[Zimphire]

Doesn't matter what the international community cares about.

American has interest in keeping America safe.

If it were up to the international community, they'd own all of the US by now.

They are not in our best interests.

Like it or not, that is how it works.

You don't see other countries bowing or asking the US what they think about their foreign affairs.

They could care less. Rightfully so.

[kvm_mkdb]

The quotes caused quite a stir in Washington before Kwasniewski's office released a statement saying the Polish president meant that it was Saddam who "misled the world in believing that he had had the weapons."

How spineless...

[paully dub]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Doesn't matter what the international community cares about.

American has interest in keeping America safe.

If it were up to the international community, they'd own all of the US by now.

They are not in our best interests.

Like it or not, that is how it works.

You don't see other countries bowing or asking the US what they think about their foreign affairs.

They could care less. Rightfully so.

You're not safe in America - have you seen seen the murder rate in your own country? Maybe the rest of the world needs to be safe from America. Maybe the international community should take back America.

I could see myself in a nice colonial spread in southern California. Of course it would be owned by Italy, and finally southern Cali would have some decent pizza!!! Mmm pizza...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by paully dub:
You're not safe in America - have you seen seen the murder rate in your own country?

In big cities. Not unlike other big cities.

Where I, and MOST Americans live it's perfectly safe. I don't own a gun, nor do I lock my doors.

No need to. I am plenty safe.

Maybe the rest of the world needs to be safe from America. Maybe the international community should take back America.

Take BACK? Heh. Let them try.

[paully dub]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

In big cities. Not unlike other big cities.

Yeah but come on, Phoenix ahead of Moscow, c'mon... that's crazy!!!

4 of Europe's largest cities have a lower murder rate combined (London, Paris, Berlin and Rome ).

Something's gotta be wrong over there.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Doesn't matter what the international community cares about.

So you don't care at all, but you spent all that time speaking about what the Polish president said about Bush and how it was wrong and blah blah blah.
You are funny

villa

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by villalobos:
So you don't care at all, but you spent all that time speaking about what the Polish president said about Bush and how it was wrong and blah blah blah.
You are funny

villa

I was speaking that it didn't matter. And indeed, it doesn't

I don't care what people that are against America thinks.

Their opinion has no value.

[Developer]

So the opinion of Polish people, who have soldiers with you in Iraq, has no value!? And then you wonder why America is not popular?

[SimeyTheLimey]

The Polish President says his words were misunderstood, and the Polish troops will stay in Poland as long as needed.

But Siwiec said Friday the Polish president's comment about being "misled" was meant to criticize intelligence failures in general, not Washington.

"It was not a complaint by Poland addressed to the United States," he said.

Kwasniewski tempered Thursday's remarks by stressing that Poland still believes the invasion of Iraq was the right course of action and the country was better off without Saddam.

The White House emphasized Poland's commitment, distributing a statement Friday from Kwasniewski's office.

"Poland will not withdraw from Iraq until the mission of stabilization is successfully accomplished and counts on effective cooperation with the United States, Great Britain, Spain and other NATO and U.N. member states," the statement said.

"Any demonstration of weakness in view of terrorist attacks undermines the foundations of democracy, nations' security and world peace."

Prime Minister Leszek Miller said Poland remained committed to postwar peacekeeping, but would like to see Iraqis regain sovereignty soon.

"We wish that our troops return as soon as possible and do not spend in Iraq a single day longer than is necessary," Miller said.

Associated Press

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Polish President says his words were misunderstood, and the Polish troops will stay in Poland as long as needed.

And the conversation ends.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I was speaking that it didn't matter. And indeed, it doesn't

I don't care what people that are against America thinks.

Their opinion has no value.

So not agreeing with America equals being against America? Happyness to the simple minded ones.

villa

[villalobos]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And the conversation ends.

As somebody said earlier, spineless. Just like the war in Irak. Much easier to fight Saddam than to eradicate the causes of terrorism.

villa

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And the conversation ends.

Ah I bet a lot of people have pie on their face in this thread.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by villalobos:
As somebody said earlier, spineless. Just like the war in Iraq. Much easier to fight Saddam than to eradicate the causes of terrorism.

villa

You did realize he had Alqueda camps in Iraq right, and that Saddam was suspected of supporting those that bombed the WTC in 2000. This wasn't a whim to go in and attack Iraq I hope you know. Saddam also attempted to assasinate President Bush Sr. right?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But the simple fact is, he called him a liar, without proof.

