Looks like that body count page sure is a credible source... I am suprised that they don't have little pink piggys flying around that page... Sure you aren't reading the Muslims wake up page a little to much??

muslims

That's not a biased source...

Sky....


This is way too easy!!!

Yes pretty easy when you never have to prove or disprove anything nor offer any signs of intelligence. It's called escaping from reality.

Pmartin, that may very well be a biased source, but I don't see you caring enough about the deaths of thousands of civilians of a different faith from you to try and refute it.

What exactly are you calling easy? You mean the use of smilies as a means for "proving" you're right and someone else is wrong?

I was willing to give you a shot at intelligent discourse to prove you've earned the right to call someone ELSE stupid. I figured it was the least I could do since you were so insulted when someone else questioned your intelligence.

So far I haven't seen much proof. Can't you do better than smilies?

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=949

Also, ABC News poll shows 60% disaprove of an additional $87 billion.

And I thought most of the ers
were getting there info from the National Enquirer or the Globe.

Next target:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97472,00.html

Think this time they will provide evidence first?

Caring...That's funny...Take a look in the mirror

Saddam 400,000 deaths of innocent people in 15 years. Oh ya...Not all Muslims either..

Me and many others very glad the US had the gonads to step in and do something about it.....Priceless...or at least $87Bil

You and the few others that think " we should just sit back and wait a little longer" well, NUTZ. We waited 12 of those years. Could have saved around 300,000 lives. Would some lives be lost in the fighting...Yes. According to your way of thinking we should have just talked to Hitler about that gassing thing he was doing right?? We didn't, were there lives lost in battle there...Yes. According to your way of thinking maybe 12 more years of talking to Saddam would have saved those 8K (according to your reliable source) lives right....Don't think so. He is a bad egg and needed to be gone along with his cronies. Is the US going about it exactly the right way? I can't say for sure but at least we are doing something... And I believe that in the end when all is said and done...the people that you say I care nothing about, will be better off... Your plan will have them still dying under a ruthless dictator...

Quite ASSuming you joker you...Talk about sounding irrational and foolish....Sheesh

This is really pointless that this needs to even be explained to you... But, I guess with your superior intellect you probably still wont get it. I had to put this into laymen's terms... Will you be able understand this dribble... I tried for the last time...

I am sure with your superior investigative techniques you will be able to prove the numbers provided rather quickly...

PMartin, I have not heard anyone who has opposed Pres. Bush on this one try to make the arguement that Sadaam was not anything but a brutal dictator. I certainly feel that way. However, that was not the arguement that the Administration used to justify this war. The reasons I remember were:

Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US safety and securtiy because of WMD.

Iraq deserved to be paid back because of involvement with 9/11.

Now, I think the question on the table is why did the Administration not use the arguement that you outlined in your post. After all, it was well known that Sadaam was a brutal dictator, a devil on earth. Why didn't President Bush use that arguement? Why did his administration feel that it was necessary to use the other arguements? Arguements by their very nature required a substantial degree of risk that the "facts" would not be proven. This is the part that confounds me. I can't figure out what the game is. Oil? - possible, paying back Sadaam for what happened with his Dad? - possible. What am I missing? Do you think that the Administration had an internal arguement that they said the American people would not accept the arguement that we needed to get rid of Sadaam because he was a creep? Do you think that they thought the only way to sell this war was to scare the American public? Or do you think that they were hesitant to open the Pandora's box of removing the head of another sovereign state as justification for war? After all, that is a two way street, if N. Korea thought that the President of the US was a devil on earth and they had the power to take him out, would they be justified in doing so? My fervent hope is that you would answer no. If so, I would then ask you to examine your post again and see if you can see the Pandora's box that it opens.

Pmartin, you consistently make the same statements, over and over, and expect us to eventually agree. Has anyone ever told you that repeating the same act over and over again and expecting different results is universally accepted in the psychiatric community as neurotic behavior?

I don't take nearly as much issue with your politics as I do your belligerence, which is followed by whining because someone pulls the same act on you. As soon as someone calls bull**** on any of your comments you call them a Bush basher, a Clinton lover, a left winger, or something else equally as trite.

How do you treat the people you meet face-to-face whose views on politics differ from yours?

What if he tells you the Easter Bunny is making a special stop by your house to deliver some yummy candy?


KIDDING

No, all the whiners are being told what to think by Drudge and Coulter. Neocons don't like fact-based information - it only confuses their programming.

eddie - good questions and points. Wolfowitz admitted on "Face the Nation" (I believe) a couple months ago that the administration settled on WMDs as the reason to invade. Evidently, by his account, the administration couldn't all agree on a single reason at first.

