3 worst Presidents in History...

[Brixtonbulldog]

I'm not comparing the degree of torture done by Bush or Hussein.  Why are you doing that?  It's evident from WWII that waterboarding is torture and a crime against humanity.  Now you are pretty much saying that that was incorrect b/c the things Hussein did were worse.

I don't see it that way. 

The Germans declared war on the US.  That use of force was valid b/c we had war declared on us.

I blame Bush for the crimes in Iraq b/c, but for his order to invade the country, 100,000 people would be alive today.

That's not a reason of hate.  It's a reason of cold, hard fact.
Hussein was dictator of a sovereign country.  You show me the legal authority for taking down a country's leader just b/c he was brutal.  Why Iraq?  Why not Egypt or Pakistan or any country that has a track record of human rights violations?

What do you mean "refused to back up words with actions?"

1441 was all about WMD inspections.

Were the inspectors in Iraq doing inspections and getting Iraqi cooperation to that end?

Absolutely.

So why did Bush order the attack in spite of Iraq's compliance with 1441?

Wasn't Bush enforcing 1441?  That's why it was drafted.  Bush went to the UN and asked enforce the inspections.

We all know you don't see it that way.  You have established yourself on the extreme end of a completely emotional argument based on hatred for someone a lot more people in power are responsible for.  Water-boarding is torture, ok.  Have you even begun to look into the tortures of Saddam?  They are VERY far apart.  I don't hear you speaking out against that.

And how many of those 100,000 were combatants?  How many were civilians killed by combatants?  You always fail to make the distinction because it destroys your argument.  Terrorists flocked to Iraq to kill US soldiers and we were slaughtering them for years.  Sounds like a pretty massive enemy body count is a good thing.

And I'm referring to all the other violations Saddam committed.  Why wasn't he punished for them?  Why did the UN sit there and count how many times this guy shot at allied patrols, etc. instead of using force in the first place?  The UN is so worthless no wonder Bush said "to hell with it."  Saddam should have been killed ten years ago.  Acts of war apparently don't matter to the UN.

[Decker]

We all know you don't see it that way.  You have established yourself on the extreme end of a completely emotional argument based on hatred for someone a lot more people in power are responsible for.  Water-boarding is torture, ok.  Have you even begun to look into the tortures of Saddam?  They are VERY far apart.  I don't hear you speaking out against that.

Unlike you, I don't condone torture by anyone.

And how many of those 100,000 were combatants?  How many were civilians killed by combatants?  You always fail to make the distinction because it destroys your argument.  Terrorists flocked to Iraq to kill US soldiers and we were slaughtering them for years.  Sounds like a pretty massive enemy body count is a good thing.

Terrorists did not and have not flocked to Iraq to kill americans.

Are they Enemy combatants or Iraqi citizens trying to repel a murderous destructive invasion?  How many civilians do you think died in this unnecessary war?

And I'm referring to all the other violations Saddam committed.  Why wasn't he punished for them?  Why did the UN sit there and count how many times this guy shot at allied patrols, etc. instead of using force in the first place?  The UN is so worthless no wonder Bush said "to hell with it."  Saddam should have been killed ten years ago.  Acts of war apparently don't matter to the UN.

The US implemented an embargo that devastated Iraq financially and resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2 million people.

Isn't that enough death for you?  You think there should've been a whole lot more?

I think if you had to meet some of these murdered people, you might have a different view...not so ruthlessly cavalier.

Gee, what acts of war are you referring to?

[Brixtonbulldog]

Unlike you, I don't condone torture by anyone.
Terrorists did not and have not flocked to Iraq to kill americans.

Are they Enemy combatants or Iraqi citizens trying to repel a murderous destructive invasion?  How many civilians do you think died in this unnecessary war?
The US implemented an embargo that devastated Iraq financially and resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2 million people.

Isn't that enough death for you?  You think there should've been a whole lot more?

I think if you had to meet some of these murdered people, you might have a different view...not so ruthlessly cavalier.

Gee, what acts of war are you referring to?

Who said I condoned torture?  You're not showing much objectivity if you think Bush is so evil for committing a very minimal and mild form of it and Saddam should have just been left to continue committing the worst crimes against humanity since vietnam or WW2.

You actually think all those Iraqi dead were just citizens who took up arms against the US? ah HAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH AHAAH!!!!!!!!!!!  WOW

And I'd like to see where this embargo somehow killed 2 million people.  Is Saddam not responsible for bringing such conditions upon his own people?  Even IF this is true an embargo is a cowardly hand to play when considering his actively violent and ruthless nature.  Shooting at allied war planes on active patrols we've had since 91 is an act of war when we we're not shooting first. 

[Decker]

Who said I condoned torture?  You're not showing much objectivity if you think Bush is so evil for committing a very minimal and mild form of it and Saddam should have just been left to continue committing the worst crimes against humanity since vietnam or WW2.

I believe you are one of the "waterboarding is not torture" crowd?  Right?

You actually think all those Iraqi dead were just citizens who took up arms against the US? ah HAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH AHAAH!!!!!!!!!!!  WOW

If only 2% of the attacks on soldiers in Iraq is attributable to AQ ties, then who is the other 98%?

According to both the July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate and the Defense Intelligence Agency reports AQI accounted for 15 percent of attacks in Iraq. However, the Congressional Research Service noted in its September 2007 report that attacks from al-Qaeda are less than two percent of the violence in Iraq and criticized the Bush administration’s statistics, noting that its false reporting of insurgency attacks as AQI attacks has increased since the "surge" operations began

This is why you ask questions...to learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

And I'd like to see where this embargo somehow killed 2 million people.  Is Saddam not responsible for bringing such conditions upon his own people?  Even IF this is true an embargo is a cowardly hand to play when considering his actively violent and ruthless nature.  Shooting at allied war planes on active patrols we've had since 91 is an act of war when we we're not shooting first. 

