Justice

WORST JOKE EVER.

Yes, and they were wrong. Yet you remain gung ho for a pile of "leaders" who haven't a fucking clue what they are doing? C'mon pop tart even YOU can do better than that. Wow, that's all you have? Really? Seriously, fucking consider what the evidence was before you write it off. A decade of inspections, continually turning up more and more weapons that Iraq supposedly didn't have. Conflicting reports from the Iraqi government on how much weapons they had, oddly lower now that we are putting inspectors on the ground. Multiple intelligence agencies with intelligence confirming they are there. UN Reports confirming the belief that weapons are still there. You can say "Oh, but we know now!" but you couldn't before. Until after the war, there was little (NoCal, there very, very little. Find me it if you can, but there was pretty much a unanimous agreement that there were at least some weapons there) in the way of "No weapons!" Jesus, if you can't figure out and work past the basic psychology concept of "Hindsight Bias", then you are a hopeless dolt.

Just like to point out that this documentray was critically acclaimed by both left and right in the U.K. when it was first shown. That description is a bit erroneus, didn't really sum up the program properly I would hope that's true, because that description is just slathered in bias. And at least Jobber agrees with me.

Isn't that my line? I haven't posted in CE regularly enough to know if it was or not, but let's not let our disagreement get in the way of the fact that CheesalaIsGood is a terrible poster. Fair enough.

My only real problem with your entire post is your two articles: Wikpedia is one of the worst sources on the entire net. Just a few days ago, one of my friend's played a joke on me, so I listed him as one of the "See Also" entries under 'Douche'. It was certainly hilarious, but it just shows that there's little in the way of safeguards protecting them. That and your article is, well, not written by the most 'open-minded' of people. I'll put it that way nicely. Allawi's involvement with the CIA doesn't bother me that much. Most exiled leadership works with the CIA because they probably have the best links into a country that's closed down. Would it surprise you that Charles DeGaulle helped out with our early Intelligence system? I don't think he was that much of a puppet. CIA involvement =/= Puppet, it just means that's where they've helped out. Anyways, perhaps you aren't a yuppie, but you really have to get XM or something because bitching about what's on Talk Radio is becoming a bad cliche. You don't want to come off like Cheesala, do you?

No offense, but I really get the feeling that you bundle up every conservative out there with this "Conservative Blowhard" idea. Do I know a lot of Conservatives hoping for a good turnout in the election coming up? Yeah, a bunch of us are. We do want to come out with some good in this entire situation over there. I don't think there's a worry of Bush getting 'credit' from the Dem's, to be honest. You are just twisting motives so you can make some attack on the right. I honestly can't see where this whole situation is starting up other than you starting it up yourself. And, frankly, you don't come off as anything other than some simple yuppie Dem who can't find anything else to do than just listen to talk radio and bitch about it all day. Do you honestly have a topic around here that DOESN'T start with something you heard on Talk Radio? There's a very long way to go. First steps should be praised. To continually bitch about something not being done that is going to take a long, long time is a fairly pointless gesture, in my opinion. The puppet argument is a straw man: Whoever is favorable to the US in the slightest will be labelled a 'puppet'. If you can honestly give me a real critera for a guy who won't be some sort of 'puppet of the US', please do because I can't see what will suffice for you. All in all, it's okay to be realistic, but frankly you guys expect everything to be completely perfect and done in months. Things take time, please understand this.

Oh, bitch bitch bitch. Seriously, do you get everything from RW Radio? Lord, I try not to look at Aaron Brown and the staff at the NYT when it comes to the Lib point of view. Anyways, of course it's not about getting Bush credit, but you are side-stepping the problem: If they do well, shouldn't Bush get at least some credit for starting Iraq on the path to Democracy? Or is it too much to give a "Right-Winger" credit? And nice way to stereotype us into never giving credit to any Dems. I respect Clinton for a bunch of things, probably foremost his reform of welfare, his help in Balancing the Budget, and most of his work with Israel and Palestine. Jeez, I never give credit out, do I? Pot, kettle. And if everything goes as planned? Seriously, overgeneralizing every point and basing just about everything on weak assumptions does not a salient argument make. Huh? A working democracy doesn't validate what we've been doing? If that's so, then what would in your mind?

First off, more young people did vote in the election. Problem was a ton more people just voted in general. Secondly, what the fuck happened to your name?

