PDA

View Full Version : The Mother of all debates.......


Hyundia_90250
10-28-2005, 01:19 PM
O.k. Black here us the thread.........I ca't put the quotes up so I'm gonna have to wing it.......and to the rest of the XD'ers you are more than welcome to get in on this and camment on this or anything they wish to debate.......I hope you don't mind super.....


O.k with you first response......"Wrong. Al Quada and Bin Laden actually had a strong dislike for Saddam Hussein, as he'd gassed his own people in the eighties. You know, back when he still had the stuff."(this is cut and copy) Just because he had a strong dislike of Saddam doesn't mean that they didn't use Iraq as a base for training....remeber not all the camps were identifed as to who is training in what camp......

"What WMD? No one's found any WMD. We've had years and years and years. The biggest evidence pointing to WMD in Iraq was forged. Show me where the WMDs are." Yes you are correct they have not found any WMD WARHEADS...but the U.N. resolution also includes delivery systems and the technology that goes with it...i.e. missles systems that have a certian range and accuracy. Like I said.....I have video of such weapons....

"If I recall correctly, the U.S. was the country that wanted to halt weapons inspections. The U.S. is also implicated in the oil for food scandal, as we were getting the most money out of the whole deal." After 12 years of B.S. from Saddam what would you do.....the cheif weapons inspector (insert his name cause I can't remember)said that Iraq was not allowing free inspections of paperwork and storage facilities....plus U.S. sat's were spottong mobile weapons labs and truck convoys heading to Syria even just before we invaded....Yes you are correct.....but who were they.....most of the people who were named in the scandel are anti-Bush.....Anti- America....i.e. the French ambassador....a few bankers.....a russian politician....the head of th U.N. Sec consel chief's son.....


"And... it was bad intel, apparently. No gas, no gassed kurds. Not in this decade, anyway." Correct......on the fact is wasn't the Kurds.....I was wrong, it was a town in sothern Iraq, which I can't remember......but the breifing came from a Kuwaiti officer.....


"And those chemical weapons and nuclear production facilities where he was making nucular bombs... you know... the reason we were told to go over there... what about those? Zlich. I can name a dozen countries that have weapons I'm sure they're not supposed to, none of them nuclear threats -- should we dethrone and invade them too?" Once agian correct....on half of it....Pakastan has the bomb...but their too busy bickering with India...who also has the bomb....Iran is trying to get the bomb......North Korea say the have it..... :bs: they couldn't get a cherry bomb from China if they were handed one.....and as for what we were told.......to see how the intel is acted upon here is an example.....take a quarter one side is yes its true...the other is not true.....flip it in the air.....you just made a choice with intel...that's about what its like.......either it might be true or you just discard it and move on.

"What about Africa? Do you know what kind of genocide has been going on in Sudan? If we're out to police the world, I think that Iraq, while volatile, is hardly the worst place. There are plenty of assholes in this world who could use a whuppin'. Is that reason enough to go nation-building?" Civil war...different.....we did sent a marine unit there to protect food shipments and to protect the embassy.....if I remember right


"Backwards, dude. Now they have a focal point. How many car bombs were going off in Iraq two years ago? How many terrorist camps were there in Iraq two years ago? Get your facts straight." So you would rather have them come to the U.S. and have them car bomb us...or maybe a mall or a school...at least there U.S. forces can capture or kill these scum....as to the car bombs going off in Iraq.....the #2 in al-Queda sent a letter to al-Zalcarwy (don't think I spelled it right) to stop and target the political leaders and U.S. forces.....and most of the terrorists are not Iraqi....their Saudi....Iranian....Syrian...Serbian....


"And last month I was paying $3.79 a gallon for gasoline".....tell that to OPEC...they're the one's who set the price of oil...nd now you people outside of cali know what we pay for gas.....friggin sucks huh :drive: :bondage:

KeWLKaT
10-28-2005, 01:35 PM
you confused me dude. who is debating with who here?

Leviathant
10-28-2005, 02:27 PM
O.k with you first response......"Wrong. Al Quada and Bin Laden actually had a strong dislike for Saddam Hussein, as he'd gassed his own people in the eighties. You know, back when he still had the stuff."(this is cut and copy) Just because he had a strong dislike of Saddam doesn't mean that they didn't use Iraq as a base for training....remeber not all the camps were identifed as to who is training in what camp......

By that reasoning, we should invade Florida and Oklahoma, and overthrow Clinton and GWBush. You know, the places where McVeigh and Atta trained?

"What WMD? No one's found any WMD. We've had years and years and years. The biggest evidence pointing to WMD in Iraq was forged. Show me where the WMDs are." Yes you are correct they have not found any WMD WARHEADS...but the U.N. resolution also includes delivery systems and the technology that goes with it...i.e. missles systems that have a certian range and accuracy. Like I said.....I have video of such weapons....

We were told that the U.S. was in IMMINENT DANGER because of these WMDs. Delivery systems sans warheads do not IMMINENT DANGER make.

"If I recall correctly, the U.S. was the country that wanted to halt weapons inspections. The U.S. is also implicated in the oil for food scandal, as we were getting the most money out of the whole deal." After 12 years of B.S. from Saddam what would you do.....the cheif weapons inspector (insert his name cause I can't remember)said that Iraq was not allowing free inspections of paperwork and storage facilities....plus U.S. sat's were spottong mobile weapons labs and truck convoys heading to Syria even just before we invaded....Yes you are correct.....but who were they.....most of the people who were named in the scandel are anti-Bush.....Anti- America....i.e. the French ambassador....a few bankers.....a russian politician....the head of th U.N. Sec consel chief's son.....

Anti-American French Bankers and Russian Politicians in .... Virginia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4361838.stm)? Oh look, and in Texas (http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/iraq-oilforfood-us-mogul-charged/2005/10/23/1130006002456.html) too. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the Oil for Food scandal has also concluded that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of these recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_Food_program#US_and_UK_Complicity)

How Anti-American of them.

"And... it was bad intel, apparently. No gas, no gassed kurds. Not in this decade, anyway." Correct......on the fact is wasn't the Kurds.....I was wrong, it was a town in sothern Iraq, which I can't remember......but the breifing came from a Kuwaiti officer.....

And I'm also correct in that no gas attack happened.


"And those chemical weapons and nuclear production facilities where he was making nucular bombs... you know... the reason we were told to go over there... what about those? Zlich. I can name a dozen countries that have weapons I'm sure they're not supposed to, none of them nuclear threats -- should we dethrone and invade them too?" Once agian correct....on half of it....Pakastan has the bomb...but their too busy bickering with India...who also has the bomb....Iran is trying to get the bomb......North Korea say the have it..... :bs: they couldn't get a cherry bomb from China if they were handed one.....and as for what we were told.......to see how the intel is acted upon here is an example.....take a quarter one side is yes its true...the other is not true.....flip it in the air.....you just made a choice with intel...that's about what its like.......either it might be true or you just discard it and move on.

Or you invade a country and "stay the course" for years after the intel is proven infactual and incorrect. You've already made it abundantly clear that I'm correct on most of my points, though you fail to show me where I'm incorrect.

"What about Africa? Do you know what kind of genocide has been going on in Sudan? If we're out to police the world, I think that Iraq, while volatile, is hardly the worst place. There are plenty of assholes in this world who could use a whuppin'. Is that reason enough to go nation-building?" Civil war...different.....we did sent a marine unit there to protect food shipments and to protect the embassy.....if I remember right

Civil war is different eh? What were we doing in Afghanistan and South America during the eighties? What about Vietnam? Are you saying once we establish a civil war in Iraq, then we'll pull out?


"Backwards, dude. Now they have a focal point. How many car bombs were going off in Iraq two years ago? How many terrorist camps were there in Iraq two years ago? Get your facts straight." So you would rather have them come to the U.S. and have them car bomb us...or maybe a mall or a school...at least there U.S. forces can capture or kill these scum....as to the car bombs going off in Iraq.....the #2 in al-Queda sent a letter to al-Zalcarwy (don't think I spelled it right) to stop and target the political leaders and U.S. forces.....and most of the terrorists are not Iraqi....their Saudi....Iranian....Syrian...Serbian....

You're proving my point, again. Before we invaded, Saudies, Iranians, Syrians, Serbians didn't really hang out in Iraq. Now, they're more focused there than they were even in Afghanistan.

"And last month I was paying $3.79 a gallon for gasoline".....tell that to OPEC...they're the one's who set the price of oil...nd now you people outside of cali know what we pay for gas.....friggin sucks huh :drive: :bondage:

Yeah, Cali gas is crazy.

I never thought I'd see the day where I was happy that gas was $2.19 a gallon.

Anyway, I think you did an excellent job of reinforcing my positions for me. Thanks ;)

Hyundia_90250
10-28-2005, 07:50 PM
Wow a threesome :multiples :bondage:


never said you were wrong at all just that olny part of the story was being told and the rest ommited.....see the one thing that really upsets me is the fact that people tend to think that if you just do nothing then the problem just goes away......with these terrorists as I said before........it doesn't matter if we had invaded Iraq or not...the bombings would still happen....innocent people would still be killed.....remeber this http://www.namibian.com.na/2004/September/world/04635EB6B9.html, http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/det.cfm?id=834 here's something I have been wondering.......before we invaded did the news mention of a scud attack by Saddam while we were still in Kwuait ....so if you want to get tenchical Saddam started it by fireing into Kwuait first.....Here's some more infor on oil for food http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html and just what did you mean by "By that reasoning, we should invade Florida and Oklahoma, and overthrow Clinton and GWBush. You know, the places where McVeigh and Atta trained?" I don't understand what that means....

Leviathant
10-29-2005, 11:26 AM
So what you're saying is that invading Iraq really doesn't have any effect on terrorism?

I'm not saying we should do nothing to make the problem go away, but I fail to see how invading Iraq has any effect on the post-Soviet Russia separatism terrorism you cited in one of your links, nor do I see the relationship to the Bali bombing. What you've basically said is that yeah, even though we invaded Iraq, these things are still happening -- so apparently we went after the wrong targets.

And now Iraq is a hotbed of terrorism, whereas it was not, before we invaded.

What I meant about Oklahoma and Florida is in relation to your point that we invaded Iraq because terrorists trained there, even though they did it without Saddam's knowledge.

So I'm referring to the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing, perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh, who trained as a terrorist right here in the US. Mohammed Atta and his terrorist cell trained in Florida, among other cities. Let's not also forget the Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski, who operated out of Montana for nearly 20 years before he was apprehended.

They have as much connection to the US Government as any of the handful of terrorists who may have possibly been (but probably were not) in Iraq, whom you use to justify invading Iraq.

So, by that reasoning, the U.S. should be invaded, and our government overthrown, because we're harboring terrorists.

only1db
10-29-2005, 11:40 PM
i have learned over the years of the Bush adminstration that debating politics is useless...because you have your stance and i have mine...will you convince me otherwise...HELL NO!! will i convince you otherwise...nope...

thats like saying....no abortions, but we can go to fertile clinics and have 8 embryos shoved inside of us (women) and one or two of them stick...what about the other 6?? dont they die??? is that then abortion??? the end result is the same...things die...

my point....we can debate all day long...but if you dont go to washington and start a protest there...you might as well save your breathe

Estopatitiana
10-30-2005, 01:07 AM
amen to the abortion issue...as long as theres man there will be debates on abortion..and noone ever seems to change thier point of view no matter what

Hyundia_90250
11-01-2005, 12:13 PM
Found this lil tid bit of info......

http://www.nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200511010821.asp

TheWickedestOne
11-01-2005, 02:37 PM
The mother of all debates seems to be one-sided, with more holes than a girl scout troop.