Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 233
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    The it wouldn't be hard for you to counter the argument, would it?
    I'm not going to argue the minutia with you.

    Argue it with Bush and Cheney's public statements first eh?
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course, let's not let a complete and total lack of evidence slow us down.

    We personally have not read every bit of intellegence ever written, wich still may give credibility to this action. Invade first, dig through every record in the country until you find a scrap of evidence to prove why.
    It appears you have not read any of the intelligence gathered. All you have to do is simply pull your head out of the sand and look at any of the long lists that have been posted here regarding the connections between Saddam's regime and Al-Q. Try not to defend them with the "well it really was'nt in Iraq, because it was in the northern portion where the Kurds live", or the rest of the crap that is so easily spewed as you try to defend Saddam and his terrorist ties. Facts are really fun, you should use them occasionally.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'm not going to argue the minutia with you.

    Argue it with Bush and Cheney's public statements first eh?
    Don't argue it with me, I'm not the one whose claim you so quickly dismissed. I just find it amusing that when someone confronts a strongly entrenched notion, you guys just blow it off as too absurd to even answer.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    It appears you have not read any of the intelligence gathered. All you have to do is simply pull your head out of the sand and look at any of the long lists that have been posted here regarding the connections between Saddam's regime and Al-Q. Try not to defend them with the "well it really was'nt in Iraq, because it was in the northern portion where the Kurds live", or the rest of the crap that is so easily spewed as you try to defend Saddam and his terrorist ties. Facts are really fun, you should use them occasionally.
    If your facts are telling you that there is legitimacy to this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zogby Poll Of Soldiers in Iraq
    Nearly nine of every 10 - 85% - said the U.S. mission is "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks...
    Then I would suggest finding new sources for your facts.
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Don't argue it with me, I'm not the one whose claim you so quickly dismissed. I just find it amusing that when someone confronts a strongly entrenched notion, you guys just blow it off as too absurd to even answer.
    If you join with cardio do support this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zogby Poll Of Soldiers in Iraq
    Nearly nine of every 10 - 85% - said the U.S. mission is "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks...
    Then it is too absurd to answer.
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    you guys just blow it off as too absurd to even answer.

    It really is hoovs.
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    you guys just blow it off as too absurd to even answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It really is hoovs.
    lol

    It really is silly. I mean, even if we dig through and translate every document in Iraq, and find that Saddam was 100% behind 9/11, is the president vindicated? How did W know, given that there was zero evidence of this to begin with? Are we to believe his belief that God wanted him to be president so that he could invade Iraq?
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    If your facts are telling you that there is legitimacy to this.Then I would suggest finding new sources for your facts.
    You keep forgetting, I don't live my life by the polls. The poll you keep quoting was debated months ago and surprise surprise the actual questions and choices for answers have never been publicized (or at least last time I checked). Now, if you would care to review even a small portion of the documents that are still being translated, or reveiw the photos of the training camps, or consider the monies paid to suicide bomber families (I know they were not Al-Q, but still terrorist) listen to some of the Russian scientist, he11 even listen to some of the senior military from Saddam's army you can see the ties are there.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    lol

    It really is silly. I mean, even if we dig through and translate every document in Iraq, and find that Saddam was 100% behind 9/11, is the president vindicated? How did W know, given that there was zero evidence of this to begin with? Are we to believe his belief that God wanted him to be president so that he could invade Iraq?
    WTF are you talking about? 100% behind, is that kinda like 100% pregnant? Have you completely forgoten about the WMD that the world was in agreement on that he had, the complete disregard of the UN sanctions, the millons of individuals he killed. Whatever , keep up your self-denial.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    millons of individuals he killed.
    No need to exagerate.
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It really is hoovs.
    Apparently, it really isn't. If you concede that Cardio is a thoughtful person then you must admit that there are thoughtful people out there who really believe contrary to you on this point. So, as long as there are people out there who have given this point careful consideration and have come to a conclusion different than yours, how can you say its too absurd to argue?

    Look at the amount of time you've spent arguing whether or not the point is too absurd to argue rather than arguing the point itself.
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    You keep forgetting, I don't live my life by the polls. The poll you keep quoting was debated months ago and surprise surprise the actual questions and choices for answers have never been publicized (or at least last time I checked). Now, if you would care to review even a small portion of the documents that are still being translated, or reveiw the photos of the training camps, or consider the monies paid to suicide bomber families (I know they were not Al-Q, but still terrorist) listen to some of the Russian scientist, he11 even listen to some of the senior military from Saddam's army you can see the ties are there.
    Sigh.