Personally, I think the humanitarian issue is a load of bunk. I don't believe anyone could have cared any less how the Iraqi people were living 10 months ago. Americans were only concerned with the "imminent danger" they were convinced to fear. If it's truly humanitarian issues we're fighting for, there are far worse off people than Iraq.

As a matter of fact, I don't believe the Iraqi border was closed, so why didn't all those oppressed people leave? They did in '91 - why'd they go back?

I nominate DanS for funniest post of the year...

Thank you, thank you

I'll be here all the week........

hehe... Pmartin, you sure are a funny one!!

So theres what, 20k people injured as collateral damage... which basically means accidentally in the intent to harm the enemy...

Now you look at the people that Saddam was killing... on purpose... cold blooded... or the prisoners his son would shoot to free up prison space....

Personally, if I lived under a dictator like Saddam (thank God I dont), I wouldn't mind having a bomb dropped on me if it was to help take out a military target as well.... I have a few lines I thought about adding to back that up, but I'll wait.

Curtis

BigBadBVD's-

...so you are saying basically that innocent Iraqi families should be grateful their loved are dead....right?

...because they are free from the binds of an evil dictator?

I hope Bushy comes with that argument during his campaign for reelection...

Skywalker, calling the kettle black huh? LOL. Your a joke..

As far as face to face.... Are your panties in a bunch??? Are you displaying your hypocritical tendencies? If you are threatening me my email is on my profile maybe you would like to clarify what you are saying???

It's pretty darn obvious that in this "discussion" forum that there really isn't any discussing going on... Nobody here will agree on anything and don't have to, kind of the point.. People want to start putting up threats and beating their chest behind their keyboard does not accomplish a whole lot. It does prove what kind of person they really are though. Let's not go to war..Peace this and peace that... But, If you disagree with what I say I had better not see you on the street anywhere, better watch your back... I have met many people on this board out fishing and everyone I met seem to be real nice people. Those aren't the one's I have a problem with. There could and I am sure are a lot of psycho's out there that can turn up anywhere at any time. I take my family out fishing quit a lot with me and I don't want one of these people showing up doing who knows what while my daughter and wife are with me. Just because we have different points of view doesn't mean I want to hunt you down and beat my point of view into you. The way I see it is that if some nut case is willing to post threatening comments on a web site where everyone can see it what is that person willing to do when he doesn't put stuff up like that?

So, I will agree to disagree with some of you on this board. I don't hate you for it, heck if we all agreed on everything it sure would be a pretty boring place??

And Sky, I have a lot of friends and family that are liberal leaning people with some of your same views. I can sit face to face with them and hash this out all night with them over a couple of cold one's.... Not a real big deal...Called debating. I don't need to jump up and hit my sister or father-in-law over the head with a bat to get my point across. Maybe you do??

I am done with this thread and will not post any more on it. It was fun, got a little heated but most kept there wits about them.

Tight line's and good luck to all that will be out bangin' those Ho's this weekend.

Rob

Actually PMartian, I think what he posted was more of a question than a threat. IMO..

We lost 3,000 to collateral damage from bin Laden. He feels he's at war with Westerners so, in his mind, it was justified. However, we do not see it this way. We've gone to war with two countries over his collateral damage.

Why should the Iraqis feel any different?

Something that I keep wondering is why didn't the oppressed Iraqis leave? I can't find anything claiming the borders were closed. I haven't read accounts of mass numbers of refugees claiming political asylum. Not like North Korea, or China, or Cuba.

Another thing I question is the living conditions that have been reported by some as being so poor. I can't remember any video news coverage that depicted Iraqis wearing rags or living in mud huts. They all looked rather well dressed and well nourished.

So why didn't they leave if it was so oppressive?

I'm not defending Saddam or his actions in any way. I agree the world is better off with one less dictator.

What I'm pointing out is the rubbish of a "humanitarian" rationale for war the carbal is using now. Relatively speaking, a humanitarian issue did not exist there. Not compared to other parts of Africa.

Exactly, Rob...........I don't think we only have room for just one opinion, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that not everyone shares their opinion.

We could all stand being a little more tolerant of differing opinions, though.

To me, part of the fun of occasionally posting on political discussions is to see different points of view.

P-Martin, while I don't always agree with your posts, I know that we'll get the conservative point of view from you and look forward to your views on posts like this, especially given your service to your country in the previous Gulf War.