Bush lovers read this...

[reckedracing]

You're right, there is a cause for alarm even if they weren't nukes they were still large bombs that Sadaam shouldn't have.

wtf??? large bombs that he shouldn't have = justification for the death of even one US soldier??? i think NOT...

and his means for delivering said "large bombs" to anywhere within the united states was what???

saddam was not a threat to the united states, and there was virtually no terrorist activity in that country compared to what there is after we occupied it...

ok, so we agree saddam was bad... but whats the reasoning behind diverting so much of our military from the real war on terror???

and the threat from saddam still pales in comparision to that of bin laden...
lets not forget who really attacked the us

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 9 2004, 10:50 AM
and i really love how bush's reasoning for war went from WMD's to fighting terror and developing democracy...

now lets consider the war on terror...

go look in any of your scholarly journals and show me how invading iraq had helped ANYWHERE on the war on terror???
its diverted troops and funds, and accomplished nothing but to divert us from our main goal, being fighting terror...

i believe your scholarly journals will prove me right on this one...

[post=429294]Quoted post[/post]​

And who's to say that Sadaam doesnt have a connection with terror? Its been alleged that he does, are you sitting in on the interrogations with Sadaam knowing exactly what is going on? No you aren't...so stop fucking assuming.

Sadaam was a terrorist to his own people. Its still fighting terrorism either way in my eyes.

Personally I don't care if every last Al Qaeda isn't said to be whiped out, because I know we're not going to be able to whipe them all out. There will always be terrorism theres no way around it. If people are set on an issue and willing to give their lives then terrorism can never be put to an end, hell look at the middle east and people strapping bombs to themselves.

This war was a precautionary step to break up a large terrorist organization and we've done so. Bin Laden hasn't been captured but a large majority of his 'henchmen' have.

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 9 2004, 11:23 AM

You're right, there is a cause for alarm even if they weren't nukes they were still large bombs that Sadaam shouldn't have.

wtf??? large bombs that he shouldn't have = justification for the death of even one US soldier??? i think NOT...

and his means for delivering said "large bombs" to anywhere within the united states was what???

saddam was not a threat to the united states, and there was virtually no terrorist activity in that country compared to what there is after we occupied it...

ok, so we agree saddam was bad... but whats the reasoning behind diverting so much of our military from the real war on terror???

and the threat from saddam still pales in comparision to that of bin laden...
lets not forget who really attacked the us

[post=429316]Quoted post[/post]​

What don't you understand about Bin Laden? He's nothing without men to stand behind him. Most of the high ranking officials in the group have been taken care of...he's not that large of threat anymore. He's still a threat but hell he never really could do much damage to the US to begin with. 3,000 people dying in the WTC is NOTHING, its a drop in the barrel...not even a percent of the US population. I say this to you, living 45minutes from the city and knowing people that were lost in the attack. When its all said and done, Bin Laden never had any power over the US, he never could launch a LARGE SCALE attack or do any MAJOR damage (even if you would like to consider the WTC major damage, it wasn't....in terms of terrorism it was the largest, but in terms of war it was nothing) Yet it appears that you believe the war on terrorism is good but don't believe the war against Sadaam is. Sadaam had more means to do larger scale damage than Bin Laden ever could but you say he's not a threat.

Sadaam may not have had the means to drop a bomb on the US...very few nations have a missile launching system capable of propelling missiles that far save for the US and China. Sadaam could've just as easily launched attacks like Bin Laden did. Sadaam could have just as easily gased his people again or tried to take over more land in the middle east, AGAIN. Sadaam was always a threat to the beliefs that America stands for

They're either both a threat or both not a threat.


*I just feel as if your left side doesnt know what the hell your right side is saying. Put things in perspective and take a look, you'll see that the threat level of Bin Laden and Sadaam are nearly the same if you support the war on terror which it appears you do. You can't do that...well you can but you're being inconsistent with your own ideals. By your reasoning the other thing that we should have done over there was to capture Bin Laden to bring him to trial for his crimes. Theres no other logical way you can look at it saying that one was a larger threat than another.

**Oh yeah and if you like the whole thing about guilt by association, Sadaam knew people who knew people who knew other people that funded Bin Laden's terrorist efforts. This is why the government thought that it was possible for there to be a money trail between Sadaam and Bin Laden. ...i believe there probably could be, given Sadaams character and past actions.

 

[reckedracing]

No, I don't think that if American oil companies gained control over the oil reserves that the oil prices would stay the same...BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T.

ok, lets think about all the oil that lies with US territory
do you think that oil is sold any cheaper than the OPEC going rate???

its not considered price gouging if its sold at the going rate

and yea, businesses are there to make a profit, not to save us money...

so no, i think you are totally wrong assuming this iraq oil will help us at all, all it will do is make the corporations richer...

the us has oil, and its sold at the same price per barrell as OPEC oil... so how is this going to help us at all???

and once again?
is this oil worth the life of ONE AMERICAN soldier????

and should the military be used to enrichen the already rich oil companies?
once again i think not...

[/QUOTE]Aren't you in business? You should know this kind of shit about federal regulations

yea, i see how the gov't is regulating the pharmaceutical industry, and how its regulating the price that US oil companies can sell Us oil for.... rightttttt...

 

[Battle Pope]

Whee! Didn't someone post up the "arguing on the internet" special olympics pic awhile ago?

 

[reckedracing]

And who's to say that Sadaam doesnt have a connection with terror? Its been alleged that he does, are you sitting in on the interrogations with Sadaam knowing exactly what is going on? No you aren't...so stop fucking assuming.

fucking assuming???

didn;t you see the congressional report that blatently stated that saddam HAD NO FUCKING PART IN ATTACKING THE UNITED STATES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH??? or did you miss tha in your scholarly journals???

Sadaam was a terrorist to his own people. Its still fighting terrorism either way in my eyes.

we went to war because it was stated he was A THREAT TO US, fuck his people... he was no threat to us... he was just another fucking prick of a dictator... and this was NOT BUSH"S STATED REASON FOR THIS WAR...

Personally I don't care if every last Al Qaeda isn't said to be whiped out, because I know we're not going to be able to whipe them all out. There will always be terrorism theres no way around it. If people are set on an issue and willing to give their lives then terrorism can never be put to an end, hell look at the middle east and people strapping bombs to themselves.

hmmm, lets think outside the box for a moment, perhaps instead of being the world fuckig bully, maybe we should have considered taking a second fucking look at our foreign policy??? perhaps altering that would have made muslims a little less likely to hate us???

This war was a precautionary step to break up a large terrorist organization and we've done so. Bin Laden hasn't been captured but a large majority of his 'henchmen' have.

there you go again, stating that saddam was part of this large terrorist organization... sorry but the entire FUCKING CONGRESS disagrees with you...
time to recheck your sources, and stop eating up the bullshit stories about how saddam was part of al quada

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 9 2004, 11:35 AM

No, I don't think that if American oil companies gained control over the oil reserves that the oil prices would stay the same...BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T.

ok, lets think about all the oil that lies with US territory
do you think that oil is sold any cheaper than the OPEC going rate???

its not considered price gouging if its sold at the going rate

and yea, businesses are there to make a profit, not to save us money...

so no, i think you are totally wrong assuming this iraq oil will help us at all, all it will do is make the corporations richer...

the us has oil, and its sold at the same price per barrell as OPEC oil... so how is this going to help us at all???

and once again?
is this oil worth the life of ONE AMERICAN soldier????

and should the military be used to enrichen the already rich oil companies?
once again i think not...

Aren't you in business? You should know this kind of shit about federal regulations

yea, i see how the gov't is regulating the pharmaceutical industry, and how its regulating the price that US oil companies can sell Us oil for.... rightttttt...

[post=429322]Quoted post[/post]​

It has to regulate oil prices right now because we're at the mercy of OPEC, they won't sell to us if we 'undercut' them.

And oil from US territory in the market is very little, and its expensive for them to drill anyway because of all the political bullshit. We should be drilling here but everyone wants to save the caribu so....there ya go.

