purnell

Taking the shots definately seems part of the job description, but at least it's a great source of amusement for the rest of us.

Bwahahah. Touche. 500+ years and still going strong.

How about Germany, 1945-2003.

What assholes. Perhaps you have a minute to look into what some other fascists are up to. http://www1.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/darfur/steidle/ WARNING: Graphic. NSFW.

No worries. I'm guilty of making my own sweeping generalizations. So I'll modify to state that many in intelligence agencies domestic and foreign believed Iraq had WMD. But to support your point: www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact A good read for anyone on either side of the issues at hand and great synopsis of the intelligence breakdowns, Plame affair etc.

QuoteI met this girl once and went to hang out with her at a coffeeshop. She and her friends were big fans of socialism and communism and were going to protest by not voting. Bwahaahaa. Sort of the political equivalent of Darwinism...taking yourself out of the political gene pool so to speak.

Like the US government when we subsidized and sponsored OBL's gang in Afghanistan? Blues, Dave I believe we actually supported the mujahadeen rather than OBL directly. If memory serves OBL moved to Afghanistan in '96 and only participated in the tail end of the conflict but I could be wrong. We do however support the Saudis, who continue to support wahabbi terrorism. I do not know why.

Unless they die first. How many innocent civilians have died in your (and my) name? Whether intentional or "collateral", how many women and children do you mind being killed so that the agenda you support can move forward? Personally, I'm kind of sick of good people on both sides dieing for me and mine. Blues, Dave Many have died in my (and your) name. And I'm sick of it as well. I support the agenda. I'm not very happy about it. I know many here do not support the notion that 9/11, terrorism, and the Iraq war are linked. I see them as part of the same conflict against a philosophy that knows no borders and has no single state sponsor. I believe that the only way to truly defeat that philosophy is to bring democracy and self rule to an area of the world still ruled by autocracy and brutality. Not because I'm alturistic, but because I believe it's the only way to attack the problem at its source. Perhaps I'm naive. But I also wonder how many more will die if we do nothing.

That's a great point that is so often overlooked today. We talk about it today as though Bush was the only person on the planet insisting they had WMD. The truth is, every intelligence agency in the world believed Hussein had and would use WMD. Hell, even the NYT thought they had WMD. Too much fox news. Your entire post is false. There were plenty of reports and agencies disputing the claims of WMD prior to the war. Bush just chose to ignore them. I actually don't have much use for fox, or cnn for that matter. I'm a bigger fan of the economist, wsj, nyt, financial times etc. Please go ahead and make sweeping assumptions about me though if it helps your argument. For the record, I'm a democrat who supports the war, but not Bush (though you're not going to convince me he doesn't care). I have about as much respect for Kerry as I do Bush and am extremely frustrated at the state of the political landscape today. So fire away, but please don't assume I'm a brainless Bill O'Reilly fan. I respect your opinions and will happily debate all day, but I don't presume to know you or your political philosophy.

It's only 2 degrees: Kevin Bacon starred with Sean Penn in "Mystic River". Sean Penn met with Tariq Aziz in Iraq in December 2002. Tariq Aziz reported directly to Saddam Hussein Kevin Bacon => Sean Penn => Tariq Aziz => Saddam Hussein

That's a great point that is so often overlooked today. We talk about it today as though Bush was the only person on the planet insisting they had WMD. The truth is, every intelligence agency in the world believed Hussein had and would use WMD. Hell, even the NYT thought they had WMD.

I believe (and I am speculating...because we AREN'T getting a straight answer from our government) that the connection is state funded and sanctioned terrorism. I do not believe (and yes, I know Bush acknowledges) that there was any direct involvement on Iraq's part with the specific planning of 9/11. I do believe that Saddam Hussein supported militant Islam and I place the blame squarely on militant Islam for 9/11. Thus my contention that the war in Iraq is a direct outcome of the events of 9/11. Right or wrong the administration chose Iraq as the target of an attempt to instill democratic principles in a region where they don't exist today. I believe it could just have easily been Iran, Syria, Pakistan, or our good "friends" the Saudis (probably the most aggregious supporters of terror). There are very compelling arguments to be made both against and for the war and its costs. My original post was made because I hate to see the rising death toll of service personel used as a quick "Bush lied people died" snippet. I think we owe it to ourselves and to the service people risking their lives to discuss the issues involved with more thought than that. Thank you for taking the converstation beyond that level.

