Support NeoGAF

[Christoff Yurievich]

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ23Ak01.html

now, while this appears similar to the article in the thread earlier (http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20130) it isn't.

some highlights:

"It is normal during elections for supporters of presidential candidates to have fundamental disagreements about values or strategies," said an analysis produced by PIPA. But "the current election is unique in that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly different perceptions of reality. In the face of a stream of high-level assessments about pre-war Iraq, Bush supporters cling to the refuted beliefs that Iraq had WMD or supported al-Qaeda."

The survey also found a major gap between Bush's stated positions on a number of international issues and what his supporters believe that position to be. A strong majority of Bush backers believe, for example, that the president supports a range of global treaties and institutions, which he is actually on record as opposing.

The survey found 72% of Bush supporters believe either that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for making them (25%), despite the widespread media coverage in early October of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA's) Duelfer Report, the final word on the subject by the US$1 billion, 15-month investigation by the Iraq Survey Group.

It concluded Saddam had dismantled all of his WMD programs shortly after the 1991 Gulf War and had never tried to reconstitute them. Nonetheless, 56% of Bush supporters said they thought most experts currently believe Iraq had actual WMD, and 57% said they thought the Duelfer Report had concluded that Iraq either had WMD (19%) or a major WMD program (38%).

there's more there to read, and it's quite interesting. It seems that finally, 11 days before the election, the media is beginning to realize that Bush in 04 is a bad thing and they need to start printing articles that criticize him.

 

[videogamer]

Well it's because we haven't been able to search through Syria and Sudan for the WMDs yet.

 

[xsarien]

Well it's because we haven't been able to search through Syria and Sudan for the WMDs yet.

Because Saddam loaded them all onto an undetectable, faster-than-light magic bus that transported them there at the blink of an eye!

 

[Falch]

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is an interesting phenomenon. I studied Psychology for a year (med student now), and by far the most interesting aspect was Social Psychology, in which we discussed such things as cognitive dissonance, the fundamental attribution error and the fact that most of the time we adjust our attitudes to explain our behavior instead the other way around.

I strongly recommend Social Psychology by David Myers.

Well it's because we haven't been able to search through Syria and Sudan for the WMDs yet.

Help me out here, is that denial or sarcasm?

 

[videogamer]

Help me out here, is that denial or sarcasm?

sarcasm

 

[Triumph]

Cognitive dissonance or no, anyone who truly WANTS Bush back in office is dumber than a vidalia onion. I mean, I don't really WANT Kerry to be President, but I'm not gonna cry if it happens.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

People forget that Saddam Hussein was paying suicide bombers to kill Israelites. I can't believe people are naive enough to think he actually destroyed his stockpiles and was no longer seeking WMD. He was aiding and embedding terrorists. Osama Bin-Laden even announced himself that Al Queda would use Iraq as their new battle ground for terrorism.
I'm not agreeing that everything we've done in Iraq has been handled in the best way, but they were clearly a threat, and were definately supporting terrorism.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

People forget that Saddam Hussein was paying suicide bombers to kill Israelites. I can't believe people are naive enough to think he actually destroyed his stockpiles and was no longer seeking WMD. He was aiding and embedding terrorists. Osama Bin-Laden even announced himself that Al Queda would use Iraq as their new battle ground for terrorism.
I'm not agreeing that everything we've done in Iraq has been handled in the best way, but they were clearly a threat, and were definately supporting terrorism.

*Looks at thread subject, reads post above, reads CIA report debunking WMD and Al-Qaida links. Nods approvingly*

 

[DCharlie]

"I can't believe people are naive enough to think he actually destroyed his stockpiles and was no longer seeking WMD."

People who are naive = at least 1 billion+ $ investigation headed by the US, the US weapons inspectors, the UN weapons inspectors. No longer seeking WMDs - well, you can paint this anyway, but i'd say it would be naive to think that he didn't want them...

