Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[del]

rational thought springs to mind.

Not to yours - not ever.

you're not equipped to make that call, droolboi.

run along

 

[NoNukes]

Yes.

It also spawned a dozen other nations to seek free, republican rule. Egypt, Tunisia, Libya.....

You have no proof that one had anything to do with the other.

Close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and start singing really loudly so you don't have to acknowledge the reality unfolding around you.

Your reality is not necessarily reality.

 

[NoNukes]

Does anyone really want to make an argument that Saddam deserved to continue to rule Iraq?

How about the fact that his even crazier sons will never rule Iraq?

How was this America's responsibility?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Stupidest war EVER!! Fer crying out loud. Half a million KILLED for nuthin'...

Then why hasn't your messiah pulled us out? Nearly three years, and he's still there....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

The country was stable before we removed Saddam shit for brains.

At best its a pyrrhic victory

 

[JRK]

Does anyone really want to make an argument that Saddam deserved to continue to rule Iraq?

How about the fact that his even crazier sons will never rule Iraq?

How was this America's responsibility?

The very minute we allowed him to get away with the 93 event as well as the very second 9-11 took place
"Saddam's Fingerprints on N.Y. Bombings" (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)

Military retaliation from Baghdad was the main administration concern following Saturday's strike on Iraq. Yet U.S. officials should start thinking seriously about the question of retaliation through terror. It is quite possible, for example, that there was a connection between Saddam and recent attempts to blow up Manhattan. It is quite possible that New York's terror is Saddam's revenge.

Speculation about the responsibility for last week's bombing plot and the earlier World Trade Center bombing has focused on Iran, Sudan, and the fundamentalist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. Much energy has been spent linking the terror to Islamic fundamentalism. Yet Saddam, a secular tyrant, is also suspect.

Information already in the public domain allows us to make this case. Start with the fact that the most important person in the Trade Center bombing is an Iraqi, Ramzi Ahmad Yusuf. Known in New York as Rashid, Mr. Yusuf has 11 aliases. The U.S. press has reported that he left Iraq in early 1992, transiting Jordan to Pakistan. He entered New York in early September on Pakistan Airways. Mr. Yusuf, traveling on his Iraqi passport, passed through immigration by requesting asylum. The FBI claims the plot began in August, while Mr. Yusuf was abroad.

Ordering Chemicals
Mr. Yusuf soon became the roomate of Mohammed Salameh, the naive Palestinian who repeatedly returned to the van rental agency for his deposit. Passionate, but not bright, Mr. Salameh would appear a ready dupe to an intelligence operative. In trial documents, an Iraqi-American, Musaab Yassin, has stated that he had known Mr. Salameh two years. Mr. Yassin moved into Mr. Salameh's apartment in September 1992, and Mr. Salameh moved out. Mr. Yassin's younger brother, Abboud, lived with him. An Arab who knows Musaab Yassin, like Mr. Yusuf, came to the U.S. in the fall of 1992, seeking medical treatment.

In late November, Mr. Yusuf allegedly ordered chemicals for the bomb and Mr. Salameh rented a locker to store them. The plot was underway. In early February, Mr. Salameh notified his landlord that he and Mr. Yusuf would leave at month's end. On Feb. 26 the World Trade Center was bombed. Messrs. Salameh and Yusuf vacated their apartment two days later.

Mr. Salameh was arrested March 4. Musaab Yassin returned home that day to find the FBI searching his apartment, while Abboud had been taken for questioning. Abboud Yassin told the FBI that he taught Mr. Salameh to drive the van that carried the bomb, that he accompanied Mr. Salameh to an apartment later identified as the bomb's testing ground; and Abboud Yassin's information helped lead the FBI to the locker where the chemicals had been stored. The U.S. press reports that Abboud Yassin then returned to Iraq, as did Mr. Yusuf. The New York Times reported that Arabs who knew Mr. Salameh and the second Palestinian arrested, Nidal Ayyad, said that the two had "close ties with two Iraqis, one of whom they say was named Rashid, but both of whom have since disappeared."

This information, although sketchy, indicates Iraqi activity. If Mr. Yusuf, the key figure, had worked for Iran, Tehran would not have let him return to Iraq. Given the totalitarian nature of the Iraqi regime, even Abboud Yassin's return to Iraq is significant. An innocent man would, arguably, have chosen to stay in the U.S. - he would have a better chance of a fair hearing in a U.S. court than before an Iraqi intelligence officer. If Abboud Yassin was involved in the bombing - but was not acting under Baghdad's instruction - then it was even more imprudent for him to return to Iraq. Mr. Yusuf and Abboud Yassin could have gone to Afghanistan, where they would not have exposed themselves to the potentially fatal suspicions of Baghdad's intelligence agencies.

That two men involved came from Iraq and returned there is reason enough to consider an Iraqi role in the World Trade Center bombing. What other possible evidence is there? It has been reported that the bombing suspects received money from abroad: up to $100,000 from Germany, Iran, and "another Middle Eastern Country." That country is probably Jordan, shielded by U.S. authorities who continue protecting Amman for the sake of the "peace process." Without knowing how much money came from each country, though, it is hard to exclude Iraq. Last but not least, it is worth noting that the February bombing occurred on the second anniversary of Kuwait's liberation.