That is known as slander.

I believe Bush claimed Saddam Hussein was lying about not having any WMD, without proof ...

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I believe Bush claimed Saddam Hussein was lying about not having any WMD, without proof ...

Uhm. Why did the UN have inspectors in Iraq? What were they looking for? Gummy Bears?

Someone thought Iraq had WMDs. I guess they used non-WMD chemical weapons on the Kurds.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

In big cities. Not unlike other big cities.

Where I, and MOST Americans live it's perfectly safe. I don't own a gun, nor do I lock my doors. [/B]

More Americans are killed annually by Americans than by terrorists

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Uhm. Why did the UN have inspectors in Iraq? What were they looking for? Gummy Bears?

Someone thought Iraq had WMDs. I guess they used non-WMD chemical weapons on the Kurds.

And why did those same UN inspectors say that they didn't believe there were WMD in Iraq, before the invasion? And why didn't the US administration listen to them?

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Uhm. Why did the UN have inspectors in Iraq? What were they looking for? Gummy Bears?

Someone thought Iraq had WMDs. I guess they used non-WMD chemical weapons on the Kurds.

Right. So why are the U.N. weapons experts are now saying that the evidence at the time did not justify invasion, that they told this to U.S. officials, and that they were ignored? And why did the inspectors, back in February, 2003, say that the intelligence they were receiving from the U.S. was "garbage"?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And why did those same UN inspectors say that they didn't believe there were WMD in Iraq, before the invasion? And why didn't the US administration listen to them?

We didn't believe them?
They didn't have enough manpower to do the job?
Saddam constantly made their job impossible?

He hid them really well?
They left the country pre-invasion?

WTF cares?
Anyone can see he had a hand in the WTC 1993, Oklahoma City Bombings, and an attempted assasination attempt on Bush Sr.

I'm happy we went in. Bush has done a great job as President, and will be reelected.
Face it, or don't. I don't care.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
More Americans are killed annually by Americans than by terrorists

So?

Here is the murder rate for 2000. (Per 100,000)

50.14 South Africa
21.40 Russia (1999)
10.00 Lithuania
_9.94 Estonia
_6.22 Latvia
_5.64 U.S.A.
_2.94 Spain*
_2.86 Finland
_2.84 Northern Ireland

In decending order.

What is Iceland going to do about it?

[James Christ]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:



WTF cares?
Anyone can see he had a hand in the WTC 1993, Oklahoma City Bombings, and an attempted assasination attempt on Bush Sr.

"Wow, a Christian-fundamentalist, right-winger, war-monger,oil-sucker high on drugs. I never thought I'd see the day. I found a friend." - Rush Limbaugh.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
We didn't believe them?
They didn't have enough manpower to do the job?
Saddam constantly made their job impossible?

He hid them really well?
They left the country pre-invasion?

WTF cares?

The families of 10,000 innocent Iraqis care, as do the families of close of 600 Americans killed.

I'm happy we went in. Bush has done a great job as President, and will be reelected.
Face it, or don't. I don't care.

Don't you mean re-selected?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
The families of 10,000 innocent Iraqis care, as do the families of close of 600 Americans killed.



Don't you mean re-selected?

You do realize in the process of liberating FRANCE among others from Hitler's death grip over Europe we had to bomb those countries... and innocent people died...

The surviving families in Iraq care as well. They care that they now have a future to look forward to. The families of the 600 American VOLUNTEER soldiers did their jobs with honor.

Don't spit on them! just so you can insult me.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You do realize in the process of liberating FRANCE among others from Hitler's death grip over Europe we had to bomb those countries... and innocent people died...

The surviving families in Iraq care as well. They care that they now have a future to look forward to. The families of the 600 American VOLUNTEER soldiers did their jobs with honor.

Don't spit on them! just so you can insult me.

How am I "spitting" on them? Would you rather IGNORE the fact that innocent people died? To bring up that fact is not demeaning them in any way. Stop acting like it is!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You do realize in the process of liberating FRANCE among others from Hitler's death grip over Europe we had to bomb those countries... and innocent people died...

The surviving families in Iraq care as well. They care that they now have a future to look forward to. The families of the 600 American VOLUNTEER soldiers did their jobs with honor.

Don't spit on them! just so you can insult me.

It's fascinating to watch you flip flop between "WMD" and "Liberation"; you start with WMD, then switch to Liberation when confronted with questions about the evidence of WMD in Iraq, the back to WMD for the next post-rationalization arguement ...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I believe Bush claimed Saddam Hussein was lying about not having any WMD, without proof ...