1) As of March 2003 (just prior to the war), between 1.7 and 2 million Iraqi civilians have died due to malnutrition and disease, about 700,000 of them are children. Health Ministry documents under-5 and over-50 deaths due to disease and/or malnutrition at 1.7 million. If over-5 and under-50 age sectors are added, which is well over 500,000 deaths, that makes the total number of deaths over 2 million. Estimates of deaths due to the 2003 war range from 10,000 to 100,000.  http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX6968-IraqEmbargo.htm

Shooting at the no-fly zone planes is not an act of war b/c the US implemented the no-fly zones without any authority at all.

Was it a good idea for Bush to want to paint these planes to masquerade them as UN humanitarian planes so that any bullet fired by Iraq would be an act of war?

Should we wipe out these countries too?:
Eight countries were judged by New York-based Freedom House to have the most repressive regimes. They were Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The organization also placed the territories of Chechnya and Tibet into the lowest category because the group says their "inhabitants suffer intense repression."
http://www.10news.com/news/16176848/detail.html?rss=sand&psp=nationalnews

[Brixtonbulldog]

I believe you are one of the "waterboarding is not torture" crowd?  Right?
If only 2% of the attacks on soldiers in Iraq is attributable to AQ ties, then who is the other 98%?

According to both the July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate and the Defense Intelligence Agency reports AQI accounted for 15 percent of attacks in Iraq. However, the Congressional Research Service noted in its September 2007 report that attacks from al-Qaeda are less than two percent of the violence in Iraq and criticized the Bush administration’s statistics, noting that its false reporting of insurgency attacks as AQI attacks has increased since the "surge" operations began

This is why you ask questions...to learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
 1) As of March 2003 (just prior to the war), between 1.7 and 2 million Iraqi civilians have died due to malnutrition and disease, about 700,000 of them are children. Health Ministry documents under-5 and over-50 deaths due to disease and/or malnutrition at 1.7 million. If over-5 and under-50 age sectors are added, which is well over 500,000 deaths, that makes the total number of deaths over 2 million. Estimates of deaths due to the 2003 war range from 10,000 to 100,000.  http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX6968-IraqEmbargo.htm

Shooting at the no-fly zone planes is not an act of war b/c the US implemented the no-fly zones without any authority at all.

Was it a good idea for Bush to want to paint these planes to masquerade them as UN humanitarian planes so that any bullet fired by Iraq would be an act of war?

Should we wipe out these countries too?:
Eight countries were judged by New York-based Freedom House to have the most repressive regimes. They were Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The organization also placed the territories of Chechnya and Tibet into the lowest category because the group says their "inhabitants suffer intense repression."
http://www.10news.com/news/16176848/detail.html?rss=sand&psp=nationalnews

Waterboarding is torture but certainly not anything close to Saddams methods which you apparently have no problem with.

There are other terrorist groups and single acts of terrorism outside of AQ.  You're making a massive assumption that these people are just citizens defending their country.  We're not talking about AQ causing violence in Iraq, we are referring to AQ AMONG OTHERS behind attacks directed at American soldiers.  That 2% of the overall violence could be 50% of the violence towards allied forces.  So much of the violence in Iraq is infighting.

So it's our fault that Saddam was our enemy and warranted an embargo?  I think not.  And I think Iraq's surrender after the first gulf war more than constituted our authority for no-fly zones, smart guy.  As for Libya, Burma, NK, and Somalia and Sudan.. absolutely.  Then again, if they are a lost cause unlike Iraq than there is no point.  The others are debatable.

[Slapper]

Gotta love the it's-not-torture-when-WE-do-it crowd.

That is blind love.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Gotta love the it's-not-torture-when-WE-do-it crowd.

That is blind love.

I just said it was torture, moron.

[Decker]

Waterboarding is torture but certainly not anything close to Saddams methods which you apparently have no problem with.

Yes.  You make perfect sense.  I oppose Bush and the republican's brand of torture yet I support the nebulous torture you attribute to Hussein.  Elementary BB.  I'm busted.

There are other terrorist groups and single acts of terrorism outside of AQ.  You're making a massive assumption that these people are just citizens defending their country.  We're not talking about AQ causing violence in Iraq, we are referring to AQ AMONG OTHERS behind attacks directed at American soldiers.  That 2% of the overall violence could be 50% of the violence towards allied forces.  So much of the violence in Iraq is infighting.

Right.  You also forgot the cash payouts by uncle sam to Sunni aligned AQ fighters.  AQ is not and was not a force in Iraq. 

Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says

The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.

The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.

The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."

Although other groups, like the September 11 commission, have concluded that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Pentagon was able to analyze much more information.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

Lies beget lies...rationalizations role like rain down a windshield.  What were preposterous right wing pre-war claims of Iraq's horrible threat to the US from WMDs and Al Qaeda links became accepted myth amongst the pro-war crowd.

So it's our fault that Saddam was our enemy and warranted an embargo?  I think not.  And I think Iraq's surrender after the first gulf war more than constituted our authority for no-fly zones, smart guy.  As for Libya, Burma, NK, and Somalia and Sudan.. absolutely.  Then again, if they are a lost cause unlike Iraq than there is no point.  The others are debatable.

So we just didn't kill enough Iraqis with the embargo, we absolutely had to invade Iraq to kill more to show that damn Hussein that he can't play games with us.

Under the terms of surrender from the first gulf invasion, where does it say that the US can impose no-fly zones?

[Brixtonbulldog]

Yes.  You make perfect sense.  I oppose Bush and the republican's brand of torture yet I support the nebulous torture you attribute to Hussein.  Elementary BB.  I'm busted.
Right.  You also forgot the cash payouts by uncle sam to Sunni aligned AQ fighters.  AQ is not and was not a force in Iraq. 

Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says

The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.

The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.

The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."

Although other groups, like the September 11 commission, have concluded that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Pentagon was able to analyze much more information.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

Lies beget lies...rationalizations role like rain down a windshield.  What were preposterous right wing pre-war claims of Iraq's horrible threat to the US from WMDs and Al Qaeda links became accepted myth amongst the pro-war crowd.

So we just didn't kill enough Iraqis with the embargo, we absolutely had to invade Iraq to kill more to show that damn Hussein that he can't play games with us.

Under the terms of surrender from the first gulf invasion, where does it say that the US can impose no-fly zones?

You certainly paint that picture running around getbig with your insane "bush is evil" agenda yet I haven't heard one drop of water from you about the other guy.  Typical lib.. only has moral dilemmas when it suits your cause.

I was referring to AQ in Iraq AFTER the invasion, dumbass.. but you already knew that.

Um.. well I don't usually have to read the terms of surrender word for word after we win a war but we certainly have the upper hand to impose such conditions after decimating Saddams forces after 100 hours and we can certainly expect that those conditions will be honored and hold them accountable when they are not.  Obviously the embargo didn't stop Saddam from doing whatever he wanted but liberals never seem to learn that negotiations only go so far with so many people.  For everyone else there is forced compliance.

[Decker]

You certainly paint that picture running around getbig with your insane "bush is evil" agenda yet I haven't heard one drop of water from you about the other guy.  Typical lib.. only has moral dilemmas when it suits your cause.

Of what relevance is Hussein's rule to Bush's criminality?

You want to join hands with everyone and chant, "Hussein was a butcher too..."  Will that assuage your guilt over the senseless slaughter of Iraqi people?  Does that make George Bush a hero...as well as you pro-war types?

It doesn't.

I was referring to AQ in Iraq AFTER the invasion, dumbass.. but you already knew that.

As usual, you miss the point.  Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq beforehand and it's not really there now, is it?  It's still the civil war that we started with the invasion.  "Why Iraq is flypaper for terrorists" says the pro-war sycophant.  "Better to fight them over there than here in the states" pipes up another pro-war buffoon.  Both arguments are baseless propaganda.

But you already knew that.

There is no central front in the war on terror in Iraq....unless you count the US's invasion itself(we did attack civilians and civilian infrastructure).  This is another myth that you pro-war rightwingers keep telling yourselves:  "We really are doing good there...the invasion may have happened for other reasons....but ultimately we are a force for good in Iraq!"

How close am I to the truth with that desperate rationalization? 

Um.. well I don't usually have to read the terms of surrender word for word after we win a war but we certainly have the upper hand to impose such conditions after decimating Saddams forces after 100 hours and we can certainly expect that those conditions will be honored and hold them accountable when they are not.  Obviously the embargo didn't stop Saddam from doing whatever he wanted but liberals never seem to learn that negotiations only go so far with so many people.  For everyone else there is forced compliance.

What you typed makes no sense.  You think the US has license to do whatever it pleases...there is no law...there is no accountability.  That's so sad that you would think that.


Put down the pom pons.

Take the sparklers out of your teeth.


Stop the cartwheels.  And take off your giant foam 'We're #1' hand.  The cheering is over.

Iraq was not a threat.  It never was.  It had no ties to Al Qaeda.

It was minding its own business until George W. Bush ordered the attack.

100,000+ dead and a country devastated.  That's your legacy.

Don't you feel a little better now that you're not a pro-war cheerleader any more?

The lies and rationalizations are put to bed.

Admit the mistake ...your mistake as well.

[pumphard]

the wars were started to set up bases (saudis kicking us out in a decade, and we need a place to set up missiles), gain control of oil (US firms own 80 percent of Iraqi oil forever) and to make the military firms rich.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Of what relevance is Hussein's rule to Bush's criminality?

You want to join hands with everyone and chant, "Hussein was a butcher too..."  Will that assuage your guilt over the senseless slaughter of Iraqi people?  Does that make George Bush a hero...as well as you pro-war types?

It doesn't.
As usual, you miss the point.  Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq beforehand and it's not really there now, is it?  It's still the civil war that we started with the invasion.  "Why Iraq is flypaper for terrorists" says the pro-war sycophant.  "Better to fight them over there than here in the states" pipes up another pro-war buffoon.  Both arguments are baseless propaganda.

But you already knew that.

There is no central front in the war on terror in Iraq....unless you count the US's invasion itself(we did attack civilians and civilian infrastructure).  This is another myth that you pro-war rightwingers keep telling yourselves:  "We really are doing good there...the invasion may have happened for other reasons....but ultimately we are a force for good in Iraq!"

How close am I to the truth with that desperate rationalization? 
What you typed makes no sense.  You think the US has license to do whatever it pleases...there is no law...there is no accountability.  That's so sad that you would think that.


Put down the pom pons.

Take the sparklers out of your teeth.


Stop the cartwheels.  And take off your giant foam 'We're #1' hand.  The cheering is over.

Iraq was not a threat.  It never was.  It had no ties to Al Qaeda.

It was minding its own business until George W. Bush ordered the attack.

100,000+ dead and a country devastated.  That's your legacy.