Oh, so your president did lie about the whole thing...Thankfully his lie only killed a couple of thousand people....the previous idiot in that office lied about a blowjob...now that is really bad..... Tens of thousands, as pointed out earlier. You are correct...I believe that Bush never stated his real reasons behind the war. I also believe that that was his biggest mistake, not the war itself. I can't speak to the other idiot or his intern other than the whole incident was a remarkable example of the lows republicans and democrats can stoop to when it comes to Washington infighting. And I'm disapointed that a sitting president couldn't at least find a hot chick for a bj.

I was pointing out that you failed to provide an actual, non-rhetorical link between Iraq and 9/11. Instead, you merely made a sensationalizing, grammatically incorrect sentence with no related facts. From "The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism, an :Overview" -- John Moore, PBS. "Abu Nidal Organization (ANO): Anti-Western and anti-Israel international terrorist organization led by Sabri al-Banna; left the PLO in 1974. Organizational structure composed of various functional committees, including political, military, and financial. The ANO has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets have included the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries. Major attacks included the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul and the Pan Am flight 73 hijacking in Karachi in September 1986, and the City of Poros day-excursion ship attack in Greece in July 1988. Suspected of assassinating PLO deputy chief Abu Iyad and PLO security chief Abu Hul in Tunis in January 1991. ANO assassinated a Jordanian diplomat in Lebanon in January 1994. Has not attacked Western targets since the late 1980s. Al-Banna relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintains a presence. Financial problems and internal disorganization have reduced the group's capabilities; activities shut down in Libya and Egypt in 1999." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html From the Christian Science Monitor (I know, I know) "Iraqi funds, training fuel Islamic terror group" -- Scott Peterson "One reason they were leery of attracting the attention of fellow Iraqis may have been clandestine support for the Kurdish Islamists from the Baghdad regime. Qassem Hussein Mohamed, a big-boned, mustachioed Saddam lookalike who says he worked for Baghdad's Mukhabarat intelligence for two decades, says that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has clandestinely supported Ansar al-Islam for several years." -- http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html I do not believe that Saddam Hussein had any direct involvement with 9/11. I do believe; however, that he and his government actively supported militant Islamic terrorism as a political tool. My grammer may suffer, but I don't believe I'm sensationalizing anything.

There's a credible, non rhetorical link. Please elaborate

A government that subsidizes militant Islam! They're next. Sorry, you don't win anything. What the %$%#@ time is it on the west coast? Aren't you up a little early?

We are not there for humanitarian reasons...we are there to instill a representative government in a region where such things do not exist today. For selfish reasons.

Militant Islamic terrorism and the governments who subsidize and sponsor it.

