Where are the WMD? Well.... - Page 5  

Yet you have no problem sending other people to Iraq, who, much like you, may also have a problem or two but are forced to because 'God said so' (or Bush said so, whichever).

I fail to see what you want to achieve by describing your physical inability to us. Just because you are physically unable to do the job of a soldier, doesn't mean it's OK for you to lure others to wars that are based on lies and deceit.

Well let's see you're about 30 now what was you physical condition when you were 18? Just a question.

You know I was almost feeling guilty about my comment about your physical condition above. However after this brain dead attack I see I have no reason to. You know what I was talking about and the principles on which this country runs are still the same. And don't give me any crap about after 911 things are different ( implying that we have the right to attack just anybody on any provocation ).

He must have known it was questionable. It was disproven quite easily. Since that's the case maybe he should have checked it out more thoroughly. Actually his opponents to the war at the time were saying they thought he didn't have enough evidence.

As yours wouldn't either.

Yes but when they signed up I'm sure they thought they were doing it for a worthy cause. This just like some other wars I can think of ( no names please ) was unnecessary.

Are you talking about yourself?

Yes but you'd like to think your leader would lead you into an honorable cause. Especially when you're asked to put your life on the line. By the way I'm sure you'd find many who would disagree with you also.

It's pretty obvious what I was saying. You like to talk the tough talk and have said that "the left" hate the US. Simple. Now is your chance to give back to the country the people who disagree with your points of view "hate".
Blah blah blah. Got proof of those herniated disks? Have you tried to join? They might take you. Mind if I find out for you? Love how you speak for Naples too. Very weird.
Ok, so assuming you were healthy, would you enlist? You strongly support anything Bush does. You strongly support invading other countries. You support "nuking" other countries. WOULD YOU ENLIST ?? Rhetorical question, because I think we all know the answer to that one.
LMAO. What skill set would that be? I doubt it's more important than serving your country in time of war now is it patriot!? .
Why not? The troops need some entertainment while they do the dirty work for pro-war armchair quaterbacks like you. I forgot we can't let go of any more trumpet players. That "skill set" is badly needed here at home.

You may call this an "argument" or whatever. Since this thread went from science fiction cuckoo theories back to the tired "was the war justified?", I thought I'd add something silly to the mix. Although I tried to keep it within the realm of the real world...unlike yourself.

I think all the warmongers who advocate war before reason should be the first ones to enlist and go fight for their beliefs. That's what real men, and women, do.

I said it should raise red flags, go ahead and quote me.

Ok.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...0&pagenumber=4

You seem to think that people volunteer to go to unnecessary wars. Not true. The owherwelming majority of recruits are people that sought a job in the army due to financial reasons, for the pay is not bad, and the benefits you get are not bad either. True, they have been told, or were smart enough to predict that the danger is always there, however, that does not mean that they're puppets of the government that should obbey any command, any order, even if it's doomed to fail.

The army, vis-a-vis soldiers, are the last weapon in the hands of the government, not the first. The army should be sent to war only, and only if there is absolutely no other way to resolve a situation which is of imminent danger to the country or its allies. I fail to see how it was absolutely necessary to send those volunteers to war, and how that war was inevitable and how the country that was attacked presented an imminent danger to the US.



Having a comfortable position of not being eligible for military due to physical reasons, and on that ground, luring other people to war by ways of supporting lies and deceit is what it is.


You have lured people to war by providing support for the lies and the deceit that was the reason for war. If you defend the reason for war, you are also defending their voyage there, and as a consequence, you are indirectly luring them to war.

And the last statement, about lies and deceit, is a well publicized fact, and you can get it from at least a thousand credible news sources, as well as many governmental documents [not in the same words, of course!], international governments, allies, international organizations' documents, and many other places.

Because you refuse to accept what is a cold hard fact, does not mean that it's not a fact.

Sigh,

I will expand, elaborate or rephrase that line so that it does not imply what you say it does. Although I have a feeling that no matter what I type it will be filtered through your contrarian glasses, but hey let's see if I can give it the old college try. OK?

I was speaking from the standpoint of someone that is concerned with the security of his/her country, namely a US citizen, perhaps even more specifically the president.

When I said "you hate the US or you don't care", or whatever, I meant you are either the enemy or you are not interested in the security of the US.

Just the first three of the facts that I listed, are enough to raise red flags regarding national security. Add the last two and like I said, you should be seeing some major red flaggage.

No offense intended, nor did I intend to question anyone's patriotism.

When you say (quite often in discussions) "you hate the US", you automatically question one's loyalty (call it patriotism) to the said country.

There's no going around that.

You're not questioning anyone's patriotism. You just think whoever disagrees with you HATES the country. Which is even more extreme than questioning one's patriotism.

Sir, the statement was started with a condition, so using the word "you" could mean anyone that the condition applies to, and not specifically you or the original poster.

In this case the phrase "if you don't see red flags, then you don't care" could be said "If one does not see red flags, then one doesn't care" and mean the very same thing. It was not a statement aimed at anyone in particular. It was just an observation and an opinion.

I did not question your or anyone's patriotism, so let's take the rhetoric down a notch or two, we may all learn something.

Look, I thoroughly apologize for any hurt feeling over my obviously poor choice of wording. I have explained what I meant. I have now said three times, that it was not meant to question anyone's patriotism.

I am sorry for the confusion.

Please accept my apologies and explanation so to not totally derail yet another thread.

I am sure that there was other substantive things that could be argued beyond that statement. Or is that what must be focused on?

You have got to be joking.

You've apparently completely missed the point. "Hurt feeling?"

I get the impression this is another one of those threads that tries to go in a record number of pointless circles until it gets locked. Naples, you've made your point. Saddam and the rest of the evil a-rabs hid Iraq's vast stocks of WMD so they could use them against us. No amount of data or logic will change your mind, so why keep discussing it?

/**Begin Sensless Rabble Rousing**/

Dammit NaplesX!! The whole thing was an international good-natured prank! There were no WMD after 1990 - whatsoever, at all, not a drop in the whole frelling counrtry, Iraq was no threat!!! Just think of it as hazing --- noogies with SNARK missles and starving children watching from below. I mean, if Albright said starving 500,000 children to death for a good cause was worth it, Hey Man! Who are we to argue??!! The UN was just trying to get Uday and Kuse to lighten up on "shredder night" down at the rape room -- you'd think with those no-fly zones and all that buried fiber optic cable Saddam was just offering some good-natured reflex training for our pilots. What's a few AA missles between friends?! He wasn't hiding ANYTHING, Syria and Russia HAD NO REASON to wisk away ANY GOODIES that dingbat had laying around. Really, the first lesson you need to learn when dealing with ANY country, is to ignore their major trading partners, espescially the one's where they get all their weapons --- pay them NO MIND. I mean c'mon, it's not like the guy tried burying his equipment, or really had any that could be used for any purpose other than making hot air ballons; when alot of it disappeared before/during/after the war you have to realize it was stolen and repurposed for helping crippled children in Bombay. We know for ceratain that that was Uday's and Kuse's harem that went over the border to Syria when the rest of the government fled for points west.

And most importantly, remember that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES did the UN's politics or monetary interests (other than than evil American interests) effect, steer, change, nudge, alter, modify, mutate, refashion, turn, vary, accommodate, adapt, adjust, moderate, modulate, temper or doctor the decisions that put sanctions into place or kept them there. The UN, (except for GWB's junky needs for sweet crude -- because we can judge his heart and know he is a lying scumbag not worthy of the office) is as pure as the driven snow -- you must never suspect that anything other than Angelic interests are at the heart of UN outcomes.

Besides, kids are cheap -- just look at Kojo -- what's half a million here or there? No one remembers them anyway.

/**End Sensless Rabble Rousing**/

What a great thread you guys have going on. It's clearly just the case of two or three guys who can't seem to conclude after all this time 1) that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (I thought you guys shifted to "related program activities" anyway) and 2) that the main rationale for the war was wrong. It's not hard. Have some dignity for yourselves for Chrissake.

Then 500,000 kids died for no reason under the UN's tender mercies --- in which case everyone from Albright to Condi to Kofi need to be brought up on crimes against humanity.

Hell, if it's good enough for Tommy Franks in The Hague, it's good enough for me.

This recurrent thread is starting to turn into circles. Nothing news has been brought on the table. It's time to close it.

Please do not open an another one, unless, something really new (not a rumor on an obscure web site) is displayed.