Don't you feel a little better now that you're not a pro-war cheerleader any more?

The lies and rationalizations are put to bed.

Admit the mistake ...your mistake as well.

Bush is no more guilty of a crime than every democrat in congress, people you undoubtedly voted for.  30 years from now you'll still be clinging to this myth so it's time you start re-examining your priorities.  If the UN can't/won't enforce it's resolutions than we will and since we're ones enforcing it than we're pretty much the authority.  The point is your hypocrisy.  You refuse to examine both sides as long as it doesn't serve your exaggerated and absurd points.  Once again, typical.  We don't target civilians we target combatants so saying we were slaughtering innocent people is pure nonsense.  If they weren't shooting at us we weren't shooting back.  That doesn't sound like genocide to me but since your hatred makes you believe whatever you want it is pointless to try and convince a drone.

Now we're leaving and all those civilians we apparently hated so much are getting a better, safer, and free country back to their control.  We've dispatched one of the worst tyrants of the 20th century, rebuilt a nation and set millions free from a murderous, torturous and oppressive regime all the while improving our national security and those of our allies and stabilizing the region.  Yes, we're just plain evil aren't we, lol.

Of course there isn't much AQ left in Iraq.. we've made sure of it, dummy.

And as long as loving my country makes self-loathing losers like you angry than I'll keep the sparklers lit.  We're at the game cheering our winning team while your at home crying about why people care about sports remembering all the times you were picked last to play.  Despite the marginalized opinions of a few ignorant clowns the world is a better place with that psychopath dead and we have Dubya to thank for it. 

[Decker]

Bush is no more guilty of a crime than every democrat in congress, people you undoubtedly voted for. 

Bush lied to secure the consent of the Congress and the American people.  He lied about the WMDs, Iraq's ties to AQ and the threat posed by Iraq to the US (that's still laughable every time I type it).

It is boilerplate law that lies/fraud kills consent.  The democrats and the Congress are not 'guilty' since Bush got their consent through lies. 

Only the Bush adiminstration is culpable.

30 years from now you'll still be clinging to this myth so it's time you start re-examining your priorities.  If the UN can't/won't enforce it's resolutions than we will and since we're ones enforcing it than we're pretty much the authority.

The US does not unilaterally make up international law as it goes along.  It was Bush that ran to the UN asking to enforce the inspections.
"My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. " --Bush in 2002

1441 was drafted and Bush violated that by ignoring the will of the UN Security Council. 

The point is your hypocrisy.  You refuse to examine both sides as long as it doesn't serve your exaggerated and absurd points.  Once again, typical.  We don't target civilians we target combatants so saying we were slaughtering innocent people is pure nonsense.  If they weren't shooting at us we weren't shooting back.  That doesn't sound like genocide to me but since your hatred makes you believe whatever you want it is pointless to try and convince a drone.

What purpose is served by examing both sides?  Both sides of what?  Bush ordered the attack.  There was no claim of justifiable use of force.  Just what the hell are you looking for on the Hussein side of your equation?

How does the fact that Hussein was a bad guy justify Bush's murderous lawlessness?

Now we're leaving and all those civilians we apparently hated so much are getting a better, safer, and free country back to their control.  We've dispatched one of the worst tyrants of the 20th century, rebuilt a nation and set millions free from a murderous, torturous and oppressive regime all the while improving our national security and those of our allies and stabilizing the region.  Yes, we're just plain evil aren't we, lol.

Oh I just shit my pants in patriotic verve.  I think that's the brown foam residue attendant to the trots--patriotic verve.

We killed 100,000 plus, tortured more and detained more indefinitely without charges. 

...

You know, you're right.  Maybe we should compare our 'compassionate act' with Hussein's brutality. 

Of course there isn't much AQ left in Iraq.. we've made sure of it, dummy.

More self-deception.  Is that the script for this month?  There's no AQ b/c we did a damn good job of battling terrorists in Iraq. 

And as long as loving my country makes self-loathing losers like you angry than I'll keep the sparklers lit.  We're at the game cheering our winning team while your at home crying about why people care about sports remembering all the times you were picked last to play.  Despite the marginalized opinions of a few ignorant clowns the world is a better place with that psychopath dead and we have Dubya to thank for it. 

How old are you? 18...19.  What the fuck is with your 'picked last' spiel?  I'm a grown man.  High school is for children.

Thank W?  For what, for the 4500 dead americans, the 40,000 wounded, 100,000-700,000 dead Iraqis and the 700 billion of our tax dollars pissed away.

You admire some very sick people.  Diseased humans.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Bush lied to secure the consent of the Congress and the American people.  He lied about the WMDs, Iraq's ties to AQ and the threat posed by Iraq to the US (that's still laughable every time I type it).

It is boilerplate law that lies/fraud kills consent.  The democrats and the Congress are not 'guilty' since Bush got their consent through lies. 

Only the Bush adiminstration is culpable.
 The US does not unilaterally make up international law as it goes along.  It was Bush that ran to the UN asking to enforce the inspections.
"My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. " --Bush in 2002

1441 was drafted and Bush violated that by ignoring the will of the UN Security Council. 
 What purpose is served by examing both sides?  Both sides of what?  Bush ordered the attack.  There was no claim of justifiable use of force.  Just what the hell are you looking for on the Hussein side of your equation?

How does the fact that Hussein was a bad guy justify Bush's murderous lawlessness?
Oh I just shit my pants in patriotic verve.  I think that's the brown foam residue attendant to the trots--patriotic verve.

We killed 100,000 plus, tortured more and detained more indefinitely without charges. 

...