Cept it wasn't on Bush to show proof he got rid of them.

That was on Saddam.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Uhm. Why did the UN have inspectors in Iraq? What were they looking for? Gummy Bears?

Someone thought Iraq had WMDs. I guess they used non-WMD chemical weapons on the Kurds.

Oh come on.. Saddam just ate a cheese sammich.

He is lactose intolerant.

That is all that was.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You do realize in the process of liberating FRANCE among others from Hitler's death grip over Europe we had to bomb those countries... and innocent people died...

Yeah but Bush wasn't president then. It doesn't count.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Cept it wasn't on Bush to show proof he got rid of them.

That was on Saddam.

But Bush was the one launching the preemptive invasion. It was on Bush.

Tell me...why did the inspectors say that the evidence didn't justify an invasion? (BTW...they said that BEFORE the war.)

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's fascinating to watch you flip flop between "WMD" and "Liberation"; you start with WMD, then switch to Liberation when confronted with questions about the evidence of WMD in Iraq, the back to WMD for the next post-rationalization arguement ...

Its because neither justification is true, therefore they can be switched interchangeably.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
But Bush was the one launching the preemptive invasion. It was on Bush.

Lets see. Saddam was told to get rid of the WMDs and show proof or face drastic measures.

He had been told for 12 years to do so. He showed no proof of doing any of it.

Anyone claiming that Bush RUSHED into this is being silly.

Tell me...why did the inspectors say that the evidence didn't justify an invasion? (BTW...they said that BEFORE the war.)

Heh you still don't get it. Saddam was not complying. He kept playing the bait and switch game.

He'd act like he was ABOUT to comply, and then when all was clear he'd pull the football away from Charlie Brown.

After 12 years of this Charlie got sick of dealing with Saddam's lying and and total all out deception.

So what I get from you is, it's not Saddam's fault that he was kicked out of Iraq even though in the 12 years he was supposed to comply, he did not. But it was Bush for keeping the drastic measures word on the deal?

You liberals sure have a bizarro blame game.

[Zimphire]

Reacting to Clinton's speech, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz denounced the threat of military action.

"The United States doesn't have authorization by the Security Council to attack Iraq by military means," he told CNN in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

Washington insists U.N. resolutions in effect since the Gulf War provide all the authorization needed for an attack.

Aziz also rejected the U.S. assertion that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are a threat to neighboring countries.

"Among all our neighbors, only Kuwait has joined the American plan to attack Iraq," he said. "So if all our neighbors are really threatened by us, why didn't they join the (U.S.-led) coalition."

Sounds just like now, but Clinton was President.

I guess his preemptive bombings were A_OK though.

There was no Democrats screaming LIAR! or WARHAWK!

Even though he gave the same reasons.

Hypocrites.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Lets see. Saddam was told to get rid of the WMDs and show proof or face drastic measures.

He had been told for 12 years to do so. He showed no proof of doing any of it.

Anyone claiming that Bush RUSHED into this is being silly. [/b]

But the son-in-law of Saddam revealed years ago that the weapons had been destroyed:

On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.

[...]

According to Newsweek, Kamel told the same story to CIA analysts in August 1995. If that is true, all of these U.S. officials have had access to Kamel's statements that the weapons were destroyed. Their repeated citations of his testimony-- without revealing that he also said the weapons no longer exist-- suggests that the administration might be withholding critical evidence.

Heh you still don't get it. Saddam was not complying. He kept playing the bait and switch game.

He'd act like he was ABOUT to comply, and then when all was clear he'd pull the football away from Charlie Brown.

After 12 years of this Charlie got sick of dealing with Saddam's lying and and total all out deception.

So what I get from you is, it's not Saddam's fault that he was kicked out of Iraq even though in the 12 years he was supposed to comply, he did not. But it was Bush for keeping the drastic measures word on the deal?

You liberals sure have a bizarro blame game.

Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, even though the UN inspectors themselves said that there wasn't enough evidence to justify a war.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
[B]Sounds just like now, but Clinton was President.

I guess his preemptive bombings were A_OK though.

There was no Democrats screaming LIAR! or WARHAWK!

Even though he gave the same reasons.

Hypocrites.

Did Clinton order the INVASION of Iraq? Did Clinton order the TOPPLING of the government of a soverign nation?

