A certain level of fame maybe, Ed?

What liberal media!? You spout rhetoric and quote the official line well enough, but is any of this forced you into real thought on the matter or are you regurgitating info like this was some exam and your sucking up to your conservative teacher? The reasons for war on Iraq were and are a load of garbage directed at a ridiculously WRONG target. At the very least this shows are intelligence community as a bunch of dolts. At it's worst our president and a good chunk of our Gov't are traitors and A-holes. Here's one we can agree on though- I've got the feeling that you and I, as well as others, are at an impasse.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Der Kapitan]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Der Kapitan]

Edsinger

It doesn't matter how clearly you show liberals that Saddam was in fact in violation of the treaty HE HIMSELF signed after his invasion of Kuwait. It doesn't matter how clear the reasons are for this action.

Liberals will NEVER admit it. EVER. They will continue to say "where are the WMDs" without taking the time to logically think through the events that transpired since GWI.

They wanted Bush out. Period. If this was Clinton or Kerry they would all be singing a different song and everyone knows it. Thankfully, as America has just proven, liberals do not control this country.

I must say though, I love your relentlessness

Originally posted by American Mad Man
It doesn't matter how clearly you show liberals that Saddam was in fact in violation of the treaty HE HIMSELF signed after his invasion of Kuwait. It doesn't matter how clear the reasons are for this action.

What is interesting here is what is and what isn't supported by the evidence at hand. However, evidently it doesn't matter how many times these claims presented by edsinger are refuted by this evidence. He'd rather go with his bs assumptions. Truly troubling.

Liberals will NEVER admit it. EVER. They will continue to say "where are the WMDs" without taking the time to logically think through the events that transpired since GWI.

To think this is simply an issue of political preference is really a reflection on true ignorance.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Durden]

Mad Man, I am not a liberal. Clinton signed into law some of the most conservative bills in recent history. Screw him, too. This war is blatantly based on lies and this election was won by Bush solely out of childish fear. You need to stop thinking that this country was in threat of falling under the control of a mere minority. Bush's victory was not a landslide by any means. His detractors were not all bleeding heart liberals. He just squeaked by. The right needs to stop thinking that their predominatley rich, white benefactors and their lackeys are the only people in this country that matter.

Heh, I notice most of the war supporters are people who believe in the good 'ol lie of our two-party democracy. So, if you say you're against the war, you fit into their worldview as being a liberal.

In reality we had Clinton blowing up Sudan's only domestic pharmaceutical company producing at-cost anti-malarial pills and other medications. Yeah, he mistook it as an 'Al-Qaida chemical plant.' Ooops.

He tried to pass the Omnibus security act, which is basically the Patriot Act.

The two-party illusion is one of the funniest con-games ever because so many buy into it. These days it's better than ever. No matter what the president does, liberal or conservative, you'll have about 50% of the population fully supporting his actions, because he's their man.

So anyway, the war's an inevitability as long as we have the two-party system. It's part of the US agenda to control the MI and Central Asia that has been going on ever since the 50s.

So keep arguing about the liberal anti-war cowards and the conservative war monger monsters, suckers, because you're just being played against one another in a big game of good cop, bad cop.

every one of you is a friggin' drama queen

Originally posted by DurdenYou know what? It doesn't show. So here's an idea; read it again, why don't you?

NO I dont need to, it said they had contacts and links. Plus many other items also pointed to this idea that did not make the 911 report.

Originally posted by DurdenWhat I have stopped giving credence to are the sources of your ideas. You wonder why? Well, here's a clue, edsiner: they don't bare scrutiny.

So your liberal Press is the bomb now? LIke maybe CBS? Scrutiny is in the eye of the beholder in this case. I was always taught, looks like a rat, smells like a rat, breeds like a rat, then most likely its a rat.

Originally posted by DurdenThe same can be said for the Bush family. The 911 report concluded that there was no evidence whatsoever of a collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida; period. This didn't merely concern the 9/11-attacks.Again. Read the report.

Ah the ol collabaration, well as for 911 we will leave that to the side a minute. So all these CONTACTS that are in the 911 report, we they just meeting about about the upcomming Saddam's birthday party? The contacts were not about the electric bill and it is kinda hard to get concrete infor froma humanINT group that was gutted in the mid 90's.

Contacts - What was Bin Ladin in Baghdad for?

Contacts - What was an alwar Islam in Iraq for?

Contacts - Why the connnections with the Sudanese and Iraqi's and Chemical Weapons?

Contacts - Should I keep going?

NO becuase you will not believe until you see the Germans standing in Paris as in 1940.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
In reality we had Clinton blowing up Sudan's only domestic pharmaceutical company producing at-cost anti-malarial pills and other medications. Yeah, he mistook it as an 'Al-Qaida chemical plant.' Ooops.

Just one thing here, Clinton still stands by that strike, what does he know that we dont?



[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by Psychoses
Ummmm, I don't think so.

It's O.K.

We all make mistakes.

These links and all are fine and dandy, I have never claimed there was proof od 911 and Iraq connections, what I ahve said was there was Al Qada and Iraq connections.

Leave 911 out, that can be found later if it is there.

Iran has helped AlQada sure, so have some Saudi Nationals, but so did Saddam.

Originally posted by edsinger
NO I dont need to, it said they had contacts and links. Plus many other items also pointed to this idea that did not make the 911 report.

As there is evidence of 'contacts' and 'links' between OBL and the Bush family. The actual extent of said contacts and links is what's important. To get an idea of what actual connection is and isn't supported by actual evidence, yet again; read the 911 Report.

So your liberal Press is the bomb now? LIke maybe CBS? Scrutiny is in the eye of the beholder in this case.

See this is the thing, edsinger. Actual proof is always proof; it's not the same thing as guesses, assumptions or loosely based opinions. It has nothing to do with either liberals nor their counterparts. So get your head out for once, edsinger.

Ah the ol collabaration, well as for 911 we will leave that to the side a minute. So all these CONTACTS that are in the 911 report, we they just meeting about about the upcomming Saddam's birthday party? The contacts were not about the electric bill and it is kinda hard to get concrete infor froma humanINT group that was gutted in the mid 90's.

Yeah. It's 'hard' to find actual evidence to support these bs claims of Al-Qaida's cooperation with Saddam, so let's not bother with what's credible at all. Simply stick to that which fits your opinion, huh? Gimme a break

NO becuase you will not believe until you see the Germans standing in Paris as in 1940.

Well actually it would surprise me quite a bit if I were to see Germans standing in Paris as they did in 1940.
Is this yet another 'imminent threat' you have 'inside information' on?

Iran has helped AlQada sure, so have some Saudi Nationals, but so did Saddam.

As there is evidence of the US training and supporting military groups closely associated with Al-Qaida; active in Bosnia as well as Kosovo during the 90's.

I've said this before. I'd love to see you try and get away with this logic of yours to argue a case in a court of law.



[edit on 9-11-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by marg6043
I lost my faith on you.

Regrettably I have to agree with you in this case, marg.

Did the outcome of the election get to your head; finally causing you to show your true face, edsinger?

Is your name Durden Fonda by chance? The bleeding heart liberals will never be happy I guess. Thats what makes their political stance so weak in the eyes of the majority of true Americans. Once again margo, you keep thinking of babies as blobs with no names. All you are is a bundle of cells too, but I guess since you have name you're better? I see where this is going. Some people forget we are at war for reason, and yes innocents die in war, (censored) happens!!!

I'm not blindly following my president, I've looked at all the facts, and came to my desicion. The correct one.

Originally posted by LostSailor
I'm not blindly following my president, I've looked at all the facts, and came to my desicion. The correct one.

You've looked at all the facts? Hmm.. I'm curious, which facts are these? And what 'decision' exactly have you come to?

oh iraq had WMD , about a ton of radiotve ore which couldnt be used in weapons. just a little point, the thread on it is on here. want me to watch it?

I'm sure I've seen all the same stuff as you Durden, and I think its obvious how I feel about the war. I made the correct desicion. Enough said.

Eds trying to start a new religion..."Bushanity" I swear sometimes it's true...I have never seen someone worship another human to this point....it's dangerous and fanatical

Originally posted by edsinger
YOu peacenicks really nevr could understand something...

Edsinger, here's a newsflash for you. Pointless labels and large pictures doesn't add more credence to your argument. It just doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by LostSailor
I'm sure I've seen all the same stuff as you Durden, and I think its obvious how I feel about the war. I made the correct desicion. Enough said.

Oh, have you? Then I'm really curious as to your reasoning behind this 'correct decision' of yours. So please fill me in.

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
It's all sucking up to Bush and his corpirate (intentional misspelling)agenda. [edit on 8-11-2004 by Der Kapitan]

If you wanna sound really smart, when you want to put intentional mispelling, use (sic). As in the sentence: Man, tuesday's election was some bush*t (sic).