You know, you're right.  Maybe we should compare our 'compassionate act' with Hussein's brutality. 
More self-deception.  Is that the script for this month?  There's no AQ b/c we did a damn good job of battling terrorists in Iraq. 
How old are you? 18...19.  What the fuck is with your 'picked last' spiel?  I'm a grown man.  High school is for children.

Thank W?  For what, for the 4500 dead americans, the 40,000 wounded, 100,000-700,000 dead Iraqis and the 700 billion of our tax dollars pissed away.

You admire some very sick people.  Diseased humans.

Don't feed me that BS.. congress has access to the same intel the prez does.

Bush made attempts to work with the UN but was not limited to their inaction.  Call it a formality, he tried but in the end they weren't really an authority and never have been.  How many times do you go back to the lawyer that takes your money but doesn't win suits?  You either find a new one or go to law school and do it yourself.  We decide the what's in the US's best interests, not the UN.

You think Bush should be in prison for crimes, correct?  Well ask yourself.. what crimes had Saddam committed?  Now, what should his punishment be?  Is the UN willing to follow through?  NOPE.  Wasn't going to happen so Bush did the world a favor imposing punishment for crimes that otherwise would go unanswered by the UN.  The UN is a figurehead of authority.  Nations abide because of agreements not any actual threat of enforcement.  The US has consistently BEEN that enforcement. 

Answer me honestly.. How many of those 100,000 took up arms against allied forces?  And how many of those that didn't take up arms against us were shot, stabbed, or obliterated by allied forces?  Please answer this.

You have the mentality of every hard left, zero-backbone, bleeding heart, hypocritical marxist trying to undermine anyone who represents what this country was meant to me.

[Decker]

Don't feed me that BS.. congress has access to the same intel the prez does.

That's terrific.

And how does that lessen Bush's active fraud in lying to the Congress and Country?

It doesn't.

Maybe we'd better look at Hussein's crimes to exculpate Bush!

Bush made attempts to work with the UN but was not limited to their inaction.  Call it a formality, he tried but in the end they weren't really an authority and never have been.  How many times do you go back to the lawyer that takes your money but doesn't win suits?  You either find a new one or go to law school and do it yourself.  We decide the what's in the US's best interests, not the UN.

A formality?  I call it international law. 

So, essentially, you're saying that international law does not exist.  The UN means nothing.  And the US can attack whomever it pleases irrespective of facts and without regard for other sovereign nations.

You think Bush should be in prison for crimes, correct?  Well ask yourself.. what crimes had Saddam committed?  Now, what should his punishment be?  Is the UN willing to follow through?  NOPE.  Wasn't going to happen so Bush did the world a favor imposing punishment for crimes that otherwise would go unanswered by the UN.  The UN is a figurehead of authority.  Nations abide because of agreements not any actual threat of enforcement.  The US has consistently BEEN that enforcement.

Ok, I'll play.  Hussein was a badddd (4ds) man.  B/c of his badness, the UN imposed sanctions which killed millions of Iraqis.  Isn't that enough for you?

So you think that the capture of Hussein was worth the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq, the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the deaths of 4,000 americans, the wounding of 40,000 americans and the displacement of 4 million Iraqis?

It just doesn't add up under any cost/benefit analysis.

Answer me honestly.. How many of those 100,000 took up arms against allied forces?  And how many of those that didn't take up arms against us were shot, stabbed, or obliterated by allied forces?  Please answer this.

If I were an Iraqi civilian, I would take up arms against any invading force.  To me, it's perfectly understandable to attack the attackers.

You have the mentality of every hard left, zero-backbone, bleeding heart, hypocritical marxist trying to undermine anyone who represents what this country was meant to me.

Good.

You're starting to learn.

'bleeding heart' comes from the bleeding heart of christ.  I still haven't understood why you throw hypocrisy in there.  I've been pretty consistent with my views.

Bush is a bellicose fascist.  He attacked a prone country without legal justification.  He's a fucking mass murderer deserving of charges of treason and crimes against humanity.  He decided regime change was a good thing.  That's just not good enough for me.

To you though, he caught a bad man and helped a country to some sort of democracy.  It doesn't matter the cost, the legal justification or the morality of the entire occurrence, he ultimately did a good thing.

That, I don't understand.

[Brixtonbulldog]

That's terrific.

And how does that lessen Bush's active fraud in lying to the Congress and Country?

It doesn't.

Maybe we'd better look at Hussein's crimes to exculpate Bush!
A formality?  I call it international law. 

So, essentially, you're saying that international law does not exist.  The UN means nothing.  And the US can attack whomever it pleases irrespective of facts and without regard for other sovereign nations.
 Ok, I'll play.  Hussein was a badddd (4ds) man.  B/c of his badness, the UN imposed sanctions which killed millions of Iraqis.  Isn't that enough for you?

So you think that the capture of Hussein was worth the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq, the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the deaths of 4,000 americans, the wounding of 40,000 americans and the displacement of 4 million Iraqis?

It just doesn't add up under any cost/benefit analysis.
If I were an Iraqi civilian, I would take up arms against any invading force.  To me, it's perfectly understandable to attack the attackers.
 Good.

You're starting to learn.

'bleeding heart' comes from the bleeding heart of christ.  I still haven't understood why you throw hypocrisy in there.  I've been pretty consistent with my views.

Bush is a bellicose fascist.  He attacked a prone country without legal justification.  He's a fucking mass murderer deserving of charges of treason and crimes against humanity.  He decided regime change was a good thing.  That's just not good enough for me.

To you though, he caught a bad man and helped a country to some sort of democracy.  It doesn't matter the cost, the legal justification or the morality of the entire occurrence, he ultimately did a good thing.

