Bush lovers read this...

[reckedracing]

but the whole fucking war was based on speculation that turned out to be false...

our soldiers, my uncle, you brother, your friends father, etc etc etc should not be there dying for a war that was trumped up on flase allegations...

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 9 2004, 12:37 PM
but the whole fucking war was based on speculation that turned out to be false...

our soldiers, my uncle, you brother, your friends father, etc etc etc should not be there dying for a war that was trumped up on flase allegations...

[post=429365]Quoted post[/post]​

It wasn't known to be false and hell it may still be proven.


...and I don't understand what people get all hell bent about. I personally lost people in the WTC attacks, I don't know how many people here had that effect on their life. I've lost young friends, 19 and 20 year old kids, over in the war...


I still think it was for a good cause and that the United States should continue to lend a helping hand to those in need, even if its tragic and may mean the loss of lives.

 

[asmallsol]

Originally posted by New2TheCarScene+Dec 9 2004, 01:40 PM-->

reckedracing

@Dec 9 2004, 12:37 PM
but the whole fucking war was based on speculation that turned out to be false...

our soldiers, my uncle, you brother, your friends father, etc etc etc should not be there dying for a war that was trumped up on flase allegations...

[post=429365]Quoted post[/post]​

It wasn't known to be false and hell it may still be proven.


...and I don't understand what people get all hell bent about. I personally lost people in the WTC attacks, I don't know how many people here had that effect on their life. I've lost young friends, 19 and 20 year old kids, over in the war...


I still think it was for a good cause and that the United States should continue to lend a helping hand to those in need, even if its tragic and may mean the loss of lives.

[post=429369]Quoted post[/post]​

and if its proven even more then what it has been now (sevarl top officals have ammited there is no evidence of WMDs) does that mean opps, sorry to the 1276 familys that have lost there sons and doughters. No, we should have waited for the "smoking gun" as Bush claimed.

 

[totalburnout]

and if its proven even more then what it has been now (sevarl top officals have ammited there is no evidence of WMDs) does that mean opps, sorry to the 1276 familys that have lost there sons and doughters. No, we should have waited for the "smoking gun" as Bush claimed.

[post=429389]Quoted post[/post]​

No, we'll just say "your welcome" for coming to the aide of an entire country that had been terrorized by their tyrannical leader.

Seriously, you need to stop hugging a tree sometimes and live in the 'Real World'.

"Well I didn't want an American to die...so they should suffer and they can be tortured and die." No one wants ANYONE to die or live a life of hardship, its just not reality. Even if some of the Iraqis dont realize that they were saved from a life of hardship, as an American you should be proud to have the knowledge that you helped an entire country even if some of the citizens are still ungrateful.

 

[reckedracing]

I still think it was for a good cause and that the United States should continue to lend a helping hand to those in need, even if its tragic and may mean the loss of lives.

ok, i can agree that it was "for a good cause"

but i think bush should have presented it as a goodwill mission as oppossed to trying to lump it in with the "war on terror"...

am i the only one that feels lied to and mislead???

 

[Battle Pope]

No

 

[reckedracing]

Even if some of the Iraqis dont realize that they were saved from a life of hardship, as an American you should be proud to have the knowledge that you helped an entire country even if some of the citizens are still ungrateful.

BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA

lets consider for a moment the number of iraqis that died pre war as compared to post war

you know what the most common cause of death before this holy crusade to spread democracy? normal things like old age, heart attack, stroke, etc etc... you know what the most common cause of death now is???? VIOLENT DEATH due to explosives, insurgents, US bombings/raids, or how about getting a free stay at the resort known as Abu Ghraib and never coming out alive...

yes, we are truly helping these people, thats why they all still hold the US in such high regard like they did right after the "major fighting was over and victory was declared"

i don;t care if mr wanna be scolar agrees or not, but sooner or later you NEED TO ACCEPT THAT BUSH ROYALLY FUCKED UP, and he fucked america in the asshole during the process

yea, thats right, i said your supreme commander F-U-C-K-E-D U-P
get a fucking scholarly journal to prove that wrong...

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by Blanco+Dec 9 2004, 01:15 PM-->

New2TheCarScene

@Dec 9 2004, 12:24 PM

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.

[post=429351]Quoted post[/post]​

Find it. You scream, "prove what you say" so god damned loudly. Here's your chance to prove that you're not a hypocrite.

For the third and final time, I am not asking for specific articles printed within a journal, I am asking for the publications (journal) that such articles would be published in. I bolded it to hopefully make it easier to understand. That's all I want. If there are too many, name the top 10.

Either take both of these opportunities to substantiate your claims and practice what you preach, or be quiet and go away. If you can not do this, I will stick with what I said about not dignifying anything you say with a further response and I, personally, will label you as a blow-hard hypocrite. I'm not arguing anything at this point, I'm just tired of you putting words into my mouth and seeing you belittle people with your "superior" knowledge. Put up or shut up.