If we controlled the oil you better believe that prices would go down. Going rate is typically 25%....OPEC is making far more than that, try like 75-100%+


And as far as pharmaceuticals, a company is allowed for a 6months-1yr patent on a new medicine they create. So when prozac first came out, the company who made it was the only one allowed to sell it. They're allowed to sell it at such a large price to cover their research and development costs along with every other cost they incurr PLUS THE RIGHT TO MAKE A 'FAIR RETURN' FOR THEIR WORK. After 6months -1yr other companies are allowed to make generic medicine that brings down the cost. Pretty soon everybody and their brother is on the drug...half of which is the generic shit so the company who makes prozac isn't making a real profit anymore. All their profits were up front and now they have to spend a shitload of money for research and development to come up with a new product.

Thats why pharmaceuticals are so expensive. Once again, know your shit before speaking.

 

[reckedracing]

He's nothing without men to stand behind him.

bin laden has millions of dollars behind him... anyone with thes types of resources can and will continue to be a threat to the united states...

amd didn;t you JUST SAY that all of al qaeda can;t be wiped out??? implying that he will always have henchmen...?

even if you would like to consider the WTC major damage, it wasn't

are you fucking serious?
the economic impact that 911 had on the US was worse than both korea and vietnam combined... the stock market took a fat shit, people were afraid to be in the city, business and tourism tanked, as well as the airline industry and everything else... its not jsut 2 buildings, a few planes, and a couple thousand people, the economic impact is still around today to remind us of this attack...

Sadaam had more means to do larger scale damage than Bin Laden ever could but you say he's not a threat.

bullshit, meaningless information... saddam was COMPLETELY CONTAINED, had no WMD;s and even if he did he had no means to deliver said weapons to the US... saddam was NOT A FUCKING THREAT... again i site the congressional fucking report...

Sadaam could've just as easily launched attacks like Bin Laden did. Sadaam could have just as easily gased his people again or tried to take over more land in the middle east, AGAIN.

could have, but didn;t, and the person that did is still at large... hmmm that makes sense to me....

and if saddam had gassed people, or taken over more of the middle east then we would have had a reason to attack him, premptive war over bullshit reasoning is still NOT RIGHT...

 

[reckedracing]

Sadaam was always a threat to the beliefs that America stands for

They're either both a threat or both not a threat.

for our beliefs?? welcome to the new crusades then i suppose, right???

and incorrect, bin laden attacked the US, saddam DID NOT...
once again lets see your sources, i got congress to back me up on this one chief...

 

[reckedracing]

*you'll see that the threat level of Bin Laden and Sadaam are nearly the same

congress stated saddam had no ties to bin laden... please recheck your sources...

* By your reasoning the other thing that we should have done over there was to capture Bin Laden to bring him to trial for his crimes. Theres no other logical way you can look at it saying that one was a larger threat than another.
QUOTE]

we should have eliminated al qaeda and then altered our foreign policy so as to eliminate the threat we caused to ourself...

**Oh yeah and if you like the whole thing about guilt by association, Sadaam knew people who knew people who knew other people that funded Bin Laden's terrorist efforts. This is why the government thought that it was possible for there to be a money trail between Sadaam and Bin Laden. ...i believe there probably could be, given Sadaams character and past actions.

seems to me that the congressional report disagrees with you on this one yet again... sources???

 

[totalburnout]

fucking assuming???

didn;t you see the congressional report that blatently stated that saddam HAD NO FUCKING PART IN ATTACKING THE UNITED STATES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH??? or did you miss tha in your scholarly journals???[/quote[

Yes it said that he didn't have a part in the 9/11 attackings not whether or not he HAD or HAS terrorist connections. ...Are we fighting just what was on 9/11 or are we fighting terrorism as a whole here.

Regardless even if they said he had no part in the specific attack on 9/11 it surely is a great possibility that it could be found that he funded terrorism that lent a hand in making the 9/11 attackings possible.

we went to war because it was stated he was A THREAT TO US, fuck his people... he was no threat to us... he was just another fucking prick of a dictator... and this was NOT BUSH"S STATED REASON FOR THIS WAR...