Actually, looking at the way the US dealt with Iraq and how they dealt with N Korea, the US has sent out a strong message : If you are going to try and get WMDs, you better get them before we can find out about it and you better make sure they really ARE capable of reaching the US.

Remember - within 45 minutes, Iraq could have launched a devestating attack on the UK. Yet, knowing that they were about to get their asses kicked, they didn't bother launching this much lauded capability. Why? "oh, well he would have proved Bush right" was the rational at the time... but if he had them and was going to use them, why the feck didn't he? I doubt he could give a flying f*ck about what the world thinks of him - i'm pretty sure if he had these WMDs , he would have used them in the fight.

I've always had trouble with this rational - Saddam is developing WMDs etc to wipe out UK/US/Israel or whoever, yet none were deployed in the war. Funny that. It's almost like he didn't actually have any.

Also, Bush made it clear that the burden to prove WMDs lack of existance was on Iraqi... can we just take a moment to retrospectively apprecaite how retarded this is?

Random shout out :
Hey Bishop... prove to me that you don't have a pet lion....

If i want to be a total arsehole, there is no way you can prove you don't have one.

"He was aiding and embedding terrorists. Osama Bin-Laden even announced himself that Al Queda would use Iraq as their new battle ground for terrorism. "

Given the change in situation , that's true that Iraq is the new battlefield. But that in no way shows any link between Al Queda , Saddam and the pre-invasion iraq.

"I'm not agreeing that everything we've done in Iraq has been handled in the best way, but they were clearly a threat, and were definately supporting terrorism."

Yes, i agree - vs. Israel for sure. But this was painted as a massive threat against the US, which it seems clear now was a load of horse shit.

 

[Triumph]

People forget that Saddam Hussein was paying suicide bombers to kill Israelites. I can't believe people are naive enough to think he actually destroyed his stockpiles and was no longer seeking WMD. He was aiding and embedding terrorists. Osama Bin-Laden even announced himself that Al Queda would use Iraq as their new battle ground for terrorism.
I'm not agreeing that everything we've done in Iraq has been handled in the best way, but they were clearly a threat, and were definately supporting terrorism.

You're a prime example. Every report that has come out states that SADDAM HAD NO WMD, NO TIES TO AL QAEDA AND NO HAND IN THE PLOTTING OF 9/11.

Was he a scumsucking sociopath? Sure, but plenty of countries are run by scumsucking sociopaths... North Korea, all the "stan" countries(Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc), Azerbaijan, the Sudan is in the middle of a fucking genocide. Oh yeah, the US is run by some pretty unsavory fucks as well.

But yeah. Saddam was such a threat with his NO wmds, his non-existant ties to Al Qaeda, and his strong military in spite of the sanctions(that were working, duh) that it's a miracle we steamrolled through to Baghdad as fast we did. Uh, no it's not. His country was fucking GUTTED. This was an act of Empiricism and Nation Building, no matter the justification our Brave Leaders want to stamp it with.

And let's go back further, buddy. Why was Saddam allowed to become the threat he did and invade Kuwait back in 90? Well, it could have something to do with all of the aid, training and chemicals that the Reagan and Bush Administrations gave him to fight Iran. And we wonder why the world hates us. We prop up a shitty dictator with one hand then knock him down with the other. Manuel Noriega, anyone? But of course we're bringing freedom to these countries. What are you, some sort of terrorist loving liberal freak?

FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

Oh, and if Iraq has become a hotspot for fundamental Islamic terrorism, it's directly attributable to our stupid invasion and hamfisted occupation. Osama bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere laughing at our dumb asses.

 

[DCharlie]

"Oh, and if Iraq has become a hotspot for fundamental Islamic terrorism, it's directly attributable to our stupid invasion and hamfisted occupation. Osama bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere laughing at our dumb asses."

I always had the image of one of Bin Ladens aides telling OBL about the invasion of Iraq and the whole lot of them falling around laughing at how retarded it was.

