Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/14/03 09:09 PM, BWS wrote:

At 7/14/03 07:19 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

I like to rammble on and on because it makes me feel special and it will make others...

start to wonder what your problem really is. Im curious, do you vote? Nobody is keeping you here, so move if you like. You act as if the President should go out and personally check every source of information; you know this is highly unrealistic. So what, his staff made a few mistakes and misinformed him. Trust me, im sure that youve been misinformed in a few areas as well. Cut out the rhetorical BS okay? This topic is starting to go off on a tangent, and its nothing but a reference war embedded within flames. For real, this is pointless.

Wow. The pole up your butt must have a pole up it's butt. Calm down man. lol. Do you feel better about yourself now that you've flamed me?

Show me a man who resorts to simple insults and denial, and I'll show you a man with nothing better to say.

So, because I dislike one US president and a few of the actions made in the past by the US administration, then I should move? lol. Doesn't make that much sense. That's like saying, well, sense I don't like the racism in early American history, I better move. Heh heh.

Um. I do think that the president should check up on US-world history. I mean, he is the president. I'm assuming he should know some of these things.

Of course of course. It's never the president's fault....unless he's liberal, like Clinton. lol. Sheesh. So, it was all his staff's fault, the UN investigators fault, and Congress's fault (the one's who didn't want the war)? Just not Bush's? Now that's a conspiracy for the books.

In case you've forgotten, it was Bush who proposed the war with Iraq in the first place, not his "staff." He brought it to Congress and the UN and dragged his "staff" along. It wasn't their idea, although I'll admit that they were quick to defend their spokesperson. Just as you are.

In fact, NEITHER Congress or the UN wanted the war at first, and only agreed to it once Bush said that he believed there was WMD there. The UN investigators didn't find any and reported that to the Bush administration (it was all over the news at one point) and most of the UN and much of Congress still didn't want the war.

In fact, Bush never said that WMD were found when he went to war with Iraq. He just said that "we know they're there." You think if he had half a brain, he'd figure out that over 4 trips of UN investigators is probably not wrong. Or he'd at least figure out to listen to the UN officials over "some guy in his staff," supposedly. lol. So, out of all the people in the Bush administration, it just happens to be all the other people's fault, but just not Bush's. Few.

Boy, for it being his idea and by his hand, he sure had very little to do with this war. lol. In any case, even if he knew for certain that there was no WMD in Iraq (which I'm pretty sure he did), I highly doubt that he would have backed down anyway (which he didn't, even though the UN investigators cleared it themselves).

Also, if he was misinformed by his staff, you'd think that he'd be quick to point that out, instead of still trying to right the war by saying that "WMD will be found eventually." Yeah, I'm pretty sure he knows he's lying there....or is he "still being misinformed by his staff?" lol.

Also, I don't know how talking about Bush on a topic about Bush is "going off on a tanget." lol.

And did it ever don on you that maybe I wouldn't have to repeat myself if people didn't keep asking me the same things? I don't like it any more than you do.

You know. While I'm at it, I have a new question for some of Bush's supporters.
-------
Why is it that whever we're discussing "liberating the people of Iraq" through this war, you give credit to Bush.

It's his responsibility for that.

And whenever we're discussing getting rid of Suddam through this war, you give credit to Bush.

It's his responsibility for that.

And whenever we're discussing "fighting terrorism" through this war, you give credit to Bush.

It's his responsibility for that.

But when suddenly we're discussing the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq, then suddenly "Bush had nothing to do with this war, it was his adminstration/staff/UN investigators who propelled it by 'lying' to him about WMD."

It's not his responsibility for going to war now.
-----------
If that truly is the case, then shouldn't we be giving the credit of getting rid of Suddam, "fighting terrorism," and "liberating the people of Iraq" to those who "lied" to him? Afterall, if they didn't "lie" to Bush in this big conspiracy, then he wouldn't have gone to war to "free the people of Iraq," "get rid of Suddam," or "fight terrorism," correct?

*sigh* Bush has control over everything....until it goes wrong and becomes someone elses fault.

At 7/15/03 12:02 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Why is it that whever we're discussing "liberating the people of Iraq" through this war, you give credit to Bush. It's his responsibility for that.
And whenever we're discussing getting rid of Suddam through this war, you give credit to Bush. It's his responsibility for that.
And whenever we're discussing "fighting terrorism" through this war, you give credit to Bush. It's his responsibility for that.