Oh so its all about the US now and fuck everyone else? That wasn't the idea this country was born on, we're supposed to be a refuge for people in need...if they can't come here and we need to bring our help to them, SO FUCKING BE IT.

Moreso, its beneficial the United States economically to set up another democratic nation thats yet another market to bring trade to.

hmmm, lets think outside the box for a moment, perhaps instead of being the world fuckig bully, maybe we should have considered taking a second fucking look at our foreign policy??? perhaps altering that would have made muslims a little less likely to hate us???

Muslims are bombing Jews, you think its less likely that they're going to hate us. You're a fool if you believe that Muslims hate us for our foreign policy.

The hate in the middle east is deep routed since the collapse of the Roman Empire. When Constantinople and Rome became two centers of trade and new ideas, East versus West started. There's so much to say on this issue that I can't even begin to touch on it in this little blurb, but understand that the hatred of christians, muslims, and jews is deep seeded. Think crusades here along with a million other events. The West has been viewed negatively ever since, especially after the Industrial Revolution hit for the West and propelled us forever, meanwhile the Middle East has stayed centuries behind and never really recovered. Of course they're going to be resentful.

I just spent a whole fucking semester discussing this little issue. As I said, know what the fuck you're talking about before just assuming that in 1950 when our foreign policy changed is when everyone started to hate us! No no no, it started long before.

there you go again, stating that saddam was part of this large terrorist organization... sorry but the entire FUCKING CONGRESS disagrees with you...
time to recheck your sources, and stop eating up the bullshit stories about how saddam was part of al quada

You're a god damn fool plan and simple. Never did I say Sadaam had a physical part in AL Qaeda, i said that its possible that he founded them or other terrorist activities. I didn't state that he was a part of the organization, I stated he could have ties to it and THAT HE'S A TERRORIST HIMSELF.

Honestly you don't have any fucking clue about any of this shit other then whats printed in the newspaper, do you? The newspaper is a 20 second blurb for people to read up before work and get a general idea of whats going on...its not the end all be all.

you're a joke.

 

[reckedracing]

If we controlled the oil you better believe that prices would go down. Going rate is typically 25%....OPEC is making far more than that, try like 75-100%+

i agree if we controlled 100% of the oil, but that will NEVER happen and we will always have to contend with OPEC, so your theory goes out the fucking window in a real world scenerio...

And as far as pharmaceuticals, a company is allowed for a 6months-1yr patent on a new medicine they create. So when prozac first came out, the company who made it was the only one allowed to sell it. They're allowed to sell it at such a large price to cover their research and development costs along with every other cost they incurr PLUS THE RIGHT TO MAKE A 'FAIR RETURN' FOR THEIR WORK. After 6months -1yr other companies are allowed to make generic medicine that brings down the cost. Pretty soon everybody and their brother is on the drug...half of which is the generic shit so the company who makes prozac isn't making a real profit anymore. All their profits were up front and now they have to spend a shitload of money for research and development to come up with a new product.

Thats why pharmaceuticals are so expensive. Once again, know your shit before speaking.

wtf? are you implying i don;t know about the pharm industry or patent laws???
i;m not brain dead...

and news flash
more money is spent by pharm companies on MARKETING, than R and D, proven, look into it...
most new drugs issued are slightly altered versions of the old ones, and the rest of the money goes into marketing to switch people from the old drug, which now has generics, to the new one thats slightly diffrent with no generic alternative

more money is spent on customer retention in the pharm industry than is spent on r and d, proven...


just look into any of their budgets and compare marketing to r and d, you'll be suprised...

 

[totalburnout]

A joke, joke, joke, joke, joke.



I pointed out so much shit that should have opened up your eyes but you still stand there as an ignorant ass.




I doubt you ever thought of what I said before thinking of a rebuttale.


I'm done arguing with you.