As someone else put it, it was akin to attacking Mexico in retaliation for Pearl Harbour.

 

[KingV]

The same 9/11 report that concludes that Saddam did not in fact have WMD claims that he had every intention of renewing his weapons programs as soon as sanctions were lifted. He did and intended to maintain the capability to quickly reinstate development of WMD as soon as the time came where he could get away with it. Is that enough to go to War with him? Eh, I don't really know myself. You can argue that it meant that UN inspections and sanctions were working, or you could argue that eventually inspections or sanctions would have to end and thus then the programs would fail.

 

[ShadowRed]

People forget that Saddam Hussein was paying suicide bombers to kill Israelites. I can't believe people are naive enough to think he actually destroyed his stockpiles and was no longer seeking WMD. He was aiding and embedding terrorists. Osama Bin-Laden even announced himself that Al Queda would use Iraq as their new battle ground for terrorism.
I'm not agreeing that everything we've done in Iraq has been handled in the best way, but they were clearly a threat, and were definately supporting terrorism.

No he fucking wasn't. He was paying the families of people who were suicide bombers money. He did not actively recruite or offer money to people so that they would blow themselves up. You know this to be true. The Republicans have been dancing around this thrying to make it seem as if Saddam was indeed paying suicide bombers, but none have decided to openly lie as you just have.

 

[Zaptruder]

It's extremely disappointing that America has so many people that 'bury their head in the sand' so to speak.

But it's scary that they're so many facists... i mean hardcore republicans that will support Bush in everything he does. Regardless of what he does; they'll find some way to spin in positively. And everything that the opposition does, some way to spin it negatively. And not just for the benefit of people that don't agree with them, but to keep themselves believing.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

He was aiding and embedding terrorists.

"abetting". The work you are looking for is "abetting". Embedding... :lol

 

[maharg]

No he fucking wasn't. He was paying the families of people who were suicide bombers money. He did not actively recruite or offer money to people so that they would blow themselves up. You know this to be true. The Republicans have been dancing around this thrying to make it seem as if Saddam was indeed paying suicide bombers, but none have decided to openly lie as you just have.

Er, to be fair, I think the difference is academic. How do you pay someone for successfuly committing a suicide bombing BESIDES paying the people they leave behind?

 

[MadOdorMachine]

Here's some links and quotes -
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49462,00.html

Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Here's some links and quotes -
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

When this story was new it was discussed here. But since it's been over two weeks, is still exclusive to cnsnews.com, and is information one would think the current administration would love to point to, there is doubt about its veracity.

 

[The Shadow]

When this story was new it was discussed here. But since it's been over two weeks, is still exclusive to cnsnews.com, and is information one would think the current administration would love to point to, there is doubt about its veracity.

It's still exclusive because of the liberal media conspiracy.

 

[ShadowRed]

Er, to be fair, I think the difference is academic. How do you pay someone for successfuly committing a suicide bombing BESIDES paying the people they leave behind?

Wait so if I have a friend who goes out and does something wrong like rob someone or kill them and cops come and lock him up or worse kill him and I take pity on his family and help them out finacialy the cps should come and arrest me for aiding and abetting, please. I'm sure Saddam wasn't broken up over the fact that Isrealies were getting killed I suicde attacks but he wasn't recruiting the Palistinians to do it as you were suggesting. He offered money to the families of the bombers. The distinction is a little more than "academic."

 

[videogamer]

When this story was new it was discussed here. But since it's been over two weeks, is still exclusive to cnsnews.com, and is information one would think the current administration would love to point to, there is doubt about its veracity.

Yeah we would like to wait out on this one. A poster already posted this a while back, but if it's true then the other media outlets would catch onto it sooner or later.

BTW: I've been told that if you had to be in a -Stan, Kyrgyzstan would be the one to be in.

 

[Santo]

This was an act of Empiricism and Nation Building.

This sentence DEFINES the Iraq war. And I'd place all my bets on the above statement coming back to seriously bite us [the United States] in the ass big time later down the road.

 

[BorkBork]

Wow, any Canadians out there that is watching the Passionate Eye documentary, The World According to Bush?

http://chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/display.php3?article_id=109628

Some new stuff, not too surprising, and no emotional heartstring tugging like Farenheit 9/11, just commentary from

-Robert STEELE , CIA, covert operations

-Michael LEDEEN, former advisor to Reagan

-David FRUM, President Bush's speechwriter

Wow, learning more about what they did to Joe Wilson makes me sick...leaking spy info of his wife.. No wonder Jon Stewart called Novak a douchebag!

 

[Xenon]

 

[Azih]

Oh screw that xenon, If the reason the U.S invaded Iraq was to prevent mass graves than

A) The U.S should be invading Sudan RIGHT NOW
B) The U.S should have invaded Rwanada
C) The U.S should have invaded Iraq IN THE EIGHTIES WHEN THE MASS GRAVES WERE BEING CREATED

Edit: you know the eighties, back when Saddam was the West's bestest buddy. AND EVERYBODY KNEW HE WAS GASSING HIS OWN PEOPLE.

 

[Fresh Prince]

It's extremely disappointing that America has so many people that 'bury their head in the sand' so to speak.

As opposed to Australians that believe that intrest rates are soley dependant on Government Policy?
As opposed to Australians that believe that the 'Free Trade Agreement' was 'just' rewards for involvment in Iraq.
As opposed to Australians that believe that short term Economics outweigh the long term Enviromental needs for Australia?
Etc etc....

 

[Chrono]

AND EVERYBODY KNEW HE WAS GASSING HIS OWN PEOPLE.

THEM EYERANIANS AYATOLLAHS DID IT!!1!

 

[Nerevar]

As opposed to Australians that believe that intrest rates are soley dependant on Government Policy?
As opposed to Australians that believe that the 'Free Trade Agreement' was 'just' rewards for involvment in Iraq.
As opposed to Australians that believe that short term Economics outweigh the long term Enviromental needs for Australia?
Etc etc....

You're going to find your share of idiots no matter where you are in the world, the problem is the idiots in the United States just have a lot more power than the idiots everywhere else.

 

[Hitokage]

This was an act of Empiricism and Nation Building, no matter the justification our Brave Leaders want to stamp it with.

I think you mean "Imperialism".

 

[xsarien]

Missed the news that the mass graves weren't nearly as big as the "coalition" said they were, didn't you?

Doesn't make it any less grim, but like everything else about Iraq, their scope was severely exaggerated.

 

[Loki]

I think you mean "Imperialism".

Heh, I was going to post that, but then I felt like it would make me a WHORE.


Good to see that you felt no such compunction.

 

[Fresh Prince]

You're going to find your share of idiots no matter where you are in the world, the problem is the idiots in the United States just have a lot more power than the idiots everywhere else.

That's what I alluded to in my orginal post (well the first half anyway). Anyway I wouldn't call the idiots more like short-sighted.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

Sorry about that source, I thought it was CBS. The fact remains that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Whether or not we had to go to war as quickly as we did is debatable, but unfortunately we don't know what the government knows. It's clear to me though that another resolution would not have worked. Saddam had defied resolutions that were already in place for 11 years. They were a threat, and as aweful as it is, I agree with President Bush in that it's better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than in the US or even one of our allies countries. Why is it so hard for some of you to believe this? Saddam is not a dumb guy, and probably had several plans in order to hide all of this. We've already found alot of weapons burried in the desert, just not WMD. It was just reported 3 1/2 hours ago that Saddams loyalists are funding the insurgents and probably helping terrorists as well. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that these guys want kill Americans and our allies. Open up your eyes!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/22/iraq.main/index.html

 

[xsarien]

Sorry about that source, I thought it was CBS. The fact remains that Saddam Hussein was a threat.

A fact that has yet to be proven, but don't let that stop you.

 

[Azih]

It was just reported 3 1/2 hours ago that Saddams loyalists are funding the insurgents and probably helping terrorists as well.

How in HELL did you get 'probably helping terrorists as well' out of that news article? HOW? HOWWWWW?

 

[Xenon]

Hey when did I say that was the only reason... or even the main one. I'm just pointing out the one-sided circle jerk that has been going on in this forum. Do we really need 12+ posts a day from the same perspective? I swear if anyone other than Ripclaw, Cooter or the usual Bush followers posted a negative post on Kerry I would fucking have a heart attack. Actually I dont even think they do that. The just try to defend their postion in threads.

I like the comic because it shows the how people will focus on a single fact and ignore everything else.

I have always said that Bush used the WMD as a scare tactic. When I saw Powell go through the list I was thinking "are you fucking kidding me, that’s all you got." But I didn't think we needed the WMD excuse to go in in the first place. We had ten years of defiling his agreement with the UN. This is the same UN who had its strongest members take a moral stand against any action against Saddam while having their corrupt little hands in Iraq’s cookie jar. (Side note: I love how John K said he’d wait until he had a full coalition which would have NEVER happened.)

I think for me it comes down to the fact that I think containment is a failed practice. This is even more true when those enforcing the sanctions are corrupt. Its goal is to encourage change in government policies. But it really is just a waiting game where the only real losers are the people.

Had the UN met its obligation to agree enforce the treaty they agreed upon this war would have been a lot different or maybe would not have happened at all. Saddam had bought his votes in the UN and that made him think he would not be attacked. But all it did was open the door for GWB to say 'Ok if you refuse to endorse any action to enforce the treaty then we will just go without you.' All the big players had a hand in this situation. But just as usual people want to fault the one who wanted to do something about it.


VOTE OR DIE
BLOOD FOR OIL
AVENGING HIS DADDY
NATION BUILDING!

These are just easy to digest one sided slogans which insult anyone who knows that this is one big cluster fuck where everyone’s dick is dirty.

 

[xsarien]

I have always said that Bush used the WMD as a scare tactic. When I saw Powell go through the list I was thinking "are you fucking kidding me, that’s all you got." But I didn't think we needed the WMD excuse to go in in the first place.

By that assertion, you should also agree that given that logic, Iraq shouldn't have been a priority. Scoffing at UN resolutions doesn't make you a threat.

 

[Triumph]

I think you mean "Imperialism".

Yeah, well, I'm like drunk, man.

 

[Azih]

I like the comic because it shows the how people will focus on a single fact and ignore everything else.

Straw man. People on this forums have more than a 'single fact' of issues with the invasion of Iraq unlike that LIBRUL in that comic.

No WMD, No link to 9/11, No link to Al-Qaeda, Faulty intelligence, The inherent hypocrisy of villifying Saddam for doing things that he did when he was an important ally, insulting the abilites of UN inspectors when they weren't finding the WMD, forcing the U.N inspectors out of Iraq when they wanted to stay.

That's not to mention lack of exit strategy, completely failing to recognize the difficulties of stablising Iraq, not commiting enough troops, failiure to stop looting, misleading the American public on how hard the whole process would be, completely incompetent handling of Al-Sadr.

And your conspiracy theory of how everybody in the U.N was being paid off by Saddam doesn't hold water as it doesn't account for the sheer amount of resistance to American diplomacy (And good lord, can you not see how GWB is the worst diplomat ever to hold the office of President of the United States?), can't you acknowledge that? And for pete's sake, Canada and Mexico opposed the U.S, both of these nations are completely dependent on American's good will for their economic well being, they had nothing to gain by opposing the U.S and a fair bit to gain by backing the U.S up (for one thing the U.S wouldn't have to resort to bringing up Poland). Have you forgotten how completely arrogant Bush was in the run up to the war?

These are just easy to digest one sided slogans which insult anyone who knows that this is one big cluster fuck where everyone’s dick is dirty.

