Cost of War (page 12)

dubla

foreward-

Low blow dubla....why don't you get yourself educated and try another language, we'll have a good time laughing at you....

actually i have...and anyone who has heard me attempting to speak spanish has probably had a good laugh. i wasnt laughing at her though, i was being honest....i have a really hard time trying to figure out what shes saying to me half the time, and it does make for a difficult exchange. if im a "waste of time", so be it....its only going to save me some time as well. aa

frenchbabyface

It's Ok Dubla I don't hold anything against you because of what you said about me (REALLY) it was fun in fact ... ... but still a diversion ... (not kidding, but still a bit ...)

Realist

or do you think they both knew he wasnt a threat, and they both lied?

B I N G O !

dubla

six-

or at least some filthy disgusting republican's reply ;-)

most of your post is just regurgitation and of course avoiding the question at hand....so i wont bother with it. but as for the above comment, just wanted to let you know im not a republican. if there was a viable libertarian candidate, thats proabaly where id lean. i agree with abaddon that our two-party system needs to go....but i dont forsee that happening anytime soon.

aa

dubla

realist-

thank you....you are at least ONE anti-bush person on this board that is willing to admit kerry is no different on the issue of wmds/iraq. i might not agree with you, but at least you dont have the same idealized view of kerry that blinds so many others.

aa

Max Divergent

Generations of Americans will have to pay the price for the decisions made.

No one sound really believed the 'case for war', but maybe there were other good reasons... like shifting the power base in the Middle East or somthing... but the countries that followed the US into invading Iraq (UK, Aust, Poland) must have done so to support America and to bolster their US alliances, not for the publically stated reasons for invading Iraq.

You can see that because Blair knew to 'sex up' intelligence reports, Howard never really repeated the worst parts of the Bush story so he couldn't be accused of lying, and Poland tried to keep their involvement a near secret.

So, I guess America can choose of that sort of decision making to continue, or they can vote for a change. Either way, I think the United States is the best thing to happen to the world in the past 1000 years and continues to do a lot to relieve poverty and environmental damage accross the world - but has still done more damage to the world than it should have politically, economically and environmentally in more recent history.

teejay

arguing semantics wont change the fact that kerry and bush held the same beliefs about saddam.....

No one on earth has access to the quality and quantity of intelligcne that the President of the US has.

Bush's own terrorism czar told him TWICE that there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. After twisting arms and refusing to look at the evidence, the intelligence community was forced to go back and look at everything in the worst possible light. Bush then had the "evidence" he needed to present to Congress (including Kerry) to bolster his manufactured claim that there was a connection.

Kerry did what any responsible public official would have done in his position. It actually makes false Bush's claim that Kerry is soft on terrorism or national security.

Realist

dubla,

i agree. to idealize a politician is usually a big mistake.

kerry is without doubt more intelligent than bush and might actually have been an idealist when he was young....but by now he is probably just as corrupted as W (no honest man would or could ever get as far as he did).

concerning the iraq war...no one dared to speak out against the war. in march 2003 it would have been a political suicide to do so.

there was one senator (old guy, forgot his name) who dared to voice his opposition. he gave a fantastic speech...but the guy is overdue for retirement...so he had nothing to loose. for kerry and the other democrats a lot more was at stake. besides...i am sure they too get enough sponsoring from the oil and weapons indusry to look the other way in such cases.

teejay

there was one senator (old guy, forgot his name) who dared to voice his opposition. he gave a fantastic speech...but the guy is overdue for retirement...so he had nothing to loose.

That would be Senator Byrd. And you're right. He gave a fantastic speech.

seawolf

thank you....you are at least ONE anti-bush person on this board that is willing to admit kerry is no different on the issue of wmds/iraq. i might not agree with you, but at least you dont have the same idealized view of kerry that blinds so many others.

They aren't any different on the WMD/Iraq thing it seems.

I don't like bush at all (and I was glad when he got elected, too, so you can see my opinion of him as gone straight to hell).

fwiw, I think things will be worse if Kerry gets elected...

Cost of War

Share this