alloak41, your post went right over his head; didn't even register.
I hope you weren't suggesting I take up more serious discussion here. What a waste of time that would be. In terms of intelligent debate, this is the low-rent district. There's nothing left to do BUT ridicule, just look around. Pages and pages of it. I do it on such a less frequent basis as a dozen others. Look at my post count. It's funny that you choose me to call out over them.
alloak has the right idea, I'm sure of it.
Have fun debating each other. 😛
[Edited on 5/28/2015 by PerryBoynton]
It's all on the record to take a look at. I guess a certain amount of personal derision and name-calling is expected.......I guess.
What wasn't as expected was, upon the election of Obama, Liberals became these self-appointed psychiatric experts. Was it around the advent of the Tea Party? Seems like it was about that point that the Left got on their "bat shet crazy whacked out GOP nut job" narrative.
Six years later it's still everywhere. Gotta love psychiatric analysis performed by people who clearly aren't qualified. Appreciate the help, but don't quit your day job.
Then read the twitter response to Obama opening a twitter account...... no bat sh!t crazy there - it must not exist.....
I hope you weren't suggesting I take up more serious discussion here. What a waste of time that would be. In terms of intelligent debate, this is the low-rent district. There's nothing left to do BUT ridicule, just look around. Pages and pages of it. I do it on such a less frequent basis as a dozen others. Look at my post count. It's funny that you choose me to call out over them.
alloak has the right idea, I'm sure of it.
Have fun debating each other. 😛
[Edited on 5/28/2015 by PerryBoynton]
It's all on the record to take a look at. I guess a certain amount of personal derision and name-calling is expected.......I guess.
What wasn't as expected was, upon the election of Obama, Liberals became these self-appointed psychiatric experts. Was it around the advent of the Tea Party? Seems like it was about that point that the Left got on their "bat shet crazy whacked out GOP nut job" narrative.
Six years later it's still everywhere. Gotta love psychiatric analysis performed by people who clearly aren't qualified. Appreciate the help, but don't quit your day job.
Let's be fair Alloak, lately you have lowered yourself to Mule's level of constantly hurling insults at liberals in general. So let's not act so pious as if you are an innocent victim in all the mudslinging that goes on here.
But since you decided to continue down that path..............You don't have to be a Psychiatrist to know many of the GOP politicians act bat sh*t crazy Alloak. All one needs to do is read the bat sh*t crazy comments they make to the press.
Sorta of like your hero Ben Carson who compares ACA to slavery, America to Nazi Germany and believes being gay is a choice because prison makes people gay.
And he is not even the craziest of them IMHO. A simple Google search will prove my point if you have any questions. Just Google "Comments by (fill in the name)" of many of the current GOP POTUS wanabees to see some of the crazy schit they say in the press.
[Edited on 5/29/2015 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 5/29/2015 by Bill_Graham]
I hope you weren't suggesting I take up more serious discussion here. What a waste of time that would be. In terms of intelligent debate, this is the low-rent district. There's nothing left to do BUT ridicule, just look around. Pages and pages of it. I do it on such a less frequent basis as a dozen others. Look at my post count. It's funny that you choose me to call out over them.
alloak has the right idea, I'm sure of it.
Have fun debating each other. 😛
[Edited on 5/28/2015 by PerryBoynton]
It's all on the record to take a look at. I guess a certain amount of personal derision and name-calling is expected.......I guess.
What wasn't as expected was, upon the election of Obama, Liberals became these self-appointed psychiatric experts. Was it around the advent of the Tea Party? Seems like it was about that point that the Left got on their "bat shet crazy whacked out GOP nut job" narrative.
Six years later it's still everywhere. Gotta love psychiatric analysis performed by people who clearly aren't qualified. Appreciate the help, but don't quit your day job.
Didn't stop you and the rest of your conservative brethren by accusing those who disagreed with you with having a "Derangement Syndrome," now did it?
Derangement - Another word for insanity.
Syndrome - A group of symptoms that consistently occur together or a condition characterized by a set of associated symptoms.
So, what's your academic pedigree, Dr. Freud?
I hope you weren't suggesting I take up more serious discussion here. What a waste of time that would be. In terms of intelligent debate, this is the low-rent district. There's nothing left to do BUT ridicule, just look around. Pages and pages of it. I do it on such a less frequent basis as a dozen others. Look at my post count. It's funny that you choose me to call out over them.
alloak has the right idea, I'm sure of it.
Have fun debating each other. 😛
[Edited on 5/28/2015 by PerryBoynton]
It's all on the record to take a look at. I guess a certain amount of personal derision and name-calling is expected.......I guess.