You are assuming he cares. Not everybody is as caring as you seem to be. Except maybe a handful of people in DZ who also cares about the 10.000+ inocent civilians killed when trying to stablish a military presence on the region. It's hopefully more than a handful. And shame on all of us for turning a blind eye as the prior regime executed the citizenry by the hundreds of thousands. And yes, I do believe he cares quite deeply. But that's my subjective opinion. I don´t thinl the problem is that he is a dickhead. He is a dickhead, mind you. But i think that the problem is a major conflict of interests. There is too many people high in the chain of command that has a lot to gain with this war. I really don't think this war is an effort to pad Dick Cheny's wallet. Dick can do that on his own quite readily. But if we want to have the blood-for-oil discussion, perhaps we should start with the UN oil-for-food program that seems to have benefited so many of Saddam's European supporters. So I ask you, do you think it is okay to invade a sovereign country just to stablish a military presence on the region? Would it be okay if Europe decided to invade the U.S to stablish a military presence on America? In one sense, Europe already has a military presence here via the NATO partnership. As for sovereignty, is any government in place against the will of its own population sovereign? Why? Because some Europeans drew its borders on the back of a napkin on their way out of town? Sovereignty doesn't exist at the end of the barrel of a gun...though sometimes it's a necessary starting point. It is because the fearful U.S citizenship are so easily pushed around by the government with threats. Most here are neither fearful nor easily pushed around by our government. I was in atocha train station everyday at the time the bombs went off, i was lucky that day i fell asleep. Another terrorist group exploded a bomb car in the very same street a live (50 meters away from my house) and i didn´t support war against any country. So knock it off with 9/11, you lost all simpathy from the world. We don´t apreciate knee jerk reaction that affect the whole world. You have my sympathy for your direct exposure to the fascist terrorists who use coordinated violence against civilian targets. And you'll have my sympathy regardless of what you or your government does about it. Interesting that yours is given or taken away like a poker chip during the process of political discourse. My philophy is to treat people like you would like to be treated, and it seems to be working so far. I was tempted to go by the "I will do it because i can" philosophy, and the "i can do it because i am good no matter what, you cannot do it because you are evil no matter what" But i realized that there was too many people with those philosophis and decided to be a bit diferent. And thankfully you live in a nation who's government has put in place the institutions and rule of law that allow you your philosophy. Many still live under regimes that permit no such luxury. The dickheads who blew up your transit system would like very much to take those rights away from you. The fascists who intentionally target women and children in order to instill fear and promote their unique brand of hatred are your enemy. Not George Bush. I posted here in a forum I swore I would never post in because of my dismay with which many flippantly throw around US casualty figures as a means to as a means to attack Bush. Bush provides many opportunities all on his own to invite attack. If we want to play the numbers game, perhaps we should argue about the 40,000 killed in Kashmir and the lack of an adequate international response. Perhaps we should move on to Darfur and the 100,000 killed in another religious "misunderstanding". Perhaps we should look to Rwanda and the 800,000 genocide that occurred under our collective noses. Maybe the 40,000,000 body count that socialism and communism have racked up over the years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9772398/ Can someone please explain what the fuck Bush has sacrificed? What a dickhead. What has Bush sacrificed? Probably his humanity. Can you imagine being personaly responsible for sending 2,000 US service personel to their deaths? How about the untold wounded he visits each week? A dickhead? Is the world so black and white that you think the president sent us to war because he's a dickhead? Are the concepts so simple that someone who's not a dickhead could steer us out of this mess?!? The administration "lied" only in the sense that the WMD were NOT the reason to invade Iraq. The decision was made that we needed a military presence in a Middle Eastern country in order to diffuse and hamper a growing culture of HATE towards the US and free societies. Was it a bad lie? Sure. But every intelligence agency in the free world believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, and it was the perfect excuse. Iran? Too troubling...and maybe they'd fall on their own. Syria? Why not, but Iraq was more "evil". The point is, the Middle East has been a fertile ground for a psuedo political religeous doctrine that is the antethesis of Western culture...and it was time to establish a presence there. Correct policy? I don't know...only time will tell. Lied? I guess, although I think "wrong excuse" is more like it. 2,000 personel have perished in Iraq. 2,000 kids will not come home. Is it the right policy? I don't know. But it sure isn't because we have a dickhead for a president. I sat at my desk at 8:46 on 9/11 and was speaking to a counterpart in NY when the first plane struck. I listened ever so painfully that morning as the buildings burned and people jumped from the upper floors. I know EXACTLY who the dickheads are and they aren't George Bush. And so I would ask that you set politics aside, take a look at the world around you, and soak in the philosophies that argue for your attention. One exists around the notion that all are free to set their own path. One argues that God is the absolute and their brand of religion is it or else. And choose. 2,000 kids gave their lives over the past 3 years deciding for you. Honor them.

"There are three types of people in the world...those who understand mathematics, and those who don't."

Wow!...this really should be moved as the answer to the post 'what do men want'. Boobies at 12K, of course.

Fun! There's a lot of great ink in this thread!