That, I don't understand.

Uh.. If he lied then either every other congressman also lied including everyone on your side of the isle, big guy.  International law is a great ideal when all the countries agree to follow the rules.  Iraq violated the worst ones over and over and I doubt a peep was coming out of any shit stains like yourself.  When the UN made it obvious that they won't be enforcing those rules any time soon Bush decided that as the only real backbone of the UN he would.  I applaud him for his will to act and generations of Iraqis who don't have to live under Saddam will as well.  I wonder how many millions will vote in the next Iraqi election... hmmmm.

I think the capture of Hussein AND the FOLLOW THROUGH (read slowly, your side rarely gets that one) to ensure that he won't be replaced by someone worse is worth the deaths of thousands of our enemies abroad and the lowest allied casualties of any war that we have fought.  The money can be paid off eventually as Obongo is willing to prove by proposing some 4 trillion (a bit more than 700 bil) and the largest increase in spending in world history.  Debt only becomes bad debt when it will not be paid (like irresponsible homeowners and the failing gov't enterprises that give them home loans).

Now I'm not christian but I doubt you are a religious man.  Maybe you should leave the subject of Jesus or "morals" alone since you about as far from faith or morality as a turd in a trash bag.  Your "bleeding heart" comes from your belief that everyone is a victim and a lack of accountability, unless you don't like someone's political views.  In that case they can burn at the stake, right?  Your "consistency" (i have to laugh at that one) isn't a good thing if your an ass backwards ignoramus with anti-American agenda. 

If that's not good enough for you so be it.  I am thankful you are not in charge and never will be.  Someone like you shouldn't run a lemonade stand.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Oh and while your at it answer the questions I asked.

[Decker]

Uh.. If he lied then either every other congressman also lied including everyone on your side of the isle, big guy. 

Not true.  I can list the lies of Bush if you like. 

International law is a great ideal when all the countries agree to follow the rules.  Iraq violated the worst ones over and over and I doubt a peep was coming out of any shit stains like yourself.  When the UN made it obvious that they won't be enforcing those rules any time soon Bush decided that as the only real backbone of the UN he would.  I applaud him for his will to act and generations of Iraqis who don't have to live under Saddam will as well.  I wonder how many millions will vote in the next Iraqi election... hmmmm.

Bullshit.  That's a nice story but rightwing losers like yourself invent tales to fit your pathetic ass-sucking sycophantic fantasies.  Your recitation of 'facts' is pure nonsense.

You tell it like it ain't.

I think the capture of Hussein AND the FOLLOW THROUGH (read slowly, your side rarely gets that one) to ensure that he won't be replaced by someone worse is worth the deaths of thousands of our enemies abroad and the lowest allied casualties of any war that we have fought.  The money can be paid off eventually as Obongo is willing to prove by proposing some 4 trillion (a bit more than 700 bil) and the largest increase in spending in world history.  Debt only becomes bad debt when it will not be paid (like irresponsible homeowners and the failing gov't enterprises that give them home loans).

'Obongo'...shoot, you sure are funny.  And you're a racist on top of your fascism as well.  How does it feel to be so wrong about so many things all of the time?  I want a losers opinion so I'm asking you.

Read this slowly MENSA, Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US.  Who gives a fuck who's  ruling that desert shithole.  Oh wait, here comes Brixton Bulldog claiming the US is the policeman of the world. 

Debt becomes bad debt when it is debt done for the wrong reason Brainiac.  600+ billion borrowed to slaughter 100,000 Iraqis is Bad Debt.

You did not do them any favors by liberating them from their lives.  Do you understand that Einstein?

Now I'm not christian but I doubt you are a religious man.  Maybe you should leave the subject of Jesus or "morals" alone since you about as far from faith or morality as a turd in a trash bag.  Your "bleeding heart" comes from your belief that everyone is a victim and a lack of accountability, unless you don't like someone's political views.  In that case they can burn at the stake, right?  Your "consistency" (i have to laugh at that one) isn't a good thing if your an ass backwards ignoramus with anti-American agenda.

Hey MENSA, I see you're applying your same grasp of facts to religion that you did to Adam Smith.  Yesssss.

I would comment on your quote but it's garble.  Turd in a trash bag?  Who are you, the voice of experience?  I did manage to make out your weak accusation of 'anti-american'...Yes, I am anti-american when nazi-like fascists, such as yourself, think that wiping out 100,000+ people is really a good thing and that irrespective of the lies told to get us into Iraq, we really are a force for good.  It's thanksgiving.  Goebbels,  Goebbels, Goebbels.

If that's not good enough for you so be it.  I am thankful you are not in charge and never will be.  Someone like you shouldn't run a lemonade stand.

Don't worry, I would never hire someone like you.  I wouldn't trust you with a fucking mop or broom let alone a computer.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Not true.  I can list the lies of Bush if you like. 
Bullshit.  That's a nice story but rightwing losers like yourself invent tales to fit your pathetic ass-sucking sycophantic fantasies.  Your recitation of 'facts' is pure nonsense.

You tell it like it ain't.
'Obongo'...shoot, you sure are funny.  And you're a racist on top of your fascism as well.  How does it feel to be so wrong about so many things all of the time?  I want a losers opinion so I'm asking you.

Read this slowly MENSA, Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US.  Who gives a fuck who's  ruling that desert shithole.  Oh wait, here comes Brixton Bulldog claiming the US is the policeman of the world. 

Debt becomes bad debt when it is debt done for the wrong reason Brainiac.  600+ billion borrowed to slaughter 100,000 Iraqis is Bad Debt.