What wasn't as expected was, upon the election of Obama, Liberals became these self-appointed psychiatric experts. Was it around the advent of the Tea Party? Seems like it was about that point that the Left got on their "bat shet crazy whacked out GOP nut job" narrative.
Six years later it's still everywhere. Gotta love psychiatric analysis performed by people who clearly aren't qualified. Appreciate the help, but don't quit your day job.
Didn't stop you and the rest of your conservative brethren by accusing those who disagreed with you with having a "Derangement Syndrome," now did it?
Derangement - Another word for insanity.
Syndrome - A group of symptoms that consistently occur together or a condition characterized by a set of associated symptoms.
So, what's your academic pedigree, Dr. Freud?
BBA - Texas State University
I hope you weren't suggesting I take up more serious discussion here. What a waste of time that would be. In terms of intelligent debate, this is the low-rent district. There's nothing left to do BUT ridicule, just look around. Pages and pages of it. I do it on such a less frequent basis as a dozen others. Look at my post count. It's funny that you choose me to call out over them.
alloak has the right idea, I'm sure of it.
Have fun debating each other. 😛
[Edited on 5/28/2015 by PerryBoynton]
It's all on the record to take a look at. I guess a certain amount of personal derision and name-calling is expected.......I guess.
What wasn't as expected was, upon the election of Obama, Liberals became these self-appointed psychiatric experts. Was it around the advent of the Tea Party? Seems like it was about that point that the Left got on their "bat shet crazy whacked out GOP nut job" narrative.
Six years later it's still everywhere. Gotta love psychiatric analysis performed by people who clearly aren't qualified. Appreciate the help, but don't quit your day job.
Didn't stop you and the rest of your conservative brethren by accusing those who disagreed with you with having a "Derangement Syndrome," now did it?
Derangement - Another word for insanity.
Syndrome - A group of symptoms that consistently occur together or a condition characterized by a set of associated symptoms.
So, what's your academic pedigree, Dr. Freud?
BBA - Texas State University
This qualifies you to diagnose people as deranged? Or is that merely situational?
I hope you weren't suggesting I take up more serious discussion here. What a waste of time that would be. In terms of intelligent debate, this is the low-rent district. There's nothing left to do BUT ridicule, just look around. Pages and pages of it. I do it on such a less frequent basis as a dozen others. Look at my post count. It's funny that you choose me to call out over them.
alloak has the right idea, I'm sure of it.
Have fun debating each other. 😛
[Edited on 5/28/2015 by PerryBoynton]
It's all on the record to take a look at. I guess a certain amount of personal derision and name-calling is expected.......I guess.
What wasn't as expected was, upon the election of Obama, Liberals became these self-appointed psychiatric experts. Was it around the advent of the Tea Party? Seems like it was about that point that the Left got on their "bat shet crazy whacked out GOP nut job" narrative.
Six years later it's still everywhere. Gotta love psychiatric analysis performed by people who clearly aren't qualified. Appreciate the help, but don't quit your day job.
Didn't stop you and the rest of your conservative brethren by accusing those who disagreed with you with having a "Derangement Syndrome," now did it?
Derangement - Another word for insanity.
Syndrome - A group of symptoms that consistently occur together or a condition characterized by a set of associated symptoms.
So, what's your academic pedigree, Dr. Freud?
BBA - Texas State University
This qualifies you to diagnose people as deranged? Or is that merely situational?
I'm not sure I ever used that term as cited by you.
[Edited on 5/29/2015 by alloak41]
"There's a whole lot of blame to go around, and this Bush Derangement Syndrome has gotten so far out of hand!"
Do you equate the use of BDS to the Democrats labeling the entire GOP and Republicans as "crazy?" I sincerely hope not.
[Edited on 5/29/2015 by alloak41]
ok ok i can't help myself with this one....it has to be said......i apologize in advance alloak
he always thought Obama Derangement Syndrome was a compliment.
Cheney and bush were not misled by flawed. Intelligence, they used flawed intellglence to mislead.
_______________________________________________________________________
Your opinion has the quality of a fart.
Cheney and bush were not misled by flawed. Intelligence, they used flawed intellglence to mislead.
_______________________________________________________________________
Your opinion has the quality of a fart.
His "inion" happens to be fact. There were no WMD's in Iraq.
Cheney and bush were not misled by flawed. Intelligence, they used flawed intellglence to mislead.
_______________________________________________________________________
Your opinion has the quality of a fart.
His "inion" happens to be fact. There were no WMD's in Iraq.
And there are no Liberals on FOX News...
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq
Cheney and bush were not misled by flawed. Intelligence, they used flawed intellglence to mislead.
_______________________________________________________________________
Your opinion has the quality of a fart.
His "inion" happens to be fact. There were no WMD's in Iraq.
_______________________________________________________________________
The WMD in Iraq has been repeatedly proven.
The chemical weapons used to kill over 100,000 Kurds by Saddam Hussein are a confirmed fact.
The chemical weapons shipped from Iraq to Syria was well known in 2003 and the chemical signature of those were tested after Bashar Hafez al-Assad used them to kill hundreds of thousands of Syrians.
Remember when Obama drew the red-line on their use and when Assad used them again Obama went weak and did nothing?
There was a “deal” made with the Russians to remove the chemical weapons from Syria but when the chemical signatures were tested and confirmed to be the Iraq stock Obama pulled out of the deal.
Obama has long adopted the liberal’s standard lie that there were no WMD in Iraq.
When the U.S. ship where some of the chemical weapons from Syrian (from Iraq) were confirmed to be those that Saddam Hussein sent to Syrian in 2003 Obama killed the program because it would have destroyed the liberal’s lie.
BTW – one of Hussein’s mobile chemical weapon trailers we seized in Iraq sits today in a secure facility in Tennessee at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
No WMD's....
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/saddams-wmds-the-lefts-iraq-lies-exposed/
I don't know anything about WMD's but there are tunnel systems all over the region. My son is in the USMC and has crossed international borders below ground. He wouldn't elaborate as to how extensive this system is in detail though. I have no proof that is how things may have been relocated, but it does offer up a reasonable doubt.
The whole thing was B/S with plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political arena.
And for PhotoRon, it's tragic what happened to your daughter.
No WMD's....
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/saddams-wmds-the-lefts-iraq-lies-exposed/
Alloak do you even bother to read the articles you post? This article plainly states the WMD's found were from the 80's-early 90's and basically could not be used as intended due to the poor condition they were in. In fact they were more of a hazard to those who found them and would have been useless in battle. Read the very first sentence I highlighted
The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.
The point is there was no proven active WMD programs in Iraq when we invaded. The premise the Bush administration used to invade was a lie as all the WMD's that were found were old and useless.
No WMD's....
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/saddams-wmds-the-lefts-iraq-lies-exposed/
LOL Front Page Mag is a ultra conservative propaganda site. The article you posted admitted that the WMD's found were old and in unstable condition. The author then does on to speculate that some might still have been viable weapons grade WMD's with no shred of evidence.
So this is all the evidence you can find to prove that the invasion was justified? Really?
Living in Spotsylvania County, hiking the Civil War battlefields with my dogs daily, I often wonder what madness drove young men and boys to march from Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama - wherever - all the way to Virginia in order to fight a war from which they would never benefit. Basically the soldiers were poor. They didn't own slaves. They were really fighting a war that benefitted their landlords.
I suppose that same kind of Nationalism is what allows alloak and Muleman to suspend the truth and somehow believe that the invasion of Iraq was noble and honorable.
When it comes to modern war, Vietnam, the Falklands, Iraq, the United States lies as a matter of course to the American People.
Some people blindfold themselves with the American flag and ignore all evidence.
I find that painfully pitiful.
You're seeing what you want to see. Never have I been in favor of the Iraq invasion, not then not now. At the time I didn't see Iraq as a direct threat to the USA and didn't think it would be worth the money.
The question is about the presence of WMD's and clearly there was. It's sad to see folks get themselves invested in a myth to the extent that they refuse to accept hard evidence to the contrary. Take politics out for one second and just concentrate on evidence.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by alloak41]
You're seeing what you want to see. Never have I been in favor of the Iraq invasion, not then not now. At the time I didn't see Iraq as a direct threat to the USA and didn't think it would be worth the money.
The question is about the presence of WMD's and clearly there was. It's sad to see folks get themselves invested in a myth to the extent that they refuse to accept hard evidence to the contrary. Take politics out for one second and just concentrate on evidence.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by alloak41]
It is a matter of semantics Alloak. Sure there were obsolete WMD's in Iraq but the premise for invasion was that Saddam had an active WMD program that was a threat to the U.S. which was a lie.
They found no large cache of new production WMD's that posed a threat to anyone and also found no evidence of active WMD programs in Iraq after invasion. This concurred with the majority of the intelligence at the time of the invasion that the Bush Administration chose to ignore.
But if you want to be technical then, yes, you are correct in that anyone claiming there were no WMD's in Iraq was wrong then you win.
If you want to admit the premise for invasion was a lie, which is the whole argument here, then your point is moot and you're just trolling IMHO.
The whole subject is political to the Bush opponents and it's not about politics.
For clarity, take politics out of the equation.
No WMD's..
http://www.independentsentinel.com/democrats-and-bush-were-right-there-were-wmds-in-iraq/
Living in Spotsylvania County, hiking the Civil War battlefields with my dogs daily, I often wonder what madness drove young men and boys to march from Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama - wherever - all the way to Virginia in order to fight a war from which they would never benefit. Basically the soldiers were poor. They didn't own slaves. They were really fighting a war that benefitted their landlords.
I suppose that same kind of Nationalism is what allows alloak and Muleman to suspend the truth and somehow believe that the invasion of Iraq was noble and honorable.
When it comes to modern war, Vietnam, the Falklands, Iraq, the United States lies as a matter of course to the American People.
Some people blindfold themselves with the American flag and ignore all evidence.
I find that painfully pitiful.
That's a pretty broad brush to paint anybody with. Your speculation regarding the Civil War is quite quant. Maybe those soldiers believed in a principle that escapes you. Integrity and pride mean many things to many people and I'd suppose you wouldn't be cool with the "will and need" of the many over playing the same for the few. You probably believe the civil war was just about slavery.
.......and you think our government only lies to us in regards to war. They lie about everything. Party affiliation neither negates or accentuates that fact.
I have always thought the Iraq invasion was the wrong move but I am not stupid enough to believe that only one side of the political spectrum has lied and put disinformation out there for the populace to squabble over. It is what they do and to assume they skipped that circumstance/situation to not do "business as usual" is what I find absurd. To believe contrary is painfully pitiful. The belief that ONLY the other side lies is what is tearing our nation apart at the seams.
I have always thought the Iraq invasion was the wrong move but I am not stupid enough to believe that only one side of the political spectrum has lied and put disinformation out there for the populace to squabble over. It is what they do and to assume they skipped that circumstance/situation to not do "business as usual" is what I find absurd. To believe contrary is painfully pitiful. The belief that ONLY the other side lies is what is tearing our nation apart at the seams.
well put.
I recently saw a bumper sticker that read
Republicans are red
Democrats are blue
Neither one of them
Gives a s**t about you
The whole subject is political to the Bush opponents and it's not about politics.
For clarity, take politics out of the equation.
So what is your point Alloak? You started this thread basically claiming Bush did not lie. What did you expect the reaction from Liberals was going to be? That they would agree with you unconditionally?
Of course both sides lie and twist the truth but I am not sure what that has to do with your OP when it was the Bush administration that drove the war in Iraq.
That's a pretty broad brush to paint anybody with. Your speculation regarding the Civil War is quite quant. Maybe those soldiers believed in a principle that escapes you. Integrity and pride mean many things to many people and I'd suppose you wouldn't be cool with the "will and need" of the many over playing the same for the few. You probably believe the civil war was just about slavery.
.......and you think our government only lies to us in regards to war. They lie about everything. Party affiliation neither negates or accentuates that fact.
I have always thought the Iraq invasion was the wrong move but I am not stupid enough to believe that only one side of the political spectrum has lied and put disinformation out there for the populace to squabble over. It is what they do and to assume they skipped that circumstance/situation to not do "business as usual" is what I find absurd. To believe contrary is painfully pitiful. The belief that ONLY the other side lies is what is tearing our nation apart at the seams.
That's a lot of words to drum into my mouth.
I do not believe the Civil War was just about slavery but it was mostly about slavery. It was certainly about poor people dying for the good of rich people. But if integrity and pride are enough for you to march thousands of miles covered in chiggers and ticks, malnourished, blistered, tired, cut off for your family just to get your limbs sawed off or to die slowly or fast, maybe burned to death - have at it. I certainly don't see the will and the need of the antebellum South being critically worst if there had not been a war.
I maintain that Nationalism bleeds people of their ability to think clearly and critically.
Why in the world do you think I think that the government only lies in regards to war?
In the case of Iraq I do believe Dick Cheney and George Bush wanted the war. I don't know why. But I do know I have blood on my hands. My taxes fund that ongoing war and I resent the systematic murder perpetrated by the United States government in my name.
I find it quaint that now the WMD's consist of poison gas. Condoleza Rice certainly wasn't speaking of a mushroom cloud of poison gas.
The Iraq war was about making benefactors of cheney and bush WEALTHY [and cheney himself] they lied their slimy a$$es off to get support. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/ nobody seems to remember the original argument to go to war in iraq. I do.
_______________________________________________________________________
So pops quotes factcheck.org, a far-left website whose mission is to attack Republicans and well known for misrepresenting and omitting facts as well as outright lying.
No wonder pops hasn’t a clue.
BTW – President Bush never said the Iraq’s WMD (proven to exist) was the only reason to invade.
