king Obama

[ahole-ic]

LOL @ trying to support the Saddam WMD argument in any way.

I provided rock solid proof. Lol @ you for not being informed.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

It did didn't it? I mean factually al qaeda had a presence in Iraq eventually did it not?

Your original argument is that the invasion in Iraq was justified because of this inside info that Saddam = Al Quaeda harbor-er and that he "said he had WMD's", even though he obviously didn't. What happened after we unjustly invaded doesn't mean squat. You're really reaching...or you're just trolling and making yourself look bad...either-or.

 

[ahole-ic]

Your original argument is that the invasion in Iraq was justified because of this inside info that Saddam = Al Quaeda harbor-er and that he "said he had WMD's", even though he obviously didn't. What happened after we unjustly invaded doesn't mean squat. You're really reaching...or you're just trolling and making yourself look bad...either-or.

My original argument was that you had no idea what you were talking about because Saddam was putting it out there that he had WMD, so our government didn't just make it up. He admits he wanted a holy war. al qaeda showed up. So you lied about what my argument was to save face for being proved wrong. You should stop now. You are looking hilariously bad.

Either disprove what the articles say or just stop posting. I know you won't admit you were wrong because only an honorable person would do that //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[brodeisel 10+ year member]

Tl:dr op suck mah cawk

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Dude, so you're saying a war was started because he SAID he had WMDs? The argument is there was NO PROOF when GWB and others said there was plenty.

 

[ahole-ic]

Dude, so you're saying a war was started because he SAID he had WMDs? The argument is there was NO PROOF when GWB and others said there was plenty.

There could not be proof without physically seeing them. With saddam's admissions of having them, and the UN inspectors being thwarted several times and several un resolutions being broken, it certainly looked to our government like iraq had them. For your point to have ANY credibility, the US government would have had to make it ALL up.... clearly they didn't.

 

[ahole-ic]

Also, the intelligence could have referred to this: U.N. 'finds empty warheads' - CNN who the heck knows? I haven't seen the intelligence. I just know there is plenty of evidence to show that the government didn't just make up WMD. They really thought there was some there.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

Also, the intelligence could have referred to this: U.N. 'finds empty warheads' - CNN who the heck knows? I haven't seen the intelligence. I just know there is plenty of evidence to show that the government didn't just make up WMD. They really thought there was some there.

They thought there was, but when they checked they couldn't find a damn thing besides some severely degraded uranium(I think). And you're still defending the invasion...good god, you're hopeless.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

ecrack is an appropriate name.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

Either disprove what the articles say or just stop posting.

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq | | AlterNet

 

[ahole-ic]

They thought there was, but when they checked they couldn't find a damn thing besides some severely degraded uranium(I think). And you're still defending the invasion...good god, you're hopeless.

Hindsight is 20/20. So what exactly is your argument? I don't defend that we SHOULD have done it. I am just beating back the claims that it was for no reason.... and also beating back your claims that once we found out there wasn't what we thought there was we should just leave their country in ruin when economically it is not the best for anyone involved. Make no mistake. I am not saying we should continue spending bajillions of dollars doing campaigns. They should have just maintained their bases and provided training to the Iraqis. It would have cost very little in comparison and would have greatly helped Iraq maintain its sovereignty and as a result kept an ally for us.

 

[ahole-ic]

ecrack is an appropriate name.

Like a true to form liberal, when you cannot intellectually remain in the discussion, use ad hominem attacks. Good Show!

 

[audiobaun 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/popcorn.gif.32dd9e22fd77e77bc3c907062768fcd2.gif Interesting

 

[ahole-ic]

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq | | AlterNet

What are you attempting to say with this?

 

---------- Post added at 10:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 PM ----------

 

 

[zako 10+ year member]

In short, and reading through the gobbledygook, it didn't work.

First look up what the concept of statistical significance means. Having not read the paper, I do not even argue here that the paper is wrong in any way. I do not question their results, although seeing that it's only an unpublished paper, only the test of time and peer review will tell whether their results are even correct. I am just pointing out that the results do not say anything conclusive. And this is given that they use 90% confidence interval. Look at the abstract. Like I pointed out, their findings don't seem to prove anything. Had they used 95% or 99% confidence level, their confidence interval would been even bigger.

I am sorry man, but if you have read through "the gobbledygook" and you're still convinced that it constitutes a proof that the stimulus didn't work, clearly there is no point to argue with you. You post links that clearly do not 'prove' anything, then proceed to use that as a basis to accuse others of liberal bias, lying, etc. If you want to believe what you believe, then keep doing so. I don't want to waste my braincells to continue to argue with the equivalent of stone rock.