All those who served in the military, and everyone else who helped. It's not just one.

But when suddenly we're discussing the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq, then suddenly "Bush had nothing to do with this war, it was his adminstration/staff/UN investigators who propelled it by 'lying' to him about WMD." It's not his responsibility for going to war now.

Well, how do we know that maybe Saddam got rid of WMD before we got there, to make us look stupid?

I'd imagine we had Iraq under heavy surveillance -- we'd notice if there was a massive, nationwide moving of chemicals. If somehow we missed it, the situation is still there that there are NO WMD's being found in Iraq.

At 7/15/03 02:16 AM, 70TA wrote:

At 7/15/03 12:02 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

All those who served in the military, and everyone else who helped. It's not just one.

*sigh* My point is that many pro-Bushies credit him with the war on Iraq whenever they believe something good came from it. But, whenever something bad comes from it, they suddenly change their minds and pretend like he had nothing to do with the war. @_o'

I've noticed that quite a bit recently, with all the sudden "conspiracy theories" that have developed after no WMD were found (such as the, the UN investigators lied to him, his staff all lied to him, and, my favorite, Suddam got rid of all the WMD just to make the US "look stupid").

Well, how do we know that maybe Saddam got rid of WMD before we got there, to make us look stupid?

lol. Yeah. Suddam: "Heh heh. Let's get rid of all the WMD instead of using them to defend ourselves just to bug the US. That'll be fun."

Come on man. I don't think Suddam is the kind of guy to pull off a practical joke that big, just to make a country he doesn't like "look stupid."

At 7/15/03 02:50 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/15/03 02:16 AM, 70TA wrote:

At 7/15/03 12:02 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

All those who served in the military, and everyone else who helped. It's not just one.

*sigh* My point is that many pro-Bushies credit him with the war on Iraq whenever they believe something good came from it. But, whenever something bad comes from it, they suddenly change their minds and pretend like he had nothing to do with the war. @_o'

Well, that's party politics for you. Do your best to get your guy in the spotlight, and be ready to yank him out when the crowd turns against him. I still think Bush is very lucky to have a huge administration of people ready to take shots for him if...oh...faulty intelligence happens to show up.

New funny Bush quote about the lack of WMD. ^_-

``I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence."

At 7/15/03 02:53 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: New funny Bush quote about the lack of WMD. ^_-

``I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence."

I'm hoping you're just...kidding.

At 7/15/03 02:55 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/15/03 02:53 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: New funny Bush quote about the lack of WMD. ^_-

``I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence."

I'm hoping you're just...kidding.

Fraid not. @_o' lol.

4. See UN Resolution 1441 for more clarification.

Iraq was never in Breach of UN Resolution 1441. You will see that the last article (I think it is 13) says that the Security Council "will remain seized of the matter" (or something like that, I can't be arsed to go to my link.) Which means that Iraq is not in breach unless they are declared to be so...which they weren't. Any other argument is a red herring (which btw relies on all the "intelligence" the governments produced.)

At 7/14/03 11:45 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Wow. The pole up your butt must have a pole up it's butt. Calm down man. lol. Do you feel better about yourself now that you've flamed me?

Show me a man who resorts to simple insults and denial, and I'll show you a man with nothing better to say.

That's hardly a flame. Don't act so "innocent". Don't think everyone's against you or after you simply because they disagree. Nobody is always correct, and that includes you and me.

As for your sources, it's primarily an editorial. I checked his sources and found various declassified documents stating that there has been an increase of waterborn disease in Iraq because water treatment systems in major areas were damaged in the war.

I say, so what? What does this prove? That America has led a deliberate campaign of genocide and murdered 500,000 Iraqi children? No, in fact it doesn't even mention those sort of numbers.

It's war; things get destroyed. Infrastructure is often damaged, but guess what, we're busy fixing it.

"things get destroyed"? "Infrastructure is often damaged"?

Sheesh, romanticize murder for morale. PEOPLE DIE! There's more to war than just guns and flags, there are innocent civilians that die and soldiers that are put there against their will. Fox News only showed buildings getting blown up, never people.

At 7/16/03 01:06 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

:A bunch of things to make me feel good about myself.....

lol. Don't get mad at me. That's not a flame.

As for your sources, it's primarily an editorial. I checked his sources and found various declassified documents stating that there has been an increase of waterborn disease in Iraq because water treatment systems in major areas were damaged in the war.

lol. Well, I have an idea for you. Instead of just looking at one source, if you don't like it, then go look up more sources on it yourself. It's better than just saying "I don't like this source, therefore it must not be true, because I don't want it to be."

I've read about the 500,000 children dying from the US's hand in a couple of places, but most of them were from newspapers/magazines, and not on the web.

Although, you could try checking out the Harpers site. I don't think they have free article's there (since they're more professional), but you can always give it a shot. If not, then get the magazine yourself, or look it up in other places if you want.
--------------
PS. I can understand your fear about the Progressive writer being "biased" in his information. However, the only way a statistic, such as around 500,000 deaths, could be wrong was if he outrightly lied. lol. I assure you that if a writer for the Progressive outrightly lied like that, he'd be fired pretty quick. Heh heh. They may be more "liberal," but they're one of the more professional magazines available.

Also, not to mention that the guy got his sources from reliable information. And, apparently, you didn't read the documents he did, considering that the quotes he obtained from the documents say very clearly that the US sanctioned the water supplies and knew that this would kill people when they did it.

I say, so what? What does this prove? That America has led a deliberate campaign of genocide and murdered 500,000 Iraqi children? No, in fact it doesn't even mention those sort of numbers.

They didn't do it "for the purpose of killing Iraqi children." lol. That's not what the documents said, if you really did read them. The documents reported that the US knew that people, particularly children, would die from this "in the crossfire" (if you will) but they did it anyway. So, it was somewhat "involuntary genocide." However, they knew before and after the restrictions were put into effect, that people, particularly children (again) were dying from this and they just didn't care. That's what makes it a genocide in my eyes.

It's war; things get destroyed. Infrastructure is often damaged, but guess what, we're busy fixing it.

I got a better idea. How about not destroying things for no reason in the first place? Then we won't have to "be busy 'fixing' it."

Also, the water sanctions weren't working after they were put into effect (it didn't affect Suddam in the least). And, many innocent civilians were dying from it. However, in spite of it not working and people dying, they kept the program going for a long time. That's why so many children died.

At 7/14/03 11:45 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/14/03 09:09 PM, BWS wrote:

At 7/14/03 07:19 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Wow. The pole up your butt must have a pole up it's butt. Calm down man. lol. Do you feel better about yourself now that you've flamed me?

Well, I really wouldnt classify this as a flame; if I flamed you, you would know. I dont do this to "feel better" about myself either.

Show me a man who resorts to simple insults and denial, and I'll show you a man with nothing better to say.

Trust me, I can hold a conversation for any topic you could pick. Dont assume that since I got upset, and said something about it, that I lack the amount of intelligence needed to hold a conversation; versus insults and denial. Maybe this isnt the context you intended, and you were generalizing about Bush's speechs, but I replyed as if my assumption is correct.

So, because I dislike one US president and a few of the actions made in the past by the US administration, then I should move? lol. Doesn't make that much sense. That's like saying, well, sense I don't like the racism in early American history, I better move. Heh heh.

I didnt say move. I said give a synopsis. I said that everyone is entitled to their opinion didnt I? Dont twist what Im saying, alright.

Um. I do think that the president should check up on US-world history. I mean, he is the president. I'm assuming he should know some of these things.

Of course he should, I never said anything that has to do with this response of yours so why did you put it here?

Of course of course. It's never the president's fault....unless he's liberal, like Clinton. lol. Sheesh. So, it was all his staff's fault, the UN investigators fault, and Congress's fault (the one's who didn't want the war)? Just not Bush's? Now that's a conspiracy for the books.

Again, I never said or even implied something that has to do with the begining of this response. I said his information was provided by his staff. They were wrong.

In case you've forgotten, it was Bush who proposed the war with Iraq in the first place, not his "staff." He brought it to Congress and the UN and dragged his "staff" along. It wasn't their idea, although I'll admit that they were quick to defend their spokesperson. Just as you are.

In case Ive forgotten huh? Why do you feel that its so important to begin responses with a remark that is obviously meant to undermind people? I know, and I said that his decision was based on information provided by his staff, and others of course, but his staff's information is held in very high regards because he relys on them so much. He made this choce based on information given by them; they didnt make the choice for him, and I never said that they did. He was the one who asked for the information but they were the ones who provided it.

In fact, NEITHER Congress or the UN wanted the war at first, and only agreed to it once Bush said that he believed there was WMD there. The UN investigators didn't find any and reported that to the Bush administration (it was all over the news at one point) and most of the UN and much of Congress still didn't want the war.

Did I say anything that your post is intended to contradict? No, so why are you putting this here? I never said that, so dont post replys to things that I nor anyone else has said.

In fact, Bush never said that WMD were found when he went to war with Iraq. He just said that "we know they're there." You think if he had half a brain, he'd figure out that over 4 trips of UN investigators is probably not wrong. Or he'd at least figure out to listen to the UN officials over "some guy in his staff," supposedly. lol. So, out of all the people in the Bush administration, it just happens to be all the other people's fault, but just not Bush's. Few.

He changed his statement so that he would decrease the chance of being contradicted. He started this operation and so he insists on continuing it. Oh, by the way, this people in his staff arent just "someone" like you insist on beleiving; obviously you do or you wouldnt have posted it. The "some guy(s)" in his staff are chairpeople for The Office of______. They arent just "some guy". Supposedly...well, who do you think it is that informs him?

Boy, for it being his idea and by... it themselves).

What ways could he have contributed to the war more? What is it that you think he does? Of course he wouldnt back down, hes to stubborn to do that.

Also, if he ...he "still being misinformed by his staff?" lol.

His original speechs were made with the understanding that the information was correct. He wouldnt admit that it was wrong information because if he did, he would never get relected. Did I say that he was still misinformed by his staff as of recently? No, I didnt, so why put that in there?

Also, I don't know how ... tanget." lol.

You go off on a tangent by replying to things that you assume people think and then you run with it. You go out of your way to make people look stupid. You stray from the issue in the same way that a tangent strays from a function. You feel obligated to provide information A,B,C...when it is not needed.

And did it ever don ... do.

Well, the reason why is because people generally dont actually read posts of that length. Thats one reason why you should post a synopsis of what youre trying to say; you might find that its easier on you as well.
Its obvious that you include responses to things that were never said; you assume that they think or feel a certain way, and you respond to it. The way in which you do this is not intended to add much to the conversation except for the fact that it is intended to make the person look stupid and, I think, make you feel like youre smarter than them. I dont doubt that youre intelligent, but you can respond to what people say instead of generating assumptions that you can contradict thus giving you a better image.
As for Bush, I really dont care what you think because I dont like him much myself. Im not practicing what i preach very well here either; Im doing this so you can understand what im talking about a bit.

I had to delete some of your words due to the post limitation.

At 7/16/03 01:45 AM, BWS wrote:

At 7/14/03 11:45 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/14/03 09:09 PM, BWS wrote:

At 7/14/03 07:19 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Well, I really wouldnt classify this as a flame; if I flamed you, you would know. I dont do this to "feel better" about myself either.

I know an insult when I see it.

Dang, you should go into politics with the way you can defend yourself against anything. lol. ^_-

Show me a man who resorts to simple insults and denial, and I'll show you a man with nothing better to say.

Trust me, I can hold a conversation for any topic you could pick. Dont assume that since I got upset, and said something about it, that I lack the amount of intelligence needed to hold a conversation; versus insults and denial. Maybe this isnt the context you intended, and you were generalizing about Bush's speechs, but I replyed as if my assumption is correct.

You hold it so well, that you had to insult me to start off your "logic?"

After that, and I say this in pure honesty, not just to "bug you," the only thing I read in your posts sounded like denial, to me.

And, well then, you shouldn't assume bad things about people. Afterall, you keep thinking that I'm doing that about Bush, right?

Maybe Bush only went to war with Iraq to "feel special about himself." Oh, but then "assumptions" (as you called them) are never correct, right?

I didnt say move. I said give a synopsis. I said that everyone is entitled to their opinion didnt I? Dont twist what Im saying, alright.

*sigh* You said, in response to my discussions about the previous actions of the administrations (which I didn't agree with), that "no one's forcing you to stay here, you know."

Well, maybe you should learn to clarify yourself more, because that really sounded like "if you don't like it, then move" to me.

Um. I do think that the president should check up on US-world history. I mean, he is the president. I'm assuming he should know some of these things.

Of course he should, I never said anything that has to do with this response of yours so why did you put it here?

You said that the president shouldn't be responsible fore "looking up all sources" on his own. If Bush knew about the US's involvement in the WMD in Iraq issue, which was against UN resolutions, (which I'm pretty sure he did anyway), then perhaps he wouldn't have been so vocal about the "breaking of UN resolutions" as a means to go to war with Iraq. lol.

Of course of course. It's never the president's fault....unless he's liberal, like Clinton. lol. Sheesh. So, it was all his staff's fault, the UN investigators fault, and Congress's fault (the one's who didn't want the war)? Just not Bush's? Now that's a conspiracy for the books.

Again, I never said or even implied something that has to do with the begining of this response. I said his information was provided by his staff. They were wrong.

The beginning of this response: It's not Bush's fault.

You said: It's not Bush's fault.

And yet, if I remember correctly, you were putting some blame on Clinton not to far back, weren't you? But absolutely NO blame on Bush.....EVER. Correct?

Hence, the beginning of my response.

So, all his staff was wrong? Why can it "absolutely not" be Bush's fault? Especially, sense we was the one most likely to have swung that idea for his purpose to go to war with Iraq (which, once again, was his original interest, and not his "staff's").

And if it can be his fault, then why are you so upset at me for thinking that it is? Afterall, Iraq could have been at fault for having WMD, but they didn't. That didn't stop you from defending those actions, though they, too, were based on assumptions. In fact, if I could use your own logic against you for a moment, if could not be his "staff's" fault, either, correct? So, why are so hypocritically basing that logic on assumtions yourself, and then equally as hypocritically getting angry at me for doing the same?

In case you've forgotten, it was Bush who proposed the war with Iraq in the first place, not his "staff." He brought it to Congress and the UN and dragged his "staff" along. It wasn't their idea, although I'll admit that they were quick to defend their spokesperson. Just as you are.

In case Ive forgotten huh? Why do you feel that its so important to begin responses with a remark that is obviously meant to undermind people? I know, and I said that his decision was based on information provided by his staff, and others of course, but his staff's information is held in very high regards because he relys on them so much. He made this choce based on information given by them; they didnt make the choice for him, and I never said that they did. He was the one who asked for the information but they were the ones who provided it.

I started it off that way because I think you're whole "semi-conspiracy theory" which conveniently happens to direct the blame away from Bush, once again, is....well, rediculous.

Please notice that I said that Bush was the one who started the interest for the war with Iraq, not his staff. Hence, why would they be supplying him with "false information about Iraq" before he wanted to go to war with Iraq, if he wanted to go to war with Iraq before they did?

My point was that Bush was the one that propelled the interest in a war with Iraq from the start (his "staff" came into it a bit later---though they were very quick to justify his actions). Hence, this makes Bush the most likely one to have pressed to continue the war with Iraq, even though he discovered that there wasn't just claim to. Afterall, why would his staff want to go to war that badly? It wasn't their original idea.

Also, I would like to know how you deem his "staff" got "misinformed" or "wrong" to begin with.

Did I say anything that your post is intended to contradict? No, so why are you putting this here? I never said that, so dont post replys to things that I nor anyone else has said.

You said that Bush's "staff" got misinformed. But the people they were mostly informed by were the UN investigators.

However, we already know that the UN investigators didn't find weapons there, and it would have been stupid for them to lie about it considering they didn't want the war to begin with.

Also, you'd think that Bush would have figured out that if the UN OR Congress found just cause to go to war with Iraq, that they wouldn't be as against it as they were.

Hence, my point. Bush would be too easily "misinformed" for a human being, not to catch any of that.

And I also supplied the issue about Congress in their because someone else on this forum said that it was their fault.

He changed his statement so that he would decrease the chance of being contradicted. He started this operation and so he insists on continuing it. Oh, by the way, this people in his staff arent just "someone" like you insist on beleiving; obviously you do or you wouldnt have posted it. The "some guy(s)" in his staff are chairpeople for The Office of______. They arent just "some guy". Supposedly...well, who do you think it is that informs him?

So.....him changing his statement just so he could go to war without opposition is.....a good thing?

So, because he started the operation, even if he finds out he's wrong, then it's OK for him to continue it?......it's perfectly OK to go to war for no reason, just as long as you were the one who started it?

@_o'

They're "some guys" compaired to the credibility of UN investigators. It's not their job to determine whether or not Iraq has WMD, while it was the UN investigators's job.

So, are you going to listen to "some guy" who happens to work for you under a title that means nothing in this situation, and has no idea about it, or the ones who are actually doing the research themselves?

I also think that it's weird that the fact that the UN investigators found no WMD in Iraq was all over TV.....and Bush just happened to miss that. His "staff" or no "staff." He should be able to turn on a television.

What ways could he have contributed to the war more? What is it that you think he does? Of course he wouldnt back down, hes to stubborn to do that.

That was my point. He DID contribute to the war. He contributed in ALL of the war including the purposeful spreading of false information, which you are denying he did.

My point is, it's "his" war, you'd think he'd know more about what's going on in it. Aaaand, my point about that is that, he probably did know what was going on it it, he just lied about it to continue doing it.

It's "his" war, so I think he had more control over it's start than that. It's "his" war, so I don't think he was that "innocent" in it's beginnings.

........So, you're righting the war by saying that Bush "was just to stubborn to back down." So, the war is justified then?

Um, isn't his stubborness what I was talking about here? As it not being a good thing?

His original speechs were made with the understanding that the information was correct. He wouldnt admit that it was wrong information because if he did, he would never get relected. Did I say that he was still misinformed by his staff as of recently? No, I didnt, so why put that in there?

Ah. I didn't realize that getting re-elected was more important to him than the American people knowing the truth before he sent our sons off to die. And I didn't realize that it's importance rated over the lives of Iraqi civilians.

Also, you keep saying that he didn't know he was misinformed. But then, a couple of times you said that "he wouldn't admit that he was misinformed, because....."

Wasn't him knowing that his information was false and going to war anyway the problem that I was discusing in this entire topic?

Also, if you're saying that he was misinformed, and didn't admit it just to get re-elected......well, isn't that.....lying? I thought you kept saying that he never lied?

And isn't lying as the president, just to get re-elected, such as Nixon did,.....a bad thing?

Honestly, you do more damage to your own logic than I do.

Also, I don't know how ... tanget." lol.

You go off on a tangent by replying to things that you assume people think and then you run with it. You go out of your way to make people look stupid. You stray from the issue in the same way that a tangent strays from a function. You feel obligated to provide information A,B,C...when it is not needed.

And did it ever don ... do.

Well, the reason why is because people generally dont actually read posts of that length. Thats one reason why you should post a synopsis of what youre trying to say; you might find that its easier on you as well.

I'd rather go for getting my feelings out fully. And if people don't read them, then I really don't mind. It'll be their lose. ^_- But what I DO mind, is them trying to respond to me without reading them.

If you don't want to read them, then don't. But don't try to respond to them then, because it's more work on me. ^_^ K?

Its obvious that you include responses to things that were never said; you assume that they think or feel a certain way, and you respond to it. The way in which you do this is not intended to add much to the conversation except for the fact that it is intended to make the person look stupid and, I think, make you feel like youre smarter than them. I dont doubt that youre intelligent, but you can respond to what people say instead of generating assumptions that you can contradict thus giving you a better image.

Jeez. I'm not "out to get you" or anyone else. lol. You seem to paint an awfully bad portrait of my intensions. lol.

I respond to things as I see fit. Also, you will note that I explained my reasoning behind my responses in each new response. I didn't start discussing things to "go off on a tanget." I felt what I said had everything to do with logic provided by those trying to contradict information I found about Bush.

As for Bush, I really dont care what you think because I dont like him much myself. Im not practicing what i preach very well here either; Im doing this so you can understand what im talking about a bit.

Well, in all honesty, I read every word and didn't mind. And if other people mind, then once again, I don't mind if they don't read it. That doesn't bother me. I just mostly want to put this information here for anyone who is interested.

All in all. If you're just doing this because you don't like my posts. Then don't read them. I don't mind.

Few. Well, needless to say, that took a lot out of me for now. So, I'm going to more or less leave this issue as it is.

However, I would like to point out that it has come to my attention that a few of you seem to think that I am trying to "force this information down people's throats just to make them look bad." @_o'

That's far from the truth. Listen, if no one wants to read my posts do to their size, then I don't mind. And even if I did, I couldn't force you to read them, so you shouldn't get upset about their size to begin with. ^_-

All in all, I don't mind if people don't read my posts. In fact, I didn't put this information here to "shove it down people's throats" to begin with. I basically just put it here so that if anyone was interested, they could read it. And if they're not interested, then I don't mind.

What does bother me, however, is people who respond to my posts without really reading them first. Once again, if you don't want to read them, that's OK, I understand, but don't try to respond to them if you didn't. @_o' It only makes more work for me. lol. And I don't like having to keep repeating myself or re-supplying my sources. I'll admit that I do get annoyed when I have to do this, but I never meant to make people "look bad" by annoucing to them that they're forcing me to repeat myself or my logic/sources (from previous posts).

And finally, I never wrote this stuff to "make people look bad." lol. This is just a collection of all the information I read about Bush and the US administration as it applied to previous world issues.

And all in all. They're just posts. So I suggest that some of you (you know who you are) calm down about the information I put here about Bush and/or the US administration, etc. ^_- I'm not trying to "fight you" or "win something." I just want you to understand where I stand on this.

Well, that's all for now. Thanks for hearing me out.

At 7/16/03 04:52 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
And all in all. They're just posts. So I suggest that some of you (you know who you are) calm down about the information I put here about Bush and/or the US administration, etc. ^_- I'm not trying to "fight you" or "win something." I just want you to understand where I stand on this.

Well, that's all for now. Thanks for hearing me out.

Look, I wasnt trying to atack you, and im not trying to do it now either. I just find that you misinturpret things sometimes, and you run with it. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, and so be it. Im not going to rspond to your above posts because, well, I dont have the time/energy. Anyways, a few things I would like to say. About the topics above, your response means the same as what I meant on a few things. Plus, I said at the end of my post that I knew I was being a hypocrite; not about what I said about Bush though. You assume that Im making some conspiracy theory, but im not, things like that happen. Also, Im not saying this stuff to "protect" him because to tell you the truth, I think he is ignorant too! I was questioning your inturpretation of certain things because you seem very biased. Theres other things I was going to say, but I forget, and Im tired of this anyways. Im done, have fun.
If you start talking about economic stuff though, Ill argue with you for days (that's one thing that interests me)!!!!!!! :)

At 7/16/03 01:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Sheesh, romanticize murder for morale.

I'm not romanticizing it. You're pretending that I am so you can yell at me for it.

PEOPLE DIE!

Yes, they do. I never said they didn't.

There's more to war than just guns and flags, there are innocent civilians that die and soldiers that are put there against their will. Fox News only showed buildings getting blown up, never people.

Yes, war is a messy business, but stop ranting about it to me because I never claimed it wasn't. The topic was infrastructure so I made a comment concerning infrastructure. That little snippet was in relation to infrastructure and not war in general. If this were a discussion on war in general, of course there'd be mention of casualties.

And why are you trying to drag Fox News into this? I know you hate them, but they have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

At 7/18/03 12:08 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:
I'm not romanticizing it. You're pretending that I am so you can yell at me for it.

Your screen name is Commander-K25. What is the purpose of commanders?

Yes, they do. I never said they didn't.

"things get destroyed" "Infrastructure is often damaged" Unless people = things, you forgot a pretty important part of war: people.

Yes, war is a messy business, but stop ranting about it to me because I never claimed it wasn't. The topic was infrastructure so I made a comment concerning infrastructure. That little snippet was in relation to infrastructure and not war in general. If this were a discussion on war in general, of course there'd be mention of casualties.

I say, so what? What does this prove? That America has led a deliberate campaign of genocide and murdered 500,000 Iraqi children? No, in fact it doesn't even mention those sort of numbers.

It's war; things get destroyed. Infrastructure is often damaged, but guess what, we're busy fixing it.

You were not refering to the infrastructure, sir. -_-

And why are you trying to drag Fox News into this? I know you hate them, but they have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

All they ever show is things getting destroyed and the infrastructure being damaged, never the bloodied corpses of civilians or even soldiers. You said that "things get destroyed" and the "Infrastructure is often damaged". You see my point.

At 7/18/03 12:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Your screen name is Commander-K25. What is the purpose of commanders?

To command. In what context is never stated.

This is pretty pathetic. Should I assume that you support genetic manipulation and breeding experiments because your username is crossbreed?

"things get destroyed" "Infrastructure is often damaged" Unless people = things, you forgot a pretty important part of war: people.

That was not a blanket statement of war in general. That was talking about war's effect on infrastructure. "Things get destroyed" - a reminder that war is destructive in nature. "Infrastructure is often damaged" - a further specification about a certain type of things that is often damaged.

You were not refering to the infrastructure, sir. -_-

I was referring to infrastructure as part of the larger argument. You chose to focus on exactly one portion of it.

All they ever show is things getting destroyed and the infrastructure being damaged, never the bloodied corpses of civilians or even soldiers. You said that "things get destroyed" and the "Infrastructure is often damaged". You see my point.

That statement was not about the entire spectrum of war's effects. It was about one particular thing.

Through some abomination of logic and twisted rationality, you're trying to expand a specific into a generality and then blame me for not being specific. Who's fault is this? Me, or you, who's trying to twist it into entirely different contexts and then blame me for your own logical twists?

The short of this is, I made a statement with a specific meaning in mind. You're modifying it with what you want to hear and twisting it to try and make it so. Any miscommunication or misinterpretation is entirely yours.

At 7/16/03 01:06 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

As for your sources, it's primarily an editorial. I checked his sources and found various declassified documents stating that there has been an increase of waterborn disease in Iraq because water treatment systems in major areas were damaged in the war.

I say, so what? What does this prove? That America has led a deliberate campaign of genocide and murdered 500,000 Iraqi children? No, in fact it doesn't even mention those sort of numbers.

It's war; things get destroyed. Infrastructure is often damaged, but guess what, we're busy fixing it.

This is your post that I was reffering to, I removed the part where you adress Ninja_Scientist.

What did I exclude or twist here? On the 2nd paragraph you refer to dying children and then you talk about infrastructures and thing that get damaged and destroyed. How could you neglect to mention the deaths of people along with the material damage of war? You were talking about dead babies just a few lines ago.

At 7/18/03 01:00 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: What did I exclude or twist here? On the 2nd paragraph you refer to dying children and then you talk about infrastructures and thing that get damaged and destroyed. How could you neglect to mention the deaths of people along with the material damage of war? You were talking about dead babies just a few lines ago.

I was arguing her conclusion that we intentionally damaged infrastructure and thus caused the deaths of children. To do this, I argued that infrastructure loss is unavoidable in war and thus is hardly intentional.

The focus was on the cause of deaths and the intention behind it, not on the deaths themselves.

I totallyy agree with the first guy, Bush is an Idiot, because of him Asia is now loked in a secretive nuclear arms race. All the other nations saw, Bush was gonna do something about N korea, then they say, you put 1 toe here and wee nuke you. And what happend, Bush didnt do anything now all those countries supporting terrorism against the US knwo that if they have Nukes the US wont touch him. And also, all this guerilla warfare in Iraq is Bushes fault, if the guy had turned the iraqis (civiclians and maybe even soldiers) against saddam this would all be over now, but Mr. Bush had to do it the Texas way.

It's better than the alternative: Al Gore

I think some of you people are a little too sure that Bush is evil and automatically does things for only his personal benefit.

At 7/20/03 01:48 PM, Silvern wrote: It's better than the alternative: Al Gore

Who says?

At 7/20/03 03:32 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

At 7/20/03 01:48 PM, Silvern wrote: It's better than the alternative: Al Gore

Who says?

Umm...I do. Didn't you read my name "Silvern" on the post?

could we please keep things civil around here? I was really looking forward to following up my post, but it seems logic has been abandoned for page long mulitiple posts and flames, let alone complete lack of respect for the viewpoints of others. No wonder the US is killing civilians on a whim, if these are examples of it's citizens. We need to learn to conduct ourselves in an orderly and respectful fashion towards other countries. The US SHOULD have gotten UN approval. THAT was our mistake. Ninja's whole water poisoning argument is crap, the US is not responsible for the infrastructure of other countries. The sanctions WERE JUSTIFIED. The war, as it turns out, was not. This is no reasons for personal attacks. Congress is just as responsible as bush.

At 7/20/03 04:44 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: could we please keep things civil around here? I was really looking forward to following up my post, but it seems logic has been abandoned for page long mulitiple posts and flames, let alone complete lack of respect for the viewpoints of others. No wonder the US is killing civilians on a whim, if these are examples of it's citizens. We need to learn to conduct ourselves in an orderly and respectful fashion towards other countries. The US SHOULD have gotten UN approval. THAT was our mistake. Ninja's whole water poisoning argument is crap, the US is not responsible for the infrastructure of other countries. The sanctions WERE JUSTIFIED. The war, as it turns out, was not. This is no reasons for personal attacks. Congress is just as responsible as bush.

It would've been nice if we could've gotten UN approval but we weren't going to get it. Not with a french veto. The USA had to look after it's own safety and security. I can't understand why you say the war was unjustified. There's no easy way to search a whole country like that, where many of the citizens are still hostile to the US. Bush is still confident that we will find evidence that there were WMDs. I know you guys don't think too highly of him but he is an intelligent person. Furthermore, the war helped liberate a country that was being oppressed by a dictator. If anything, we did a good deed. I believe it will have a permanent positive impact on Iraq for many, many years to come.