Fallujah - Page 8

Do you mean before we invaded (because if so, you're going to have to source that? Or do you mean before our soldiers got to the areas?


I can read.
Even now, while pretending to be some objective viewer, you cannot launch a criticism and make it stick. You just dodge, avoid answering direct questions.

That's the problem here.
You whine about people attacking you when that is how you operate.
You refuse to provide evidence for the fantastical things you say.
You ignore questions asked directly of you.


So, as a source of information, you are entirely useless because you know your sources do not hold up to scrutiny?

Between the time we started bombing and the time they arrived. Why do you people insist on playing word games? Or are you really that stupid?


Actually, I invite direct questions. Please clarify direct questions that that I refused to answer.


I like your version of whining. I confront those of you who act like childish idiots, rather that report them to the moderators, as is the prevailing habit among your compatriots. Nothing is stopping you from slipping into calling me names and personal attacks, if that's what you want to do. Do what comes natural.


Why would you want me as a source of info? I don't know how to read.

I only ask to clarify your points.

So you acknowledge that SH's weapons were secured and not in the hands of insurgents and terrorists until after we started our illegal war and broke that containment... good.

SH was a brutal monster that was 0 threat to anyone outside his own borders. Thanks to our illegal, unilateral war over one thousand of our troops are dead (and the number is growing) while killing people who, 99.9999999% of the time, would never have killed an American. Not only that, we increased the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons by destroying the security that kept Iraq's declared weapons programs safe. Not only that, but we have further driven a wedge between moderate Muslims who would be our friends and their fundamentalist brothers-in-faith who get even more evidence of our soul-less corporate military endeavors.

These are not small problems. We are not in the days of "OMG PRESIDENT BLOWJOB LOL!" anymore. We are way past that.



They litter the thread. I am not going to do your job for you.



You should report personal attacks to moderators. That's what they are there for. If I or anyone else uses a personal attack report it. Those are the rules of the forums. Do not expect moderators to ignore the rules for you because you feel like you are unfairly attacked.

The more people complain about personal attacks the more moderators will act on those complaints and this forum will get much better as a place to exchange ideas. But I don't think you want that, Naples, because it is quite clear that a free market of ideas is exactly where you are least capable.



You know how to read, you just don't know the first thing about thinking critically.

The reason I think you should back up what you say is because you exist in the world. You probably even have some manner of influence over people who do not follow the news, and quite frankly to think that you are an influential source of information for anything more complex biologically than a house plant is quite frightening to me. So if my Internet prodding pokes a hole in the shell of Bush loyalism that encases your mind and stops you from infecting others with your loyalist illness then I will consider my time well spent.

so NaplesX, did i say anything insulting that you will ignore my post again?

Somehow I missed your post.

Are you genuinely asking that question? I think this has been reported on extensively.

Come on people. I am more than happy to call corruption "corruption" if we are all talking about the same thing.

Simply not agreeing with or thinking that there is a better way to do something is NOT the definition for corruption. I think the word is being thrown around too loosely.

I have, I think. clearly defined what I see as rampant corruption inside and outside the UN as it relates to UN/Iraq/France/Germany/Russia/Etc. and the Iraq Saga.

I am sure that corruption exists to varying degrees in all governments. But most of the stuff you people call corruption is not that. Sure it is questionable, maybe even objectionable. So let's define what we both consider corruption, then we can decide if there is even an argument there. Maybe you do and I just define things differently. Who knows.


Agreed. Except for the last part. Once again, different time, different circumstances. You can't keep lumping everything together and then start making equivocations. It is just plain dishonest. Once again you are saying, in hindsight mind you, that there could have been another, better way to defeat Iran or handle that situation, in general. And you may be right. But you can't use that as ammunition against this president in this time and these circumstances and then claim it as proof of corruption.


Well, you are paying them to do something that isn't humanly possible. I would think that we pay them to deal with the issue of the day and make sound decisions that will have lasting and good effects into the future. hey, what do I know.