[post=429391]Quoted post[/post]​

Searching the boards for the term 911 all I found was this back recked

"and for the record i haven't even seen F911, all my information comes from individual research... i would advise you to go back and trace the steps of rumsfeld and cheney since the early 70's, then maybe you'll have a better understanding of why we are in iraq, and while you;re at it look into wolfowitz as well since you seem to know all...
and bullshit most of the army is republican.. only the officers..."

If it wasn't you that said it, because either you didn't say it or I cant find it with the search feature then I'm sorry that I confused you for another person that claimed not to have seen it and pulled all his opinions from it.

If I'm wrong about you saying that so be it. Fact remains that my opinion of you for agreeing with the slanted shit, thats been stated to have been slanted in such a way to put Bush in a bad light, my opinion of what you say is still low.


And for the third time, there's hundreds of journals. For you to ask me to list them, is completely outrageous. Quit with the "I think I'm sly and I'll mock you and bold the irrational question that I asked you 3 times" crap.

The british council is one journal.
The american prospect
Politics1.com
thenation.com
The New Republic
TomPaine.com

Here's a whole other listing of online journals
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/sublist.asp

I didn't go through all of them, but I think you get the idea...or you can ask me to list 1,000,000 more to substaniate my claim and list every fucking one of them.

ass

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 9 2004, 01:19 PM

I still think it was for a good cause and that the United States should continue to lend a helping hand to those in need, even if its tragic and may mean the loss of lives.

ok, i can agree that it was "for a good cause"

but i think bush should have presented it as a goodwill mission as oppossed to trying to lump it in with the "war on terror"...

am i the only one that feels lied to and mislead???

[post=429395]Quoted post[/post]​

It was meant to be both.

I dont feel lied to and mislead because I think theres still the possibility that Sadaam was funding things and its already been proven that he had large weapons caches.

Regardless if it was brought before the people as a 'goodwill war', none of the tree huggers would have accepted it because they just can't except the ways of life and war. I think if people feel misled they were foolish to not understand what we were getting ourselves into in the first place. For people who claim that you should constantly question the government and then feel misled, my only advice to them would have been to research further before giving the approval. The majority of the general public approved of the war in Iraq and I believe a good majority still supports and approves of the war.

Thats what democracy is, can't make everyone happy.


***I replied to this post because it wasn't you being a fucktard, the post below was all speculation. Get yourself some journals and proved that the war is a total loss. He made fuck ups in planning in terms of the war but that doesnt mean that the war itself is any less right. You can only speculate about that.


I'll grow up, just this once.

 

[reckedracing]

Searching the boards for the term 911 all I found was this back recked

"and for the record i haven't even seen F911, all my information comes from individual research... i would advise you to go back and trace the steps of rumsfeld and cheney since the early 70's, then maybe you'll have a better understanding of why we are in iraq, and while you;re at it look into wolfowitz as well since you seem to know all...
and bullshit most of the army is republican.. only the officers..."

If it wasn't you that said it, because either you didn't say it or I cant find it with the search feature then I'm sorry that I confused you for another person that claimed not to have seen it and pulled all his opinions from it.

If I'm wrong about you saying that so be it. Fact remains that my opinion of you for agreeing with the slanted shit, thats been stated to have been slanted in such a way to put Bush in a bad light, my opinion of what you say is still low.

was this directed at me? you lost me...

 

[Battle Pope]

Originally posted by New2TheCarScene@Dec 9 2004, 11:40 AM

And if I seem condescending towards you, its beccause in terms of this discussion you are beneath me and but an uneducated peon.

That was completely unnecessary, not to mention just fucking LOW.

 

[racintweek]

as much as i dislike our gov't, lets use it's principles


if a DA wants to put some one in jail (like Bush wanting to invade Iraq) they must prove thier case beyond a reasonable doubt (like bush saying Iraq has WMD)

But if there is reasonable doubt (like there arent any WMD) then the alleged criminal is cleared of all charges and goes on his merry way

now lets say the DA punished this alleged criminal after he was cleared (like Bush invading Iraq)

it is my understanding that this DA would be punished severely for his actions

So...why isnt Bush being punished for his actions?

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by Battle Pope+Dec 9 2004, 01:51 PM-->

New2TheCarScene

@Dec 9 2004, 11:40 AM

And if I seem condescending towards you, its beccause in terms of this discussion you are beneath me and but an uneducated peon.

That was completely unnecessary, not to mention just fucking LOW.

[post=429420]Quoted post[/post]​

I admitt, I'll grow up...


but strictly in terms of being educated in this field, comm'on. Blanco is about the only person to acknowledge what a journal is so I have to assume that he doesn't have any real formal training in this field at all and his information is derived from the uninformative slanted crap thats all over mass media.

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by racintweek@Dec 9 2004, 01:57 PM

So...why isnt Bush being punished for his actions?

[post=429422]Quoted post[/post]​

...because not one person could prove anything suspect in terms of Bush and his reasons for war.


The CIA intelligence tells him theres weapons of mass destruction, he says okay lets go over there and take care of them.


Others alledge that Bush is just going over there because he has ties to Saudi's with oil.


Fact is that the CIA *DID* tell Bush that there were weapons of mass destruction over there.

Speculation is some Michael Moore bullshit.

So we have fact and speculation. It wouldn't even make it before any attorney.

 

[reckedracing]

It was meant to be both.

thats funny cause i don't recall any mention of goodwill mission until after bush was proved to be seriously flawed on his accusation of there being WMD's in iraq...
i believe before that came out all we heard was WMD and terrorism...

I dont feel lied to and mislead because I think theres still the possibility that Sadaam was funding things and its already been proven that he had large weapons caches.

large caches of CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS, that he was allowed to have for self defense of his country...

none of the tree huggers would have accepted it because they just can't except the ways of life and war

tree huggers? NO ONE WOULD have accepted going to war unless bush had his croanies FIND "evidence" that iraq was a threat, and 50% of america still thought pre-emptive war was wrong...
and guess what, turns out they were right to be so reserved about agreeing with bush...

I think if people feel misled they were foolish to not understand what we were getting ourselves into in the first place. For people who claim that you should constantly question the government and then feel misled, my only advice to them would have been to research further before giving the approval. The majority of the general public approved of the war in Iraq and I believe a good majority still supports and approves of the war.

i guess misled isn;t the right word... just plain LIED to, cause i saw through this bullshit the whole fucking time...
and no, a majority does not agree with the war, the only ones that do are people like you that still think saddam had ties to terrorists...
i know i need not mention it again, but YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG, saddam does not = terrorist

He made fuck ups in planning in terms of the war

LMFAO
ok, career army WHO KNOW HOW TO MAKE WAR say we need xxxK troops, bush says we need a third of that... bush wins out, bush was wrong... you call ignoring the advice of the SPECIALISTS to be a little fuck up????

 

[reckedracing]

Blanco is about the only person to acknowledge what a journal is

i think everyone here knows what the fuck a respected publication or journal is...
jesus man, you act like we're retarted just cause we don't believe the republican joke of a story regarding iraq's WMD's...

 

[totalburnout]

Stop replying to me because honestly what you have to say is mostly shit and I can't stop myself from being persuaded to write back to you.


You've made some decent points about being hesistant and not just a war monger but most of the other stuff was plain crap.


The majority of Americans do still support the war, I dont care if Fox or msnbc small time polls say otherwise.

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 9 2004, 02:04 PM

Blanco is about the only person to acknowledge what a journal is

i think everyone here knows what the fuck a respected publication or journal is...
jesus man, you act like we're retarted just cause we don't believe the republican joke of a story regarding iraq's WMD's...

[post=429430]Quoted post[/post]​

The word is retarded.

...and its not about political affiliation for the last time. Thats your problem, you're calling me so right winged, but you're so far over on the left wing that you can't even see far enough over to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that I'm moreso a moderate than anything else.

 

[totalburnout]

My point is proven and my involvement with this topic over. Have fun with your further insults, brow beating, belittling, and berating anyone who doesn't agree with your own political slant.

[post=429432]Quoted post[/post]​

Thats cute and you didn't prove a point.


And if you take some steps backwards in your direction then you'd realize I agree with the more 'middle of the road' point of view on this war. When people make bold statements that can't be substantiated by ANY claims then yes I will ridicule them. This guy was of the opinion that basically everything was absolutely wrong and nothing good could come of it. He was blinded by what he saw as bad to see anything that could be good.

I can acknowledge the loss of life is tragic and that planning wasn't the best, but hey for the most part Bush followed, like all presidents, what his advisors and experts suggested he do.

He went against the recommendation of sending more troops over because 1) No one in the general public realized who much of a fiasco a bunch of rag tag guys over in the Middle East could give the great ole U.S. of A. and 2) Since the general public along with Bush didn't realize that this war could turn into a fiasco, they did not see the point in sending so many troops. Had Bush asked for that many troops, I'm sure the consensus of the general public about this war would have been different because they'd see "Oh more troops, that means theres just going to be more targets of soldiers."

 

[reckedracing]

:fuckyou3: mr spell check...

...and its not about political affiliation for the last time.

bahahhaa, i think if you could stop sucking republican dick for 5 seconds you'd see that you are no where near a "moderate"

and where did i call you republican? or a right winger?
lol

i just said you believe FALSE REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA