Being blown up by a car bomb isn't violence?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 14 2007, 04:32 PM) [snapback]512776[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I hate George W. Bush. I hate his lying, small minded, priveledged monkey nice person more than I've hating anything or anyone in a long, long time. How does that relate to hating America?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(You me and da Pri @ Sep 14 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]512610[/snapback]</div>

There are no facts in burrito's post so what are you uncertain about? He stated that the military doesn't count deaths due to car bombings as violence when in fact they do because the number of deaths is included in the very same paragraph he posted as proof that what he stated was accurate. Nothing else he has posted comes close to the truth, he claims that some neighborhoods are deemed less violent because they have been ethically cleansed. Ethnic cleansing is not even mentioned in the cited article and neither is anything about assassinations as far as I can tell from the two quick reads I gave it.

Divvying up the deaths serves a very real and beneficial purpose in combat. Some of my reasons are stated in the prior post and if you know how people are dying you can more effectively prepare defenses against them.

The war in Iraqi wasn’t started just for your protection and freedoms. Neither was the only stated goal the removal of WMD’s as mojo is deceitfully trying to proffer up as the truth. There were either eight or nine other reasons in the speech Bush gave at the UN. Some other reasons could be that our military was over in Iraqi enforcing UN sanctions and being shot at on a daily basis. Should we have allowed Iraq to continune and if not how do you propose we stop them? Vast sums of money was being poured into the bottomless pit of post Gulf War Iraqi while “Allies†and “Friendly†nations such as France, Russia and I believe Germany as well as some others were cashing in on the “Oil for Food Scam†run by the UN! Should we have just stayed on for who knows how many more decades maintaining the status quo for these back stabbing, money grubbing cheats to line their coffers?

Iraq’s unrelenting pressure to have the sanctions dropped was declared nearly successful by a bipartisan Senate commission. This commission also stated that the goal of this push to get the sanctions dropped was so that Iraq could again start accumulation of WMD’s. How do you feel about doing nothing about this aspect? Every single intelligence agency of every single country in the world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Bush received near unanimous approval from both Houses of Congress to go to war. Even the Generals tasked with the job of repelling the invasion believed Saddam had WMD’s because some of those Generals stated that they were shocked when told that none were available for use in their attempt to repel the Coalition’s invasion of Iraq. Some WMD’s were in fact found in Iraq. Additionally several Generals and Officials’ of Iraq stated that the WMD’s were shipped out of the country into Syria just before the war. I can go on a bit more but I believe you have the idea.

BTW did you read the article that burrito cited and compare it to his words? Please if you can show me one fact or one sentence that in any way resembles the truth in his post I’ll send you a $20 gift certificate to the Priuschat store.

Wildkow

p.s. BTW burrito I apologize for my personal attack upon you.

 

In the Houston Chronicle:

U.S. excludes bombs in touting drop in Iraq violence

In the The News & Observer:

Death toll excludes bombs

 

I don't know about his facts because I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking at the article, picking it apart, and then trying to research it. I have plenty enough stuff to give me a headache without adding that.

Now, instead of France, Russia, etc. lining their coffers, now we have Haliburton, Exxon, etc. lining theirs. Not much difference there. Or is it different because they are American money-grubbing cheats?

So... should we attack every country that might have WMDs? There are a bunch of them out there, you know. Or only the ones who have oil and we think we can beat? Where do we draw the line? Well, I suppose if the WMDs are in Syria, that's the logical place to go next, ya think?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(You me and da Pri @ Sep 15 2007, 05:00 PM) [snapback]513152[/snapback]</div>

Oh sorry I thought most posters generally tried to familiarize themselves with the topics they were commenting on especially when making factual statements.

Russian and France embezzling money intended to help feed, clothe and provide medicines to the women and children and the poor of Iran compared to a couple of Multinational Corporations that you can bring legal measures against for wrongdoing, Hmmmmmm. Huge difference there but if you can't see it no since in me trying to point it out to you since you're being willfully ignorant.

Britain is our Friend so no on that one.
Russia and France aren't friends but I doubt they are much of a threat so no on that one also.
Now North Korea and Iran is a different matter but I'm inclined to say yes after suitable efforts in negotiation.
Syria has already been taken care of by the IAF pay attention to the news. I think you’re getting the idea on where the rest of this is heading.

Well I have already answered in the affirmative on North Korea and they don't have oil and besides "just the ones we can beat?" we as the only Superpower on earth can beat anyone, anytime anywhere as long as the demoncrats step the hell out of the way.

Regards

Wildkow

 

I am familiar with the general topic, I just didn't choose to read that particular article. That's why I said I didn't know about Burrito's facts; I wasn't discussing his particular facts, just the subject in general.

And sure, the corporations can have legal measures taken against them, but that doesn't really seem to be happening... I guess the powers that be are a bit too friendly with these corporations. And if something does enter the legal arena concerning them, I have full faith in George and Dick to see them through in their hour (or millisecond) of need. I'm not willfully ignorant; I just perceive things differently than you. I think something will have to change drastically for anything of real consequence to happen to these paragons of greed. So, I still don't see much difference.

I just mentioned Syria because you did; it was as good a suggestion for a place to invade as any other. And as far as Superpower goes, I am not so sure we can continue to attack countries and not eventually suffer some serious consequences eventually. Karma will bite us in the nice person at some point. We CAN be taken by surprise, as we were 6 years ago.

Demoncrats? Oh, come on now. It sounds like you've been brainwashed by the extreme religious right when you use that sort of terminology. I hear that term used ad nauseum around here, and I would not want to be associated with the sort of people whom I see use it... wild-eyed, sweaty evangelicals, foaming at the mouth, screaming on the local small television stations... scary folks. Sort of reminiscent of the Muslim extremists... I really wish they would stop trying to whip people into a mad frenzy. It works all too well.

There are no demoncrats, nor retardicans, just people with different opinions. And until we can all get past such crap, all we're ever going to do is hate and argue and never get anything else accomplished.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ 2007 09 15 05:47) [snapback]512964[/snapback]</div>

Sounds like a pretty fantastic claim to me. Care to cite your sources? Did you not read any of the reports raising the possibility that this 'evidence' was at least partly fabricated?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ 2007 09 15 20:46) [snapback]513193[/snapback]</div>

Yes, obviously, the failure of 'The New American Century' can only be the fault of those who have the sheer audacity to think differently than you. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 16 2007, 09:22 PM) [snapback]513527[/snapback]</div>

Will you settle for the fact that Saddam's General's thought they had WMD's to use against the invading Coalition forces? After all there may be quite a few countries in the world that have intelligence agencies capable of assertaining this this information.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kouri/060314

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 17 2007, 08:49 AM) [snapback]513644[/snapback]</div>

That is absurd.Who cares what they thought ,even if the story is true.Why is their opinion relevant?Did those generals inspect the stockpiles?Apparently not.
The only people who were qualified to estimate Iraqs WMDs were the UN inspectors.
Scott Ritter was telling everyone the truth for months before the invasion.He said Bush was lying about WMDs.
Hans Blix says that Bush ignored the evidence and claims the invasion was illegal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Sep 17 2007, 08:42 AM) [snapback]513718[/snapback]</div>

It's absurd that the people with the most intimate knowledge of the military capability of Iraq did not know that the weapons were disposed of just prior to the war? Whatever dude, I’m sure not going to bother with other second hand cites now, LOL! :lol:

You mean the UN inspectors, that have documented proof that they were blocked from entering military sites as the absurd Generals moved military equipment out the back gate? <_< Or was it the UN inspectors that were kicked out of the country when they started to get close to Saddam's stash? <_<


Wildkow

p.s. Hans Blix has 20/20 hindsight. :lol:

Wildkow