Yes and No questions

[Theregular]

again chldlish replies that are not even worth my time, but ill answer the other questions...

You really don't get the concept of an election, do you?

I am pretty well aware of what elections are, I really dont think that interfering the elections so that the parties that are loyal to the americans would win is considered an election.

If you or anyone else is interested to read more about this check out this article:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=653020

I believe we didn't find any. Very different from "there aren't any", or "there never were any".

A funny comment from a funny guy, so why the hell do the US inspection team say that there arent any WMD's ??

Yes, several other counties had intel that there were WMD's. So what?

You mean by intel the crap of bullshit your presedent along with Ramsfled and the others represented to the whole world? if thats your intel then fine, you had intel!

Yes, I am sure some were still afraid of repercussions from Zarqawi types. Perhaps your media left out the 8.5 million (not including ex-pats) who voted anyway.

they where actually 8 million, at least thats what they said, btw if you cant calculate, 8 million is less than half of the countires population.

My question exactly. Why are 1 billion sitting around doing and saying nothing about the acts of terror perpretrated in the name of Islam?

who said they arent doing anything against these lies? lots do, but you never hear about them, or you choose not to. dont forget that most of the arabic goverments are loyal to the americans and they would do anything to stop any protests againt the US.

Holy freakin' frying shit! Look at all the errors in that post. I do believe that's the most I've ever seen in one post on here, and that was only the spelling, and not the punctuation erros! So here are my questions...

I have said earlier that english isnt my 1st language.

I am afraid that it is you who doesnt know shit about anything, there are millions like me who think the war is wrong, and who do believe in what i say.

 

[CSM]

.....
I am afraid that it is you who doesnt know shit about anything, there are millions like me who think the war is wrong, and who do believe in what i say.

That is exactly why we have terrorists and fanatics who believe that they will be rewarded in paradise for killing the infidel...some people will believe anything, regardless of the source.

Perhaps you truly believe the war in Iraq is wrong. Nothing others say is going to convince you otherwise, I am sure....but surely you realize that nothing you say is going to convince some of us that you are right either. That little situation does not mean that you are stupid or that those opposed to your view are stupid. It means we have differing opinions and that is all it means.

 

[Abbey Normal]

again chldlish replies that are not even worth my time, but ill answer the other questions...
I am pretty well aware of what elections are, I really dont think that interfering the elections so that the parties that are loyal to the americans would win is considered an election.

If you or anyone else is interested to read more about this check out this article:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=653020

A funny comment from a funny guy, so why the hell do the US inspection team say that there arent any WMD's ??

You mean by intel the crap of bullshit your presedent along with Ramsfled and the others represented to the whole world? if thats your intel then fine, you had intel!

they where actually 8 million, at least thats what they said, btw if you cant calculate, 8 million is less than half of the countires population.

who said they arent doing anything against these lies? lots do, but you never hear about them, or you choose not to. dont forget that most of the arabic goverments are loyal to the americans and they would do anything to stop any protests againt the US.


I have said earlier that english isnt my 1st language.

I am afraid that it is you who doesnt know shit about anything, there are millions like me who think the war is wrong, and who do believe in what i say.

I did not make the last quoted statement. It is not cool to include two posters' comments in one quote to make it look like one person said it all.

I have already answered all of your points, yet you continue. You are damn lucky to have the privilege of posting on a MB in a country where people really are free. Ultimately, though, a person who defends the wearing of burqas isn't worth my time.

 

[GotZoom]

So...tell us WHO you are? Where from? Where do you get all these opinions from?

 

[Gem]

TheRegular,

Did you read the weapons inspectors report on WMD past the buzzlines pulled out by the media?

Don't answer that...you have already shown that you did not.

If you had you would know that while the report states clearly that they did not find any WMD it was clearer than ever that Saddam Hussein was a threat that needed to be removed, that the case against his was just as strong if not stronger than before the war, and that with what they DID find, it was quite apparent that Saddam Hussein had every intention of waiting out the UN inspectors and then, when he had hoodwinked them into believing he was behaving like good little boy...start up his weapons programs up again.

Now we can argue all day long about WMD, whether they were there and moved or never there at all.

But all the US weapons inspectors report really says in summation is that while no WMD were found...it is clear and apparent that Saddam Hussein was a viable threat who was going to resume builing WMD the moment the world looked away and that the inspection team is convinced he needed to be removed.

Hardly damning evidence against Bush...unless, that is, you only read the headlines on the newspapers...

 

[Abbey Normal]

Thank you, Gem. You made the point much more eloquently than I.

 

[dmp]

dammit...My wife BET me $20 that I'd NOT read the word 'hoodwinked' today...I declined...sonofa.

 

[no1tovote4]

My question exactly. Why are 1 billion sitting around doing and saying nothing about the acts of terror perpretrated in the name of Islam?

By their silence they imply agreement, especially when we hear from only Christians that this "peaceful" religion was "hijacked".

The silence is deafening, Theregular. I cannot get much more deafening before we begin to realize that the religion was not hijacked, it was given away with enthusiasm to religious leaders that are voted for at the mosques.

Here is a nice link for you:
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/ftp/ISCA - Islam and Democracy.htm

Pay particular attention to the part in Democratic Systems in Islam where they vote for their religious leaders and therefore by having such leaders as those who will advocate such action in their name they have chosen to be part of the atrocity.

They, the Muslims, agree to let these people continue in the leadership of their religion because they too must advocate such action. This peaceful religion seems to become less peaceful by the moment when people begin to realize that they have elected these terrorists to lead them and to speak for them, and the problem becomes much larger and more difficult to encompass.

Direct evidence of their actions seems to point me to a different conclusion than they are a "peaceful religion".

 

[-Cp]

So...tell us WHO you are? Where from? Where do you get all these opinions from?

he's in the Middle east - near Amman - the middle of Palestine and in the middle of the brain-washing area of the world...

 

[Abbey Normal]

I'm going to guess that women are not allowed to vote for their religious leaders. If I am wrong, someone can feel free to correct me.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

3- Did the US and Britain base the war on Iraq's WMD's ? Yes

Among other reasons.

4- Did it trun out that there isnt any WMD's from the US's own inspection team? Yes

Not finding any and not being any there to find are two different things.

5- Did the US invade Iraq based on wrong info? yes

I'm not so sure it was wrong. Just about everyone thought he had WMD and the other stuff was definitely true.

6- Is it the right of an occupied country to fight the occupier? yes

Do you consider blowing up Iraqi police recruits, civilians, and children "fighting the occupier"?

8- Did it take the US around 8 years to do anything about it? Yes

What would you have proposed? War? I thought you hated that.

9- Was Saddam an ally of the US back then? Yes

Your point?

10-Wasnt the chemical wepons that Saddam had back then developed under the US's knowledge and support? Yes

And Russia, France, and Germany.

11- Was Saddam pro western 10 years ago? yes

He most certainly was not pro-Western in 1995.

12- Is Isreal the only country in the middle east that has nuclear wepons as well as chemical? yes

Unless Iran and Syria have them.

15- Was Saddam ever a an islamic religous leader? No
No, but most Sunni Muslims backed him.

 

[Theregular]

Not finding any and not being any there to find are two different things.

I dont remember Bush and Blair saying that, they said by thier own words, we will defenitly find evidence of WMD's which they didnt as the US inspection team it self found, so they lied, end of story.

I'm not so sure it was wrong. Just about everyone thought he had WMD and the other stuff was definitely true.

I am afraid your mistaken once again, only the US and Britain thought he had WMD's which turned out that he didnt.

Do you consider blowing up Iraqi police recruits, civilians, and children "fighting the occupier"?

blowing up police recruits is defenitly fighting the occupier as they surve the occupier, as for civilians and children, of course not, but the problem is that they dont attack civilians, its all done by the hands of the american army to as i said before, make the resistance movement look as they are targeting their own people who their trying to free.

What would you have proposed? War? I thought you hated that.


Your point?

in those two comments your clearly missed the point, what I meant was, didnt the US and UK goverments say that Saddam used chemical wepons against the kurds? my question is, why did it take the US (if they so much care about the kurds) 8 years to say anything about it? why did it take them 8 years to tell the world about these attacks? if they so much care for the people who have died, they shouldnt have waited 8 years.
The answer is simple, when Saddam used those weponds, he was an ally of the US (read the history) he was fighting Iran for the intrest of the US, so the US goverment had no reason to say anything about those crimes, but when he turned against them, they brought it up.
So you can clearly see that the US never cared about those people who died back then, they only care about their intrests.

And Russia, France, and Germany.

perhaps Russia yes, but you cant deny the big role that the US played in arming Saddam.

He most certainly was not pro-Western in 1995.

Make that 16 years ago, around 1988 and earlier when he was fighting Iran.

Unless Iran and Syria have them.

Ah, more lies, i am sure Ramsfeld will reprsent "under ground" facilities and stupid made up images of mobile chemical factories as he did with Iraq, and if they did have them, its their right to arm them selves just like Israel does. If they where to remove their wepons, Israel has to as well, but no, Israel is an ally of the US, so rules and UN regulations dont apply to them.

15- Was Saddam ever a an islamic religous leader? No
No, but most Sunni Muslims backed him.

So?? they surly are muslims as are all of the iraqi population ?!

 

[CSM]

blowing up police recruits is defenitly fighting the occupier as they surve the occupier, as for civilians and children, of course not, but the problem is that they dont attack civilians, its all done by the hands of the american army to as i said before, make the resistance movement look as they are targeting their own people who their trying to free.

That has got to be one of the most ill informed statements I have ever seen in writing. The poster is either deliberately misrepresenting the case by such a statement (making them as bad as the perpetrators of such acts and aiding and abbetting terrorists) or is chronically (maybe even terminally) naive.

*edited for grammar