Iraq was corrupt. It corrupted France and many others with the help of the UN. I am all for any country protecting it's assets. But France was supporting a dictator, while millions starved and thousands died. For what?
It wasn't like Iraq or France were at war with anyone and they needed a war ally. Unless the US was the common enemy.

It was simply for monetary gain. There were no noble intentions. Just cash at the expense of the Iraqi people. How many did they find in the mass graves so far?

I am not sure that Iraq and Afghanistan will even ever make a significant contribution to our economy, so your implication that was the only reason for this war is weak, IMO.


Well, like I said you are trying to parallel events in two different timeframes and circumstances.


Profiting from war, in itself, is not a crime or even corruption. Once again, you seem to me to be equivocating your dislike for something with corruption.

I have stated many time why I think the Iraq war undertaken - strategic position in the ME and to cut the flow of oil money to terrorists/rogue nations. So in a way you are right it is about money. Do you know how much 9/11 cost the US economy? UNOFF was supplying SH and other terrorist groups with much needed cash. That has ended now. Thus helping to save the US from more attacks. If you can't connect those dot, you are not looking for dots at all.


Really? And muslim radicals what have they learned and improved upon, besides faster ways to kill more people at once?

And if you learned anything just in the last 200 years, you would realize that the most defining US moments were when the US took on evil in the world and WON. And those victories made the world a better place despite the huge casualties. More people walk the earth free as the result of the US' efforts than any time in history. I learned that in High School, no even before that.


See, once again you are rewriting history, actually before it can be made. The war in Iraq is not over yet. The search for WMD is not over yet. Bush has said he takes full responsibility for his decisions and he was reelected because of (in spite of) those decisions.

How many independent committees have been formed now and come back with the conclusion that GWB did not lie? Let's not argue this because your opinion has so blinded you that it is just silly.


Well, again you are justifying one wrong with another. And once again, you are lumping unrelated thing together.

SH was a president of (according to the left) a secular government, not interested in religious mumbo jumbo.

The first quote was from 1996 5 years after Golf War 1. The second was from 2002 - before this war started. The leader of Iraq!?

OK never-mind. I think you will just keep saying they are the same thing.

They're not. So IMO your example falls flat.


Actually that is close to what this admin said. It's closer to the truth than what you are trying to sell, anyway. It was more like "SH has used WMD in the past, and despite efforts to verify that he has gotten rid of them, he continues to withhold and mislead the UN and the rest of the world." I don't suppose you remember any words like that coming out of this admin's mouths? They did. Also if you are honest, you realize that the only reason that WMD was used as a major reason to remove SH, was they had to sell it to the corrupt UN. And who was urging the president to sell it to the UN?


Wrong. You went way past that. Did you go back and clean it up? Do you even remember that whole thing about me practically being a murderer? I do. I hope that is not a defining momemt for you.

Most names don't really bother me. What bothers me is when people don't have enough self control to debate like adults. Lefty? That is what you are right? A democrat. a liberal, a moderate? I suppose you are gonna tell me a sob story about how you were once a republican and GWB ruined the party for you....

Your stance right here and now is left. I don't mean it in a bad way, just describing your views/viewpoint. No offense intended.

1. regarding the oil for food program, there was corruption, but the evidence regarding who was involved comes from chalabi. Chalabi is undeniably a FRAUD, some of the oil for food docs have already been verified as forgeriers and the rest of the information has not been verified, largely because of all of the problems in all of the investigations, all the way up to assasinations.

2. This whole 'weapons to syria' line is totally and completely pathetic. For the 1000th time, ALL of the investigations into Iraqi WMD, from the UN inspectors all the way to the multiple US investigations, demonstrate that the reason we know Iraq had little or no WMD is because they lacked the ability and will to produce and store them, not because we didn't find them.

I hate to conrodict you (no I don't)

1. A huge mountain of evidence was found when Fox obtained an internal DB/SS file with tons of info about money transactions. So what you say may have been true months back but not now.

2. They demonstrated just the opposite. Iraq had the will and the desire to obfuscate for 13 years. And the UN OFF program provided them the means. You are going against common sense, IMO.

Yeah, Fox

If it's the report I'm thinking of, you read it wrong naples.

Here, I found it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125122,00.html

Try reading it a little more slowly. I blame fox for not being explicit enough.

Wrong one. Give me a minute to look though my links i will post if for you.

Read it carefully.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_th...?doc_id=240445

I only read part of it, but I didn't see the report you cited. Please point it out to me.

No. I am not even sure that they even mention Syria in this report.

I thought you were mister "I-can-understand-everything-better-than-everyone-else"?

To long for you or do you need Cliff's notes?

Don't act like a total idiot. Wasting my time reading a BS fox news transcript isn't high on my list of priorities. So let's just make this short with a search.

From the transcript:

The Al-Mada list is the list of people supposedly getting kickbacks that came from Chalabi.

And your 'secret database'

So? All this talks about is what companies were involved in the program, not who was taking kickbacks.

And this explicitly shows how fox operates. I saw the exact same thing in the run-up to the war when they had an 'expert' on with [speculative] maps of the [imaginary] chemical labs under saddams palaces implying that they were real instead of totally made up. Here we have another example of how you got deceived by a combination of your imagination and fox news' deception.

Now that we have yet more proof that you have no idea what you are talking about, move the conversation back on topic.

You know, this is rich.



You have time to pontificate how you know everything and how everyone else needs to read this or that. How we all need to be more informed about the world around us.

I have posted a link to a transcript that supports my argument, and you cant even read past a few paragraphs. Then you want me to point out the facts to you. Me! The guy you continually degrade and tell everyone how stupid and uninformed I am.



And to top it all off you complain you don't have the time to read a relatively short article (compared to the the many books you say you've read). Yet you have time to post articles that you looked up on google and who know how many posts telling everyone their stupid.



And now you want to move on....

NaplesX, this is becoming pointless. you obviously live in a fantasy world. we are talking about hundreds of billions of $ that are at stake in the war machinery itself. and the corporations raking in the cash (tax payer money no less) are all heavy supporters of this administration. some of the people in this administration worked for these corporations, etc. etc. etc. these things are all known. it's tiresome that you don't want to acknowledge these things. your beloved administration is just as corrupt as the administration before it. it is just as corrupt as SH and Silvio Berlusconi. to ignore this fact is the first step in becoming a mindless minion.

oh, and please stop trying to make me a democrat. i have never voted for democrats nor for republicans because i don't believe in this corrupt 2-party dictatorship. just because you have apparantly sold your soul to a party of shameless profiteurs, doesn't neccessarily give you the right to assume that i would do the same. face it.


that's a new one! you try to counter my argument by saying the same thing.


so let me get this straight. you agree that there are poeple in this administration who dealt with SH knowing that he is a criminal. you agree that they show poor judgment in doing so. and then you say i can't blame this president for chosing such people for his administration.
interesting logic.



i am pretty confident that the US has developed the fastest ways to kill more people at once. don't really know what you are trying to say...


and if you learned anything just in the last 50 years, you would realize that the most defining US moments happened more than 50 years ago. but i guess it's ok for you to mix up different timeframes.


where am i rewriting history. if the search is not over yet, then that clearly means that there is no irrefutable evidence. if there is no irrefutable evidence then they lied because they claimed that they had such irrefutable evidence.
my god! is it really so difficult to grasp this. oh sorry, i forgot: i am so blinded, i am making this all up ...


why do you keep fantasizing that i am trying to justify one thing or another?
i simply didn't understand what you were trying to tell me by quoting that crazy saddam bullshit. i simply pointed out that it sounded earily similiar to some stuff that gets broadcast on US tv every day.

you know what your problem is? you have fallen for the (admittedly brilliant) tactic: "you are either with us, or against us." you are so completely immersed in this "dogma" that you automatically assume that if i critisize the current US administration: i am a democrat. that i try to defend france. that i try to defend SH. etc.
there is no other option available to you. this is sad. or is it pathetic?


more proof of what i said above. quite frankly i couldn't care less what you think of my views. believe it or not there actually are people out there that try to evaluate every situation according to its specific parameters. i know that this kind of thinking is foreign to you but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. i will be the first to argue that the democrats are a bunch of corrupt criminals, but they are currently not responsible for the "noble mess" in iraq, so what's the point?

Nice attempt to hide the fact that your are dead fucking wrong, naples. Be an adult and say 'oops. sorry for lying.'

Hey Nappy,

Keeping you busy are they?

By the way that link ( that whole web site ) is practically an editorial. You know subjective opinion.

Well since you're not supplying any new info to back up your claims you might as well admit that Bush lied. There are no WOMD in Iraq or syria or wherever. And haven't been since long before the war. Also there was no real reason to believe that he was a immediate threat to the continential United States ( which is what all those sheep out there were led to think ). The inspectors ( you know the guys who were really over there to tell if there were WOMD in Iraq ) were right.

This war was based on a falsehood. We should never have gone over there. Unless everybody agreed that Saddam was the worst dictator in the world ( so we picked him out among many ) and we really had some compelling reason to attack. That didn't happen however.

So how about it Nappy? Ready to call it on this issue?

oh, as far as i can see you are the one who went back and cleaned up some posts

Naples, this post is a good example of how you might get your case across more effectively.

Instead of just posting a link that you believe will support your statements, add a few quotes from the article (or editorial, or whatever) that specifically address what you are stating. Giant has used that technique above to show that your link does not prove what you say that it does. It's not just a "lefty" debate tactic, it's an *effective* one.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to be helpful...

Three Direct Questions to Naples:

1. Do you think that France's ONLY motivation for opposing war against Iraq was a financial one, or do you think they might also have believed there wasn't enough evidence to support military action, or that the risks were too high, or that the effects would be negative, etc.

2. Do you think that the US had NO financial motivations or objectives in mind when they considered invading Iraq, or do you think that the financial benefits to the US and certain parties were considered?

3. What is corruption (please give us your precise definition).

You know...
I had a bunch of smart-ass replies to all of your points, and I actually spent some time trying to make some points... and then i realized that I really don't need to be right.

I will wake up in the morning and have whatever I feel like for breakfast, go off in my old Caddy to a really cool job, while my healthy kids go off safely to school. I will be thinking about what song my band will learn next in between deciding what local restaurant to patronize for lunch. While dealing with all of the great customers that we have, I will be looking forward to spending the evening with my kids discussing whatever they want or tickling them, whichever comes first. Admittedly, more tickling goes on than anything else, but hey they're very ticklish. I play my guitar for a while and talk to you guys for a bit before going off to bed. Isn't freedom great.

It's amazing the opportunities that just being born in this country allows you to have. My life is pretty good and I have a lot to be thankful for so I am probably pushing it to expect to be right on top of all that. So listen, you make a lot of good points, and I respect your opinions. You're probably right, I'm probably wrong. No sense in perpetuating this any further.

Life is good, even amidst the chaos of the crazy world we live in. We are both entitled to our opinions and we should be thankful that we can freely speak our minds, here and anywhere in this country. I am willing to agree to disagree on this issue. No sense beating each other over the head with it. I think everyone knows where we stand.

Cool?

I know you are. Thanks.

It just seems that when I do post bits and pieces like that people here pick it apart... as a matter of fact when I post a link they attack the source, or something. There's always a reason not to be civil, it seems to me. I will do that next time and see if it actually works, or if someone uses it as an opportunity to attack.