I don't and never have given a shit about John Kerry. Find a post where I supported him. Go ahead and look. Thing is, when I put words in the rights mouth it is shit they have already spit. Oh God ye thy name is Hannity. Finally! You can think what you want about the validity of the things I post. I stayed on topic til you Justice tried to make the issue about ME rather than the film. I'll leave the reason up to you. You didn't make it about the film, you made it a cheap potshot! Jesus, bitchign about Rush and wondering "When this guy will be called 'unpatriotic'?" doesn't constitute substance. It was on topic until you brought it onto you obsessive whining about Conservatives calling people unpatriotic! How the hell is your original post even on-topic? Lord, you didn't even pull the 'change the quote' game right because you quoted yourself.

Isn't that my line?

I wonder how long you can go between posts that have a legitmate point rather than simply bitching about Rush all the time. You do plenty of bitching yourself sweetheart. Aww, I'm your sweetheart now? You bitch. NoCal, Jobber, hell, even C-Bacon (however deluded they are), present other points. You don't. You bitch. You add nothing to this topic besides cheap potshots at "OMG CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO~!@~#". Please, don't try to confuse yourself with anything remotely intelligent around here.

I wonder how long you can go between posts that have a legitmate point rather than simply bitching about Rush all the time.

If it comes to my town, I might see it (Since it'd be free with college stuff) but if not... I might D/l it, just to give it a shot. I'd like to see this all moves in, and I really want to see how he handles the "The offensive is stalled, we are losing ground" call by whoever that was early on. Overall, though, I might check it out. And wow, what crap that BBC documentary looks like. So did the BBC become horribly biased while I wasn't watching or...?

I agree (I was always more for the "We need to finally fix what we left" group), but I'd argue that believing in something that was purported for almost a decade and was confirmed by many outside sources is a bit more understandable a mistake than immediately taking a few unconfirmed reports as immediate truth.

Arguably the mounds of intelligence we had and 12 years of inspection would go further than hersay, but...

wtf and such. Obviously nothing is proven until it's proven, but like you said, this needs to be investigated. If it's just a semantics issue over the word "proof," fine, but those dismissing this entirely are being really naive. He said it needs to be investigated, but his qualm is the premature damning of people with unconfirmed accounts of torture.

Only problem I have with the legalization of all drugs is, well, how does Cocaine and other processed drugs pass the FDA? Pot is grown, so whatever. But while I'm not for the mass prosecution of them, I think that we can't just legalize it all.

WHOOSH~!

I think, arguably, it's driving under any mind-altering drug. But still, the point stands that this is pretty damn disturbing stuff.

Nope, nope, nope. The resolution didn't say the US was obligated to execute the punishments if the resolution wasn't followed. Talk all day about UN ineffectiveness if you please, but do not try and back up Bush's war by saying he was simply holding up the word of the UN. Do not spit in their eye and then say that you're doing them a favor. Don't spit in their eye and say we are doing them a favor? I never knew we couldn't reprimand them for not following through with what they were supposed to and just go off and do the damn job ourselves. The UN talks big, but they lack the balls to follow that talk with action. I don't see any problem with that at all. What B.S. They could have easily stood by with the Rhineland Coalition if they wanted. You're just trying to figure out a way to say we bullied they guys into siding with us, which isn't the case. OMFGWTFBBQ

Hypocritical????? Are you suggesting the U.S. is a tyrannical, terrorist state? You really don't read anything he posts, do you?

These aren't all US forces, a lot of them have to do with those Iraqi police we've trained, too. And it's not like you need to see pictures of someone being violated to add legitimacy to a flood of complaints. We didn't see Saddam's torture rooms, but we knew they were there. Actually, uh, yeah we did, just so you know.

Oh good Lord, if the connections were there, they should be mentioned. It's not Bush's fault that the respective groups have had a dozen or so respective meetings in the recent past. This is a contradiction: We never violated any UN Resolution by going in. The UN was violating it's own by NOT acting. They were supposed to act long before this and always failed to do so. Plus, you act as the UN was one unified body, when it was really the Rhineland States in greatest opposition to all this, with Russia and China. We had the support of most of Europe when we first initiated this action, and outside of Spain leaving, we still do. The UN is a body that lacks the power or the sheer balls to act on it's own "Strong Words". They should have taken care of this a long time ago, like... oh, I dunno... 1998? So is the idea that we have to follow the UN, yet ignore the evidence they've brought forth for years upon years. Or how about pledging action without ever committing any? Seriously, the hypocracy belongs to the UN for never practicing what they preach and actually solving anything. Perhaps if they got off their high-horse and realized that they are a joke to anyone who they might have to deal with they would change, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

If only we used this legal doctrine ALL the time. Seriously, there is a difference between lacking proof on a theory, and lacking proof on an accusation. With one, it doesn't matter. With the other, it's the basis for the entire thing.