Pentagon find no evidence that Saddam tried to assasinate Poppy Bush

you need to read the resolution, hostility and a willingness to attack was one of the rationalizations listed in the plethora of "whereas" paragraphs that started that resolution. to state that it was THE reason is patently false. The resolutions contains many such reasons.

And you really have no reason to insult my intelligence. I have made my point and continue to make it. And the resolution clearly bears it out.

:

The resolution clearly bears what you see through your obvious blinders.
The whole purpose of this thread was that there was no evidence that Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., Clinton proved DCD wrong. So if you want to keep arguing in circles go right on ahead. I shouldn't have insulted your intelligence, only the absurdity of your argument.
 
The resolution clearly bears what you see through your obvious blinders.
The whole purpose of this thread was that there was no evidence that Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., Clinton proved DCD wrong. So if you want to keep arguing in circles go right on ahead. I shouldn't have insulted your intelligence, only the absurdity of your argument.

I took issue with you calling him a dumbass and asking for the resolution.... so I gave you the link you requested. And threads may start out with a "purpose", but often take side trips. this was one such trip. my argument is not absurd, it is just not directly on topic for this thread....but then, neither was your post to which I initially responded.
 
I took issue with you calling him a dumbass and asking for the resolution.... so I gave you the link you requested. And threads may start out with a "purpose", but often take side trips. this was one such trip. my argument is not absurd, it is just not directly on topic for this thread....but then, neither was your post to which I initially responded.


Hmm...never called anyone a dumbass huh? Are you serious, the absurdity of your argument is now getting borderline insane. Well I made my points in this thread. I think any person who can read and comprehend what they read, would know that Bush SR's. assassination plot played very little to do with Bush Jr's decision to go to war against Saddam.
 
Hmm...never called anyone a dumbass huh? Are you serious, the absurdity of your argument is now getting borderline insane. Well I made my points in this thread. I think any person who can read and comprehend what they read, would know that Bush SR's. assassination plot played very little to do with Bush Jr's decision to go to war against Saddam.
I have called people a dumbass before. I have called them goat fucking perverts before. that does not mean that I cannot respond when someone is called a dumbass without justification. I agree completely that the assassination was not high up on Dubya's list of kitchensink rationale for invasion. It was on the list, however...along with: "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq" which was bullshit.
 
I have called people a dumbass before. I have called them goat fucking perverts before. that does not mean that I cannot respond when someone is called a dumbass without justification. I agree completely that the assassination was not high up on Dubya's list of kitchensink rationale for invasion. It was on the list, however...along with: "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq" which was bullshit.

Yep, negative IQs are possible. Well AQ was collaberating with Saddam so that is entirely possible they were in Iraq before the war started. But Bush never stated that AQ in was responsible for 9/11. Deja vu.
 
Yep, negative IQs are possible. Well AQ was collaberating with Saddam so that is entirely possible they were in Iraq before the war started. But Bush never stated that AQ in was responsible for 9/11. Deja vu.


no. AQ was NOT collaborating with Saddam.

and please.... I will try to avoid catty little insults to your intelligence going forward, why don't you do the same. you seem like a fairly intelligent guy.... smart enough to know that I am a fairly intelligent guy as well, so negative IQ trash talking is really not called for.
 
no. AQ was NOT collaborating with Saddam.

and please.... I will try to avoid catty little insults to your intelligence going forward, why don't you do the same. you seem like a fairly intelligent guy.... smart enough to know that I am a fairly intelligent guy as well, so negative IQ trash talking is really not called for.

I don't know, you can't read plain English and not come up with ignorant connotations of what someone said. For example... I said no one believes we are not in a warming trend but it is stupid to claim there is proof man caused it and man can fix it. To which you asked if I meant it was ok to spew pollutants in the air.
 
I don't know, you can't read plain English and not come up with ignorant connotations of what someone said. For example... I said no one believes we are not in a warming trend but it is stupid to claim there is proof man caused it and man can fix it. To which you asked if I meant it was ok to spew pollutants in the air.


and do you think that spewing tons of pollutants into the air has absolutely ZERO impact on our climate?
 
Number Five on the list of why Iraq should be invaded.

"He tried to kill my dad".

What a terrible condemnation of foreign policy for a nation. I'd frigging well curl up in a catatonic state if my PM mewled that crap.

I'll bet even the Bushistas are secretly pleased he's only allowed two terms.
 
Number Five on the list of why Iraq should be invaded.

"He tried to kill my dad".

What a terrible condemnation of foreign policy for a nation. I'd frigging well curl up in a catatonic state if my PM mewled that crap.

I'll bet even the Bushistas are secretly pleased he's only allowed two terms.

:eusa_wall: I don't think either you or MM can read something objectively. That wasn't a reason to invade, it was an example of.....damn I'm not even going to repeat it again.

Both of you, when Powell testified before the UN did you hear him pounding into the world's forum that Saddam tried to kill his dad? Come on, think objectively.

MM I see how long your pledge to not insult other people's intelligence lasted, what like one post? Moron
 
:eusa_wall: I don't think either you or MM can read something objectively. That wasn't a reason to invade, it was an example of.....damn I'm not even going to repeat it again.

Both of you, when Powell testified before the UN did you hear him pounding into the world's forum that Saddam tried to kill his dad? Come on, think objectively.

MM I see how long your pledge to not insult other people's intelligence lasted, what like one post? Moron

my pledge was to you. RGS and I have a whole different dynamic.
 
Looks like ole Bill even believed there was a plot to kill Bush Sr. He actually attacked with tomahawk missles directly for this purpose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ine/062793.htm

I'm sure it was no a bonified reason to go to war. He may have said it, but who wouldn't if they honestly believed that. It's like a bonus. I'd want to kill the ass that tried to murder my family member (if that's what I was lead to believe).
 
Yes, we removed a butcher and man with ties to terrorism.

That's the biggest joke you've told yet!

First off, we had no problems with Saddam's butchering of his own people prior to the invasion Kuwait. In fact we gave him the gas and when he used it on the Kurds we (the Bush 1 admin) barely made a squeak.

As for his ties to terrorism, they were almost non-existent. Saddam did not like terrorists because they posed as much of a threat to his regime as to those he did not like. This whole argument has to do with one meeting between Iraqi security and and an AQ leader, and one AQ leader who took refuge in Iraq but did not conduct any type of terrorist activities while there.

The moral argument is bunk. The terrorist argument is bunk. The WMD's argument is bunk.

The Iraq war was/is about Mid-East oil and Bush/Cheney huberis.
 
if it is irrelevant to the discussion, why did YOU bring it up? :rofl:
moron.

This is the crap I can't stand.

His point, genius, was that YOUR comment as to the above was irrelevant. You brought it up. He was just referring to it as evidence that you aren't all that smart.

Don't let your own thinker trip you up.
 
That's the biggest joke you've told yet!

First off, we had no problems with Saddam's butchering of his own people prior to the invasion Kuwait. In fact we gave him the gas and when he used it on the Kurds we (the Bush 1 admin) barely made a squeak.

As for his ties to terrorism, they were almost non-existent. Saddam did not like terrorists because they posed as much of a threat to his regime as to those he did not like. This whole argument has to do with one meeting between Iraqi security and and an AQ leader, and one AQ leader who took refuge in Iraq but did not conduct any type of terrorist activities while there.

The moral argument is bunk. The terrorist argument is bunk. The WMD's argument is bunk.

The Iraq war was/is about Mid-East oil and Bush/Cheney huberis.

Guess you didn't see the latest report, that directly tied Saddam to terrorism...but do keep up your delusionary denials its quite funny.:rofl:
 
Guess you didn't see the latest report, that directly tied Saddam to terrorism...but do keep up your delusionary denials its quite funny.:rofl:



Saddam being tied to palestinian nationalist terror organizations was no reason for us to invade him in response to 9/11.
 
Saddam being tied to palestinian nationalist terror organizations was no reason for us to invade him in response to 9/11.

Colaberating with AQ? Don't you remember, oh that's right you can't read.:rofl:
 

Forum List

Back
Top