Direct answers:

1. No it wasn't, that is entirely possible. Although evidence is pointing toward money being the biggest motive, IMO.

2. No i don't think that, sure the costs were considered.

3. I think this definition fits when we're talking about governments - from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

corrupt - having an unlawful or evil motive; especially : characterized by improper and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another (as by taking or giving bribes)

corruption being the the act of being corrupt.

Yeah, I like the 10-1 ratio. It keeps me busy.

The page I linked to is a direct transcript. The overall site may be what it is, so what? I am not sure you can dismiss an investigative report just because an editorial website posts a transcript of that report, do you?

I have laid out why I don't think Bush lied. Part of what he used to justify this war may turn out to be incorrect. I feel that is different from a lie:

Lie - A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

There is a key word in that definition. I will let you decide which it is.

Maybe you are right, time will tell.

That's because you make constant dead false claims and try to back them up 3rd hand sources and websites made with frontpage. Start making factually correct statements and citing original sources and the problem will be solved.

So...

IF the US gave Halliburton billions of dollars worth of no-bid offers, at rates ten times higher than competing firms claim they would have accepted for the same work, some of which could have been handled by local Iraqi contractors, and not only that... when evidence was shown proving Halliburton was wasting resources sending empty trucks back and forth to make it look like they were doing something and there was no follow-up action by the government...

wouldn't you call that corruption?

If Dick Cheney is paying back his buddies for their generosity...

wouldn't you call that corruption?

If George W. Bush wants his good ol' Texas boys to be happy and lets this all happen...

wouldn't you call that corruption?

-----------------------------------------------------------
have laid out why I don't think Bush lied. Part of what he used to justify this war may turn out to be incorrect. I feel that is different from a lie:

-----------------------------------------------------------

You're spinning again.

It's an easy equation.

WOMD capable of reaching us here as a threat = justification.

No WOMD = No justification and a lie.

There is only one reason this war got to happen and only one that everybody was thinking about when Bush decided to go. That's the only one that matters because without it the war wouldn't have happened.

Got it?

I saw nothing there to refute that.

Fine.

You are entitled to have an opinion and express it openly.

One of the benefits of living in the US. Gotta love it.

corrupt - having an unlawful or evil motive; especially : characterized by improper and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another (as by taking or giving bribes)

Doling out favors is what washington is all about. If you are going to start saying that everyone that trades favors is corrupt, you nay as well indict every politician, right down to your local tax collector.

Having said that, Some of what you say does give the appearance of impropriety. Which is different from corruption. However, if all of that is true and like you seem to be implying, the president or any in his admin gained personally from this then you might have a point. You have a lot to prove. There need to be a direct link. I don't see one.

Hey, look I don't see it as cut and dry as you do. For all i know you could be 100% right and I am just blinded by good PR efforts. Who knows. You are entitled to your opinion and can express it openly without the fear of reprisal by the powers that be. Isn't freedom great.

There are places where expressing opinion is more free than in the US. Do free speech zones ring a bell? How about Patriot Act and its provisions to suppress knowledge that the Act itself has been invoked?

I'm writing this from the country that has recently denied the Russian government's repeated requests to remove some pro-Chechen pages from a private web server, citing that it's not in the power of the government to suppress them. Are you going to hear US gov't say *that* anytime soon?

heck, it's your money.
if you don't mind your money being "doled out" to repay favors then i can understand your nonchalance about this issue.

ummm, wait a minute! wasn't there some talk about "going to change the way washington is run"? i wonder who said that?

Not in regard to terrorism. But that line has been taken in recent past years and upheld by our courts. Of course, the US took more casualties in one attack then in its entire history. So that plays into the equation. The patriot act was a severe reaction to severe attack on its homeland. You will see it change and morph over time.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot. The US is at war right now. That changes things a bit.

I don't necessarily like it, but it is way better than say... warlords wreaking havoc on and taking over large swaths of land and turning them into war-zones.

On a philosophical level I am with you, but in the real world... well you know.