No.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
But the son-in-law of Saddam revealed years ago that the weapons had been destroyed:

Ok, how is that showing proof in any way? You keep throwing out these strawmen to me as if they mean anything.

OMG Saddam's son in law said so! It MUST be true!

Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, even though the UN inspectors themselves said that there wasn't enough evidence to justify a war.

Yup just like they told Clinton. They said he didn't have any justifications for attacking them.

He did it anyhow. Where is your angst?!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Did Clinton order the INVASION of Iraq? Did Clinton order the TOPPLING of the government of a soverign nation?

No.

So what you are saying is, it's ok to lie about Iraq and bomb them,

But as soon as you get rid of Saddam your bad!

Do you ever think these things out before you type them?

So now its not Bush lying that is bad, it's the fact he got rid of a corrupt evil government.

I get it.

BTW neither of them lied.

You are now grasping for straws.

BTW Clinton was speaking about an invasion as well. Saddam talked him out of it with more of his lies. He had been doing it for over a decade. It was time to stop playing his game.

Clinton, who has ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N. demands on weapons inspections: "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."

Seems Clinton agrees with me.

He agreed with Bush too.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Ok, how is that showing proof in any way? You keep throwing out these strawmen to me as if they mean anything.

OMG Saddam's son in law said so! It MUST be true![/b]

Well Colin Powell obviously thought him credible enough to cite his testimony in the presentation to the UN last year...

Yup just like they told Clinton. They said he didn't have any justifications for attacking them.

He did it anyhow. Where is your angst?!

My angst is in the fact that Bush invaded Iraq and toppled the government, at the cost of thousands of human lives.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Well Colin Powell obviously thought him credible enough to cite his testimony in the presentation to the UN last year...

Siting testimony does not = credibility.

My angst is in the fact that Bush invaded Iraq and toppled the government, at the cost of thousands of human lives.

Oh, so you'd rather Saddam stayed in power and killed thousands of more people than the war did?

Should we have not liberated France because it cost even more lives?

Your drama may work on some. But not me.

Your angst is that it was Bush that did it. Not what was done. But WHO did it.

And it's very transparent.

You are a political zealot.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Siting testimony does not = credibility.

Then you are saying that Powell was using dubious information in his presentation? Interesting.

Oh, so you'd rather Saddam stayed in power and killed thousands of more people than the war did?

Since when was Saddam's brutality a case for war?
Oh yeah, after no weapons were found.

Should we have not liberated France because it cost even more lives?

Your drama may work on some. But not me.

Your angst is that it was Bush that did it. Not what was done. But WHO did it.

And it's very transparent.

You are a political zealot.

My angst is that it was done, not WHO did it, and it's as simple as that.
Stop trying to assume things.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Then you are saying that Powell was using dubious information in his presentation? Interesting.

No, siting information gathered doesn't mean it's all true now does it?

That is just siting information gathered. You are spinning. Stand still.

Since when was Saddam's brutality a case for war?
Oh yeah, after no weapons were found.

You never answered my question. You just gave me another typical Democratic shill speach.

BTW Saddam's Brutality was ALWAYS a part of this. ALWAYS. Even from the BEGINNING.

Democrats acting as if it wasn't till we couldn't find where Saddam put the WMDs doesn't make it any true.

My angst is that it was done, not WHO did it, and it's as simple as that.
Stop trying to assume things.

No, because your rational isn't logical.

You'd rather see Saddam in power killing off even MORE people than see Bush get rid of him.

That tells me it's about the person who did it. You have no concern about the people of Iraq. If you did, you would have welcomed Saddam's removal. So your fake concern over them to try to justify your hatred towards Bush is pathetic.

[Zimphire]

I am sorry if I find it hard to believe someone claiming that they dislike Bush because he toppled Iraq and killed innocent victims, when the gov that was attacked had caused MANY MORE victims and would continue to do so if not stopped.

Sounds like a poor excuse to me. Think of a new reason to hate Bush.

That top isn't spinning.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, siting information gathered doesn't mean it's all true now does it?

That is just siting information gathered. You are spinning. Stand still.

Riiiight. So why would Colin Powell use information that could be false in his presentation to the UN?

You never answered my question. You just gave me another typical Democratic shill speach.

BTW Saddam's Brutality was ALWAYS a part of this. ALWAYS. Even from the BEGINNING.

Democrats acting as if it wasn't till we couldn't find where Saddam put the WMDs doesn't make it any true.

No, because your rational isn't logical.

You'd rather see Saddam in power killing off even MORE people than see Bush get rid of him.