 

[reckedracing]

The hate in the middle east is deep routed since the collapse of the Roman Empire. When Constantinople and Rome became two centers of trade and new ideas, East versus West started. There's so much to say on this issue that I can't even begin to touch on it in this little blurb, but understand that the hatred of christians, muslims, and jews is deep seeded. Think crusades here along with a million other events. The West has been viewed negatively ever since, especially after the Industrial Revolution hit for the West and propelled us forever, meanwhile the Middle East has stayed centuries behind and never really recovered. Of course they're going to be resentful.

and it has nothing to do with the US backed CREATION of a previously NON EXISTANT jewish state, with a complete disregard for the arabs that lived there right?? and you say i;m a joke and i;m uninformed? lol

 

[reckedracing]

you call me a joke, yet you are the one that keeps saying saddam had terrorist ties, which has been disproven...

and you know, its a funny thing, i know bin laden talked about US foreign policy in his videos, and he stated that we should alter our foreign policy if we wanted to avoid future attacks... i don;t recall any mention of the roman empire...

and honestly, i don;t see anything in your arguements that should convince me that bush was right to invade iraq... its just that simple...
all of your arguements seem to be directly related to the bush administration false hoods that got the US involved with that cluster fuck of a country in the first place...

hey everyone... saddam's a terrorist...

LMAO

bin laden = terrorist... saddam = bad man that was contained...
bin laden = attacked the US... saddam??? well not so much...
bin laden = millions of dollars to fight the US... saddam = crumbling dictatorship thats completely tied down by sanctions and has a hollow army...
bin laden = hard tagert to find... saddam = easy target for a quick win cause his army is destroyed thanks to UN action...

 

[Battle Pope]

Nobody has proof.

If there was proof that Saddam was tied to al-quaeda, Bush would be holding it over his head and laughing, or maybe have it made into a belt-buckle.

If there was proof that Bush is using the US Military for his own little agenda, Michael Moore would be holding it over his head and laughing... then having a heart attack because he's too goddamn fat.

Either way, I guess my point is, why are both of you arguing so vehemently about something which neither side has stone-cold proof of? It's all just verbal masturbation, IMO.

 

[totalburnout]

I'm well aware what publications such as the New England Journal of Medicine are, I just want you to list your sources. I want to know what you consider to be the only credible publications.

I've vehemently denied it four or five times, since I've seen it? I'd like you to support that statement with facts. I believe it was around mid/late-October when my girl brought it home from work because she wanted to see it. GameStop buys/sells used DVDs and when someone traded a copy in, she brought it home. I can have her check her check-out log for the exact date if you'd like. That was the first and only time I've seen it. Even my girlfriend was saying, "that's what you've already been saying for years".

[post=429346]Quoted post[/post]​

Blanco, it was in a thread less than a month ago...and yes you denied it 3 times. I'm not about to go search in how many threads you and I fought and debated in though.


And how am I going to list all credible sources....theres hundreds, thousands...

I consider journals that are subject specific where the writers have studied and proven themselves, and can also back their claims, to be credible sources....experts. I dont know what other way to put it or what you're trying to squeeze out of me.

 

[dohcvtec_accord]

Does anybody here like waffles?

 

[Battle Pope]

waffles for teh win!

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by Battle Pope@Dec 9 2004, 12:22 PM
Nobody has proof.

If there was proof that Saddam was tied to al-quaeda, Bush would be holding it over his head and laughing, or maybe have it made into a belt-buckle.

If there was proof that Bush is using the US Military for his own little agenda, Michael Moore would be holding it over his head and laughing... then having a heart attack because he's too fat.

Either way, I guess my point is, why are both of you arguing so vehemently about something which neither side has stone-cold proof of? It's all just verbal masturbation, IMO.

[post=429349]Quoted post[/post]​

*slits own throat*

Thats the point that I tried to get across on page one about it all being speculation and a hard argument to prove.

I already tried to prove that his logic was faulty which it is, looking only to current information rather than the information leading up to situations and citing all his knowledge from newspapers and online articles that aren't scholarly and all are subjective.

...but thank you for hitting the nail on the head, this is what I'm been bantering about, how everyone here to articles on the internet to be stone hard proof why Bush is a fucktard when they have no supporting evidence.

As I said if this war was proven to just be a war about oil and not just all speculation, Bush would be brought to trial.