You did not do them any favors by liberating them from their lives.  Do you understand that Einstein?
Hey MENSA, I see you're applying your same grasp of facts to religion that you did to Adam Smith.  Yesssss.

I would comment on your quote but it's garble.  Turd in a trash bag?  Who are you, the voice of experience?  I did manage to make out your weak accusation of 'anti-american'...Yes, I am anti-american when nazi-like fascists, such as yourself, think that wiping out 100,000+ people is really a good thing and that irrespective of the lies told to get us into Iraq, we really are a force for good.  It's thanksgiving.  Goebbels,  Goebbels, Goebbels.
Don't worry, I would never hire someone like you.  I wouldn't trust you with a fucking mop or broom let alone a computer.

Melting down again I see.  Maybe you're still getting picked on even after high school and that's why you're like this.

Bush is no more responsible than everyone else in Congress who had access to the same intel and APPARENTLY drew the same conclusions he did.. along with every European intel agency.  Still having a hard time swallowing that one, eh Einstein?

Funny how Bush does something about one of the worst regimes this century and you say "who gives a fuck" but when we don't do anything (Darfur, etc) you clowns kick and scream that we aren't doing anything.  You know why?  Because you would blow libs like Obama in a heartbeat regardless of what they do.  It's not about the conflict or the action, it's about who's in charge.  You don't like him so he can't do anything right.  If you "don't give a fuck" about what's going on over there than why hate so much?  You don't like the military anyway so it can only mean you're just looking for ammo against another "eevvviiiillllll" conservative, lol.  Laughable.

600 billion didn't go to murder and torture civilians so if allied forces destroyed 100,000+ than I can only assume they were shooting at/bombing us first.  So we killed a lot of bad guys.. GREAT!!  No qualms with that so I'm not going to complain.  As for the civilians it is unfortunate but it's a symptom of every conflict since the beginning of man.  Since most of it is due to infighting we don't have much control over that.  The only reason morons like you call it bad debt is who incurred it, nothing more.  If it's gets paid off then I guess it's not so bad is it? 

You are anti-american, fine.  I'm not and being that way doesn't make me a "nazi."  Being Jewish doesn't flow too well with nazism if you haven't noticed.  And now I'm also a racist because I called him Obongo?!?!?  Hilarious.  Are you ready to answer those questions yet?

[Decker]

Melting down again I see.  Maybe you're still getting picked on even after high school and that's why you're like this.

Yes, I am melting down.

Bush is no more responsible than everyone else in Congress who had access to the same intel and APPARENTLY drew the same conclusions he did.. along with every European intel agency.  Still having a hard time swallowing that one, eh Einstein?

Wrongo Mary Lou.  Bush the leader lied about the WMDs, he MANUFACTURED false intelligence and he even lied the other day again about the invasion.  Chew on this and tell me it's not a lie:  According to the text of the ABC News interview, which was released Dec. 1, Gibson asked Bush, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?”

Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”

Of course, the historical record is clear: Hussein did let U.N. arms inspectors into Iraq in the fall of 2002 to search any site of their choosing. Their travels around Iraq in white vans were recorded daily by the international news media, as they found no evidence that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, even at sites targeted by U.S. intelligence.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/120108c.html

Funny how Bush does something about one of the worst regimes this century and you say "who gives a fuck" but when we don't do anything (Darfur, etc) you clowns kick and scream that we aren't doing anything.  You know why?  Because you would blow libs like Obama in a heartbeat regardless of what they do.  It's not about the conflict or the action, it's about who's in charge.  You don't like him so he can't do anything right.  If you "don't give a fuck" about what's going on over there than why hate so much?  You don't like the military anyway so it can only mean you're just looking for ammo against another "eevvviiiillllll" conservative, lol.  Laughable.

You spin more than drunken contortionist.  Your weak argument is par for you.  Paraphrase:  Hussein was a bad man so he deserved what he got.  What are you, six years old?

600 billion didn't go to murder and torture civilians so if allied forces destroyed 100,000+ than I can only assume they were shooting at/bombing us first.  So we killed a lot of bad guys.. GREAT!!  No qualms with that so I'm not going to complain.  As for the civilians it is unfortunate but it's a symptom of every conflict since the beginning of man.  Since most of it is due to infighting we don't have much control over that.  The only reason morons like you call it bad debt is who incurred it, nothing more.  If it's gets paid off then I guess it's not so bad is it? 

Shooting at us first?  You mean after Bush ordered the attack of the IRaqi people?  Even your spin is incoherent.

You are anti-american, fine.  I'm not and being that way doesn't make me a "nazi."  Being Jewish doesn't flow too well with nazism if you haven't noticed.  And now I'm also a racist because I called him Obongo?!?!?  Hilarious.  Are you ready to answer those questions yet?

It's funny how everyone holding Nazi-like views is suddenly a Jew and a victim.  hahahaha.  Typical rightwing victimization.  You're a victim eliciting sympathy and pity.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Yes, I am melting down.
Wrongo Mary Lou.  Bush the leader lied about the WMDs, he MANUFACTURED false intelligence and he even lied the other day again about the invasion.  Chew on this and tell me it's not a lie:  According to the text of the ABC News interview, which was released Dec. 1, Gibson asked Bush, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?”

Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”

Of course, the historical record is clear: Hussein did let U.N. arms inspectors into Iraq in the fall of 2002 to search any site of their choosing. Their travels around Iraq in white vans were recorded daily by the international news media, as they found no evidence that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, even at sites targeted by U.S. intelligence.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/120108c.html
You spin more than drunken contortionist.  Your weak argument is par for you.  Paraphrase:  Hussein was a bad man so he deserved what he got.  What are you, six years old?
Shooting at us first?  You mean after Bush ordered the attack of the IRaqi people?  Even your spin is incoherent.
It's funny how everyone holding Nazi-like views is suddenly a Jew and a victim.  hahahaha.  Typical rightwing victimization.  You're a victim eliciting sympathy and pity.

How is it a lie if Saddam had been picking and choosing when and what he was going to let inspectors see for years?  You can't not comply for ten years and then right before the US starts getting really pissed all of a sudden comply and expect to not be held accountable.  Saddam had a pattern of deceit and subversion, period.

Now you resort to putting words in my mouth to belittle an argument that totally undermines yours?  Whatever.. I guess some sheep can't accept or admit the truth even when it's put right in front of you.  Of course I'm not referring to after the invasion you dunce.. he was shooting at allied patrols since 91.

I am a jew and have been my whole life.  If the truth undermines your absurd platform than so be it.. wouldn't be the first time.

[Decker]

How is it a lie if Saddam had been picking and choosing when and what he was going to let inspectors see for years?

Hussein was not picking and choosing the sites in 2002.  We were.  Here're the words of Blix himself:

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."

You can't not comply for ten years and then right before the US starts getting really pissed all of a sudden comply and expect to not be held accountable.  Saddam had a pattern of deceit and subversion, period.

Says who?  You? 

Knock that shit off right now.  You value political one-upsmanship over the vast loss of life b/c you want to hold Hussein accountable?

That's insane.

Now you resort to putting words in my mouth to belittle an argument that totally undermines yours?  Whatever.. I guess some sheep can't accept or admit the truth even when it's put right in front of you.  Of course I'm not referring to after the invasion you dunce.. he was shooting at allied patrols since 91.

Where?  In the illegal 'no-fly' zones established by the US?  Let's see some of your facts.

I am a jew and have been my whole life.  If the truth undermines your absurd platform than so be it.. wouldn't be the first time.

Children play.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Hussein was not picking and choosing the sites in 2002.  We were.  Here're the words of Blix himself:

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."
Says who?  You? 

Knock that shit off right now.  You value political one-upsmanship over the vast loss of life b/c you want to hold Hussein accountable?

That's insane.
Where?  In the illegal 'no-fly' zones established by the US?  Let's see some of your facts.
Children play.

So the fact that he got to pick his sites eliminated the probability that Saddam was undermining the UN's efforts?!?!  Ok   You have been claiming all our intel was ten years old yet the same intel is good enough to choose what sites are to be inspected?!?!  Gawd, you're stupid.

These are from wiki and I'm sure they are not complete since wiki slants left (no surprise):

Operation Northern Watch continued to provide air security to the Kurdish population in the north. American and British aircraft continuously maintained the integrity of the NFZ, receiving anti-aircraft fire from Iraqi forces almost daily. The operation ran until its conclusion on May 1st, 2003.

Iraq challenged the no-fly zone beginning in December 1992 when a U.S. F-16 shot down a MiG which had locked on to it in the Southern no-fly zone.

In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox during December 1998, Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task

Their records indicate that in the first seven months of 2001, there had been 370 provocations on the part of Iraq. In the seven months from Oct. 2001 into May 2002, only 32 such provocations were recorded

Needless to say, the Iraqi government in turn, claimed the NFZ and the unprovoked attacks were illegal, and in response increased their futile efforts to shoot down an allied plane.
 

[Decker]

So the fact that he got to pick his sites eliminated the probability that Saddam was undermining the UN's efforts?!?!  Ok   You have been claiming all our intel was ten years old yet the same intel is good enough to choose what sites are to be inspected?!?!  Gawd, you're stupid.

What are you talking about?

Read the fucking reports filed by Blix you pinhead. 

I made the statement to prove the matter that you were wrong about who was choosing the inspection spots and not to assert the truth of the matter stated.

But you are grasping for any straw you can b/c I've thoroughly and completely dominated this discussion.  I don't usually say things like that but you have to wake up to your domination.

These are from wiki and I'm sure they are not complete since wiki slants left (no surprise):

I laugh at people like you.

Why?

...if you're not with me, then you're against me....nyaahhhhh

Reality, facts and now wikipedia slants left.  Do you realize how sad your position looks?

Do you even pretend to aspire to any kind of even-handed approach to facts?

Do you have the ability to act like a man and admit when you're wrong?

Operation Northern Watch ...
Needless to say, the Iraqi government in turn, claimed the NFZ and the unprovoked attacks were illegal, and in response increased their futile efforts to shoot down an allied plane.

The no fly zones have no legal authority....just like the Iraq invasion.
 

[Mons Venus]

We all know you don't see it that way.  You have established yourself on the extreme end of a completely emotional argument based on hatred for someone a lot more people in power are responsible for.  Water-boarding is torture, ok.  Have you even begun to look into the tortures of Saddam?  They are VERY far apart.  I don't hear you speaking out against that.

And how many of those 100,000 were combatants?  How many were civilians killed by combatants?  You always fail to make the distinction because it destroys your argument.  Terrorists flocked to Iraq to kill US soldiers and we were slaughtering them for years.  Sounds like a pretty massive enemy body count is a good thing.

And I'm referring to all the other violations Saddam committed.  Why wasn't he punished for them?  Why did the UN sit there and count how many times this guy shot at allied patrols, etc. instead of using force in the first place?  The UN is so worthless no wonder Bush said "to hell with it."  Saddam should have been killed ten years ago.  Acts of war apparently don't matter to the UN.