.

I pose a question to both the right and left.

Right: If Kerry wins this fall what will you say/do?
Left: If Bush wins this fall what will you say/do?


/Canadian~American living in Vancouver most months and am just interested in Farkers responses.

I still find it ironic that no one here is biatching about Clinton going into Bosnia. Much less justification for that war than this current one.

What, no Gmail invite begging yet? Come on people, get it together!

/tx­g­b324o­oh­ay­c­o­m

2004-06-16 11:48:05 AM elchip

I just don't get the poll numbers. The vast majority of people I know are against Bush. But I'm baffled by the polls.

(1) depends where you live and the kind of people you assosciate with of course
(2) they can be total bollocks. The last election before Tony Blair got in in this country, all the polls predicted labour landslide. The exit polls even predicted a major labour win. Labour lost. Polls can be rubbish.

MattLugar

You're a farking idiot for posting the full text of a long article here.

Good thing I'm not a moderator, because you'd get bannination for pulling shiat like that.

Dope.

bbcrackmonkey

Noooooooo! I was... washing my socks. ALL DAY. And, uh... PEOPLE SAW ME.

You cant distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.
-President George W. Bush, September, 2002

/*yawn*
//All the peices are in place for the apocolypse, so whats the
//hold up?

elchip, that's the liberal media for you. Next thing you know they'll try and say something like "Oh, Saddam had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus."

He had everything to do with it! I'll bet that if Saddam was in power right now he'd still be crucifying messiahs.

sugarpop
"Two bills, both sponsored by Democrats"

There is one sponsored by republicans.

The only people fighting the billS are the libretarians and they stand a REAAAALLY good chance of winning don't they.

Cyansis made a good point yesterday. He said there is only one party. The skull and bones. As much as I dislike 99% of what Cyansis says, he does make a good point that your electoral college needs an overhaul to better represent the people(read:minorities).

Cheney claims ties between Saddam, al Qaeda

And Bush loves a good liar

Bush backs Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Qaeda

elchip

I just don't get the poll numbers. The vast majority of people I know are against Bush. But I'm baffled by the polls.

Maybe you don't live in the Bible Belt?

And if the war wasn't about this or how Saddam was a cruel dictator (which he undoubtably was), what of it? This may seem ignorant to you, but Iraq was threatening us economically, if the "policeman" of the world needs oil, we should ask for/take it. Yes, policeman. Can you think of a country better equipped? Don't question the need for a policeman either, the world needs one. And if not the US, choose someone who has the economy, power, and will to be the "policeman".
Before you flame my arse off, just think about what life would be like in your neighborhood without the police.

Last question, name me another country that could be the policeman if you denounce the US

//flame away

this time with linkage

Bush backs Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Qaeda

MattLuger

Since he helps Palestinian terrorists, why didn't we just let Israel go after them? When he gassed Iranians in the 80s, why didn't we go after him then?

As for the assassination attempt: I don't think that merits the invasion of a country that causes the deaths of 8,000 Iraqi civilians and 800 of our troops. Same with him being mean to people in his own country. If we care so much about liberating Iraqis, why aren't we intervening in dictatorships around the globe? As for the WMDs: Why haven't there been any major stockpiles found, or anything resembling a usable threat?

Thanks to MattLugar (2004-06-16 11:47:31 AM) for throwing the truth into this mess.

Hey, wasn't "SNAFU" originally a military term anyway?

FKA
Your "facts" MattLugar contridict what most of the world knows and beliefs

Then, as I've said anytime I've posted on fark: Please provide evidence to the contrary. I'd love to be "enlightened". I've provided evidence to my side, but still noone provides evidence to contradict the evidence I provide.

And with that, I am done with you and your posts

That's fine, you're free to run away when the going gets tough and you've run out of ways to defend your viewpoint. It's quite common from your site of the fence. I can only assume it's a lack of factual evidence to support the argument. :(

I ask and ask and ask for good (and credible) sources of information to support an opposing viewpoint. Over and over and over, my request is denied and no sources are provided. I am only left to believe that there are no sources that support an opposing viewpoint. Q.E.D.

FarginIceHole: the US did not do the right thing in Iraq (second time around)

Also, the first gulf war coalition was the largest group of countries in recent history. Before that, it was WWII. The recent "Coalition of the Billing" hardly measures up to either.

The reasons the US people and the rest of the world were told we had to go to war were LIES. That is why the allies we relied on in the first gulf war did not assist the second time around. Wake up and smell the oil fires, IceHole