That tells me it's about the person who did it. You have no concern about the people of Iraq. If you did, you would have welcomed Saddam's removal. So your fake concern over them to try to justify your hatred towards Bush is pathetic.

And Iraq was the only country torturing and killing its citizens? Think again. Uzbekistan, one of our ALLIES, was brutalizing its people. And we were giving them hundreds of millions of dollars in aid.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Riiiight. So why would Colin Powell use information that could be false in his presentation to the UN?

*sigh* you obviously don't understand how information is taken and why all of it is shown as a example.

Not all information given was known as solid fact. Take a police report. They are going to take your report and file it, telling the truth or not.

Understand?

And Iraq was the only country torturing and killing its citizens? Think again. Uzbekistan, one of our ALLIES, was brutalizing its people. And we were giving them hundreds of millions of dollars in aid.

STRAW-MAN.

You totally dodged the issue at hand and brought up that horrible straw-man argument.

This discussion wasn't about if there was other countries doing it.

Thanks for playing. I knew you couldn't spin your way out of that "logic"

So let me get this straight. You no longer are mad at Bush for attacking iraq and having innocent victims in the process, But because he did it to Iraq and not anyone else!!!

Your story keeps spinning as you go on.

Just admit it. You hate Bush. No matter what he does, you hate him. You hate him because he isn't a Democrat.

That is the true reason. Your other reasons have fell apart.

I'll be waiting for your next post. So I can read yet another spin.

Lets not bring the straw-men out for this one ok?

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
*sigh* you obviously don't understand how information is taken and why all of it is shown as a example.

Not all information given was known as solid fact. Take a police report. They are going to take your report and file it, telling the truth or not.

Understand?

I know this...my question is why would Colin Powell use that kind of information?

STRAW-MAN.

You totally dodged the issue at hand and brought up that horrible straw-man argument.

This discussion wasn't about if there was other countries doing it.

Thanks for playing. I knew you couldn't spin your way out of that "logic"

The fact that other countries are doing it is completely relevant. If the brutality in Iraq was used as a reason for war, then that begs the question of why IRAQ, and not Uzbekistan, or some other country.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So let me get this straight. You no longer are mad at Bush for attacking iraq and having innocent victims in the process, But because he did it to Iraq and not anyone else!!!

Your story keeps spinning as you go on.

Just admit it. You hate Bush. No matter what he does, you hate him. You hate him because he isn't a Democrat.

That is the true reason. Your other reasons have fell apart.

I'll be waiting for your next post. So I can read yet another spin.

Lets not bring the straw-men out for this one ok?

I'm mad because it's a double standard! He goes on and on about Saddam's brutality, while as the SAME TIME, supporting a government that's doing the SAME THING!!

It's hypocritical - end. of. story.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am sorry if I find it hard to believe someone claiming that they dislike Bush because he toppled Iraq and killed innocent victims, when the gov that was attacked had caused MANY MORE victims and would continue to do so if not stopped.

Sounds like a poor excuse to me. Think of a new reason to hate Bush.

That top isn't spinning.

The problem is Bush is the President of a democracy, who is not supposed to engage in such grievous actions. What is amusing (I say amusing because I wanna be nice to you ) is you have to compare Bush to Saddam in order to make him look good..... You see the problem here? In the absolute, Bush's action was rushed, and uncalled for. But of course, you will never admit it since it is Bush and you a zealotous Bush apologist.

Spin, spin, spin, Zimph'.

villa

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
I know this...my question is why would Colin Powell use that kind of information?

.... did you not just read what I said? Any of it?

The fact that other countries are doing it is completely relevant. If the brutality in Iraq was used as a reason for war, then that begs the question of why IRAQ, and not Uzbekistan, or some other country.

I never said it was THE reason. I said it was ONE of the reasons.

So what again is your rant against Bush?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
I'm mad because it's a double standard! He goes on and on about Saddam's brutality, while as the SAME TIME, supporting a government that's doing the SAME THING!!

It's hypocritical - end. of. story.

You do know Clinton did the same thing right? And just about ever other president before him.

Was he justified in it?

And again it wasn't just about his brutality.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
.... did you not just read what I said? Any of it?

Yep.

I never said it was THE reason. I said it was ONE of the reasons.

So what again is your rant against Bush?

A simple question. Do you think that Bush supporting Uzbekistan, a country whose government tortures its citizens, at the same time condemning Saddam for doing the same, is hypocritical? Yes, or no.