    Hoovs, this is why these ideas get "blown off as if they are too absurd to even answer".

    First of all, if you have the luxury of completely ignoring the Zogby poll, as well as everything from the "liberal media", like CNN, MSNBC, and the Washington Post I think were the ones you mentioned. How can you be taken seriously? How could anyone have enough facts in common with you to even begin to start a debate.

    And more importantly ...
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    (I know they were not Al-Q, but still terrorist)
    You must be kidding me. The government of Saudi Arabia lists donations to organizations like Hamas on their website!! The official government web site! We did not need to invade and occupy the only secular power in the mideast and translate every document to find this information out.

    And if W wanted to destroy Hamas, or Hisbulah, he could have looked them up in the yellow pages!! We know their address.

    So, how can you be taken seriously when you are using this as a justification for this war?
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    WTF are you talking about? 100% behind, is that kinda like 100% pregnant? Have you completely forgoten about the WMD that the world was in agreement on that he had, the complete disregard of the UN sanctions, the millons of individuals he killed. Whatever , keep up your self-denial.
    lol, i think you mean 99% pregnant, lmao
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Apparently, it really isn't. If you concede that Cardio is a thoughtful person then you must admit that there are thoughtful people out there who really believe contrary to you on this point. So, as long as there are people out there who have given this point careful consideration and have come to a conclusion different than yours, how can you say its too absurd to argue?

    Look at the amount of time you've spent arguing whether or not the point is too absurd to argue rather than arguing the point itself.
    It is exactly where the debate belongs.

    Reasonable people CANNOT disagree on whether the Iraq war was justified because of Saddam's involvement in 9/11.

    It is just like the global warming debate. The debate is and should be about whether there is a debate.
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No need to exagerate.
    You are correct, my apologies. I should have stated the numbers are estimated at over 1,000,000 by some human rights groups, but only approximatley 500,000 can be verified with any real certainty and another approximately 300,000 deaths are highly suspect to be directly tied to his 23 year reign.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Sigh.

    Hoovs, this is why these ideas get "blown off as if they are too absurd to even answer".

    First of all, if you have the luxury of completely ignoring the Zogby poll, as well as everything from the "liberal media", like CNN, MSNBC, and the Washington Post I think were the ones you mentioned. How can you be taken seriously? How could anyone have enough facts in common with you to even begin to start a debate.

    And more importantly ... You must be kidding me. The government of Saudi Arabia lists donations to organizations like Hamas on their website!! The official government web site! We did not need to invade and occupy the only secular power in the mideast and translate every document to find this information out.

    And if W wanted to destroy Hamas, or Hisbulah, he could have looked them up in the yellow pages!! We know their address.

    So, how can you be taken seriously when you are using this as a justification for this war?
    Love how you take statements out of context, and then use them to try and make an argument. Well, guess you have to do something if you have no facts to stand on.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    It is exactly where the debate belongs.

    Reasonable people CANNOT disagree on whether the Iraq war was justified because of Saddam's involvement in 9/11.

    It is just like the global warming debate. The debate is and should be about whether there is a debate.
    So in your eyes anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint on Saddam and his ties to terrorist are not reasonable? splains a lot about your rants
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    You are correct, my apologies. I should have stated the numbers are estimated at over 1,000,000 by some human rights groups, but only approximatley 500,000 can be verified with any real certainty and another approximately 300,000 deaths are highly suspect to be directly tied to his 23 year reign.
    So now we invaded Iraq not in response to 9/11, and not because Saddam is in league with Osama, and not because Saddam has WMD, but because we needed to punish him for being a bad old murdering dictator? For 23 years? But not Pinochet? No help for the Congo? Rwanda? East Timor?
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Love how you take statements out of context, and then use them to try and make an argument. Well, guess you have to do something if you have no facts to stand on.
    No facts to stand on? I have heard you say this before. You throw the facts away because they come from "the liberal media". Lol, how can anyone present you with facts?

    you dont "live your life by polls" lol
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    So in your eyes anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint on Saddam and his ties to terrorist are not reasonable? splains a lot about your rants
    lol, wow, if there is an extremis here it is not me, i would challenge you to point out my extreme beliefs

    Resonable people can disagree on many issues. But reasonable people cannot disagree about whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified by Saddam's role in September 11.

    Try arguing the points I make, not the points it would be easier if I made.
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions