Quake3World

Hannibal wrote:

rofl that's pretty damn funny.

Hannibal wrote:

rofl that's pretty damn funny.

MidnightQ4 wrote:
The evidence has too be looked at as a whole, one or two things that were forged or lies that were told do not mean that we didn't have a lot of other evidence at the time pointing to some kind of WMDs being worked on in Iraq. I'm sure the powers that be did not decide to invade based on 1 or 2 pieces of evidence.

The US military combed Iraq for fucking months looking for any evidence that WMDs had EVER been there and they came up with nothing. Its pretty obvious that you can't even read and comprehend your own countries news, let alone any other world news.

MidnightQ4 wrote: So now, knowing that, don't you agree that ending the conflict so we can go help the women and children was the right thing to do?

I seriously think you should be awarded with the first ban for reason of being too stupid to post.

Tormentius wrote:

MidnightQ4 wrote:
The evidence has too be looked at as a whole, one or two things that were forged or lies that were told do not mean that we didn't have a lot of other evidence at the time pointing to some kind of WMDs being worked on in Iraq. I'm sure the powers that be did not decide to invade based on 1 or 2 pieces of evidence.

The US military combed Iraq for fucking months looking for any evidence that WMDs had EVER been there and they came up with nothing. Its pretty obvious that you can't even read and comprehend your own countries news, let alone any other world news.

had EVER been there? They openly admitted to having them in the past. So ya.
They could have buried them in a hole 500 feet deep for all we know.

MidnightQ4 wrote: had EVER been there? They openly admitted to having them in the past. So ya.
They could have buried them in a hole 500 feet deep for all we know.

Your country poured a ton of resources, technology, time, and manpower into searching for evidence of their existence and they found nothing. Do you seriously think that burying them in a hole would have kept them from being found with all that effort being put out? Experts and leaders from around the world have admitted they weren't there, including members of your own government and military. They only existed in your fearful little mind.

MidnightQ4 wrote: Therefore, regardless of direct ties or not, changing countries in the mideast to be nonsympathetic to terrorists has a direct impact against terrorism. So yes, invading Iraq will in the end have a positive impact on terrorism by changing that area of the world to one which does not harbor terrorists.

while this is a coherent and well intentioned argument, it is empirically insecure, and ignores some larger issues.

It is empirically insecure, since the actions of the U.S. against iraq are likely to increase terrorism, both within and without the middle east.

It is ignorant of larger issues, since it ignores the larger context of terrorism.

Have a read:

http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm

MidnightQ4 wrote:The insanity here is that you still don't comprehend what I've said for 5 posts now. You cannot claim no WMDs as a reason against the invasion because that was not a fact that was known at the time. As for no ties to Al Qaeda and terrorism in general, it is well known that those terrorists hide out in sympathetic countries in the middle east. Therefore, regardless of direct ties or not, changing countries in the mideast to be nonsympathetic to terrorists has a direct impact against terrorism. So yes, invading Iraq will in the end have a positive impact on terrorism by changing that area of the world to one which does not harbor terrorists.

Show me where anyone from an international body said that Saddam was or was even likely to be hiding WMD before the war. The threat was NOT real, which is why I will not admit it was, and why using WMD as an exuse to invade was stupid and A FUCKING LIE.
Do you hear what you're saying? That it's fine for the president and his administration to have lied to the American people as an excuse to topple a dictator? Does the impact of how fucked up a perspective that is not even register with you? Do you actually think that our actions in Iraq have made ANY countries in the Middle East less sympathetic to terrorists? Have you ANY knowledge whatsoever of the conduct of the Vietnam war and the reults of American actions over there? Do you think that we've made Iraq a better place? Because we haven't, we've ruined the country. The majority of the Arab world hates what we've done there, and they fucking HATE our government. Have you talked to any Arabs about what's going on over there? I have, and they have no illusions about what's going on.

"So yes, invading Iraq will in the end have a positive impact on terrorism by changing that area of the world to one which does not harbor terrorists."

So so wrong. Your breeding terrorists with every civilian you kill.

no no no, don't you mean freedom-haters?

Well yeah of course, anyone fighting the US.

Terrorists.
Freedom Haters.
Death Worshippers.

I absolutly love the irony of Bush saying the US is a culture that appreciates life, his anti-abortion bit, when you look at the warmongering, murder rate, etc etc...

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Thanks Puff. Hearing things like that was a bucket of icewater over the head for someone like me. But, as I said before, MGen. Butler was probably THE most qualified person to make those observations. I don't understand why people today think that things are any different and find it so hard to believe that our government will send its youth to die for money.
The problem with any argument such as the one we've been having is it forces people to challenge their own belief system, something that almost no one does easily.