NOBODY here is pretending that Saddam was innocent, OR that France is some bastion of decency, that these players 'dicks are not dirty'. THE PROBLEM is that there ARE a lot of posters who refuse to admit that America's dick is dirty as well.

 

[Makura]

:lol

 

[GG-Duo]

There are two issues here:

1.) Did the Bush Administration lie, or knowingly ignore facts, about the Weapons of Mass Destruction?
2.) Was the invasion of Iraq a "just" course of action?

Do not get them mixed up.
These are two seperate things, and one does not cancel out the other.
The right & left might disagree over the second question - but to hear an invasion supporter say "Oh Bush lied? Well Saddam was an evil man" is just absolutely fucking absurd.

 

[Xenon]

Straw man?

Please, if you think that everyone here is trying to see the whole picture your kidding yourself. I brought up WMDs because it was the main selling point and its the first thing out of people's mouths when they are trying to denonce it. The faulty intelligence is part of the WMD argument.

When we went to war with Iraq no one was saying they were responsible for 9/11. They were saying that if this mission was a success it would be a major victory to help fight terror which is a 100% correct.

As far as failures in planning I agree things were handled poorly. But how do you know under Kerry things would have been any better?


I love the looting argument. We cant even stop looting during a simple sporting event. You expect them to do it under all the chaos of war? The only way they could have prevented is by force in which people would get hurt. Then you would say “look they hurt civilians" Its a lose- lose situation. I'd much rather see property damage than people getting killed.

I'll even address the why didn't we finish Afghanistan, first. Because, it had no chance of becoming a self sustaining nation in the next 10 years. Due to its oil and infrastructure, Iraq can.


oh yeah, Canada and Mexico? Why would they vote for war? They are like the freshman at the senior’s party and just go with the flow. If France, Germany, Russia signed on they would have followed.

The right & left might disagree over the second question - but to hear an invasion supporter say "Oh Bush lied? Well Saddam was an evil man" is just absolutely fucking absurd.

Its just as bad to say no WMD = unjustified war and Bush is a evil man.


I agree that the Bush administration fucked up on how they sold this action to the world and the American people. I’m really pissed about that. And if the dems had someone I could trust I would probably vote for them. I just think Kerry is just playing on the current anti war sentiment. If the exact same conditions existed and the majority of Americans were for the war Kerry would be singing its praises. Kerry to me seems like the kind of a guy who just tells you what you want to hear. I HATE people like that.

 

[nathkenn]

um iraq under saddam was a secular state that was not friends with those terrorist groups, now that we've distabilized the country it's a terror wonderland

I didnt really think much of kerry either until i listened to an interesting thing on npr about his protests of the vietnam war, he gave some really cool speaches

 

[maharg]

Wait so if I have a friend who goes out and does something wrong like rob someone or kill them and cops come and lock him up or worse kill him and I take pity on his family and help them out finacialy the cps should come and arrest me for aiding and abetting, please. I'm sure Saddam wasn't broken up over the fact that Isrealies were getting killed I suicde attacks but he wasn't recruiting the Palistinians to do it as you were suggesting. He offered money to the families of the bombers. The distinction is a little more than "academic."

As *I* was suggesting? Excuse me? Maybe you should watch who you're talking to. I take issue with your logic here, not with your point, and I'm not the person you were arguing with.

If you want to go the analogy route, if I see you do a good act for someone, or for myself, like say returning my wallet to me, and I give you some money as a reward, am I paying you for doing it? Maybe not, but I do think the difference is academic. You provided a service, and I provided money. That's an exchange. That I didn't ask you to look for my wallet first doesn't change that.

You seem to be saying that because the person is dead, and it's the family that gets the money, it's not an exchange. This is circular, since the person doing it is dead because of the very act for which they are being paid. Saddam could no more pay them than he you could pay your hypothetical convict after needle's been put in his arm.

The subject is brought up as an indictment of Saddam's actions. To suggest that Saddam's motivation was simply to support a family that has been victimized by the actions of a black sheep seems a bit absurd. I am no supporter of the war or of bush, but this line of reasoning is troubling.

oh yeah, Canada and Mexico? Why would they vote for war? They are like the freshman at the senior’s party and just go with the flow. If France, Germany, Russia signed on they would have followed.

I'm sorry, but fuck you. Canada has, if anything, traditionally been one of the first minor nations to sign on for wars for ideological reasons. Our contributions may not be huge, but Canada has never been afraid of sending our troops where they're needed, and that includes to Afghanistan, even as we have issues at home with our troops being underfunded.

 

[duderon]

Kerry to me seems like the kind of a guy who just tells you what you want to hear. I HATE people like that.

What the fuck is this? You cannot assume something like this if you don't know the individual. These assumptions about Kerry are ludicrous and i'm baffled when people say things like "Kerry looks dishonest", "I don't trust Kerry" or "Bush is an honest man".

The blatant irony in this statement is that Bush is telling you exactly what you want to hear while in fact the opposite is true (the economy is doing well, iraq is going well, etc.). Your judgement on the candidates' character should not influence how you vote.

 

[videogamer]

oh yeah, Canada and Mexico? Why would they vote for war? They are like the freshman at the senior’s party and just go with the flow. If France, Germany, Russia signed on they would have followed.

Oh man. :seethes with anger:

 

[duderon]

I disagree. I think it's all about character. Character, to me, is more important than a candidate's plan for the future-- the plan tells you what they intend to do, their character tells you what they will do.

When character attacks come into play, though, like the swift boat ads against Kerry,voters start to believe that he is a dishonest person. While on the other hand voters believe GWB is a strong man that is unwavering and steadfast. Neither of these character traits are necessarily true, but the media and partisan groups bludgeon this into the mind of the average american to the point where they don't care about the facts, they only care that Kerry is a flip-flopper and Bush is gonna kill all the terriss.

The reason i believe the voter shouldn't choose a candidate based on character is because i don't believe it is possible to know the truth about either candidates character when the general media is assigning traits to each candidate, regardless of who they really are.

 

[GG-Duo]

Its just as bad to say no WMD = unjustified war and Bush is a evil man.

Hrmm... Well, I think there's a context.
People who say that are usually trying to use Bush's own logic against him. ie. "You say the WMDs justify it. Well, they aren't there, so by your own logic the war is not justifiable."

Anti-war people have more arguments than that. [death, focus away from Terror, worse threats in the world, already on sanctions, will create more anger in Middle East, sets example of pre-emptive strike...]

 

[Xenon]

I'm sorry, but fuck you. Canada has, if anything, traditionally been one of the first minor nations to sign on for wars for ideological reasons. Our contributions may not be huge, but Canada has never been afraid of sending our troops where they're needed, and that includes to Afghanistan, even as we have issues at home with our troops being underfunded.

Ok I deserved that =P Its was a stupid attempt at a shot. But I still think that had France and the other signed up Canada would have gone along. Bush ignoring the UN is one of the main reasons we currently have such a low standing with other countries. That had a lot to do with who signed up to help once the war started.

What the fuck is this? You cannot assume something like this if you don't know the individual. These assumptions about Kerry are ludicrous and i'm baffled when people say things like "Kerry looks dishonest", "I don't trust Kerry" or "Bush is an honest man".

WTF do you think I formed my opinion off of looks? One of the main problems I have with Kerry is how his public distain for the war has grown in the last 6 months matching the public outcry. I would have more respect for him if he was leading the charge instead of following it. That does not give me a lot of faith in his leadership ability.

 

[Hitokage]

WTF do you think I formed my opinion off of looks? One of the main problems I have with Kerry is how his public distain for the war has grown in the last 6 months matching the public outcry. I would have more respect for him if he was leading the charge instead of following it. That does not give me a lot of faith in his leadership ability.

And what information are you basing this evaluation on?