What about last week's arrests? The FBI arrested five Sudanese and three others as it broke up a second bombing plot. The conspirators' first target was the United Nations' headquarters. Other targets were added, including FBI headquarters in New York. Additionally, four assassinations were planned, including that of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and U.N. secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Like the Trade Center bombing, much of this operation was amateurish. The conspiracy instigator, Siddiq Ibrahim Ali, had a plan to get a car into the FBI building, but it was amateurish (he proposed shooting the guards). Professional terrorists divide their organizations into small cells, each devoted to specific tasks. These planners used a large group in which every participant was known to the others, so that the entire plot could quickly unravel once one member was caught. Yet, like the World Trade Center bombing, this was audacious. Had it suceeded, thousands could have died.

It's important to note that both the Trade Center bombing and the later plot represent something new - at least in the West. Saddam, however, commits that kind of carnage on a daily basis. Two of the nations thought to be behind the second plot are not ideal suspects. Khartoum is suspected, because Sudanese played a big role in the plot. With Iran, Sudanese has been involved in a violent campaign to overthrow secular governments in North Africa, including Mr. Boutros-Ghali's own government in Cairo. But Khartoum has not sponsored terrorism against U.S. targets. That it should suddenly support potentially the most devastating anti-American attack ever makes little sense. A separate question though is whether Sudanese diplomats could be bought. This is possible, since Khartoum is broke, and months behind in paying its diplomats. Iranian sponsorship of the plot is also unlikely. Iran has no big quarrel with the U.N. - it benefits from the U.N.'s disarmament of Iraq. The U.N. is not the obvious target for Muslim extremists. Their quarrel is with the U.S. They could have easily chosen an American target. Explaining why fundamentalists would bomb the U.N. is possible, but the explanation is strained - that they see the U.N. as a U.S. surrogate; that their violence is caused by anger at many issues involving the U.N., including Bosnia, Somalia and the Palestinians. The Trade Center suspects issued a set of demands that the U.S. stop aiding Israel and stop interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries.

Saddam by contrast has every reason to attack the U.N. Saddam also hates Egypt's Mubarak and wants him dead, no less than he wanted George Bush dead. Baghdad Radio threatened Mr. Bush personally during the Gulf War and Mubarak as well, "Does he (Mubarak) think that the crime he committed against the people of Iraq will go unpunished?... Prepare yourself for it and shiver at the thought."

More To Come

 

[Unkotare]

Obama, who will wind down much of Afghanistan by summer of next year.

Which is likely to prove a monumental mistake.

...............that we didn't get out of 9.5 years ago.

No. Make an appointment with your optometrist.

 

[Unkotare]

You have no proof that one had anything to do with the other.

Close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and start singing really loudly so you don't have to acknowledge the reality unfolding around you.

Your reality is not necessarily reality.

But by some coincidence it turns out that it is.

 

[georgephillip]

It's funny.

People who claim to be savvy businessmen all of a sudden think the best way to make a profit is to flood the market with your product.

So it was all a conspiracy to REDUCE the flow of oil? We invaded for oil, but not to get oil, to reduce the flow of oil?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Maybe we invaded Iraq to INCREASE the price of oil from $30 a barrel in March 2003 to a peak of nearly $80/barrel in July 2006?

Just another wealth transfer from the general population to rich parasites.

 

[JRK]

It's funny.

People who claim to be savvy businessmen all of a sudden think the best way to make a profit is to flood the market with your product.

So it was all a conspiracy to REDUCE the flow of oil? We invaded for oil, but not to get oil, to reduce the flow of oil?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Maybe we invaded Iraq to INCREASE the price of oil from $30 a barrel in March 2003 to a peak of nearly $80/barrel in July 2006?

Just another wealth transfer from the general population to rich parasites.

Is this why gas was well below 2.00 a gallon in 2008?
and is close to 4 in 2011?
transfer of wealth?
We cannot get oil in this country like we could
thats transfer of wealth Is Obama's fault, no-one elses

 

[CryingKoala]

And why is that?

There are far worse dictators around the world.

Wanna start giving them dirt naps too?

Wherever it is feasable, Sure!

Half of our problems come when we prefer to mollycoddle dictators rather than do the right thing and support democracy abroad.

Most of our problems come as a result of installing "friendly" dictators..that go rogue.

My feeling is that we should help popular uprisings if they:

1. Stop a genocide.
2. Are important to our interests.
3. Prevent a worse situation from happening.

Other then that..if a country somehow winds up with a popular dictator..it's really none of our business. Like Belarus or Burma.

Except given enough time, it always becomes our problem. They all "go rogue" or become liabilities to our credibility and prestige soon enough.

Friendly dictators just mean we are putting off the inevitable. There is really no such thing as a stable dictatorship. Peacetime kills them from the inside. Without some kind of outside conflict to keep its internal repression/military forces occupied, they start looting the system or grabbing power for themselves.

I think we should support the ouster of dictatorships where it is most feasible with our resources. Some require more effort than others. Above all, the US should really stand behind the democratization of the world. Ultimately it is a worthy goal of a superpower and pays off dividends. A more democratic world is ultimately a less violent one. Tacit acceptance of dictatorship is just being lazy or taking the most expedient action. It seldom works well for us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How interesting to see failed liberal neo-cons like Ukotare and Uncensored lined up with Obama on this issue. BHO killed Osama, wound down Iraq, is winding down Afghanistan, and directed quietly the coalition that has knocked out the Khadaffis from power in Libya. Bet these neo-cons are going to vote for him next year.

 

[JRK]

Wherever it is feasable, Sure!

Half of our problems come when we prefer to mollycoddle dictators rather than do the right thing and support democracy abroad.

Most of our problems come as a result of installing "friendly" dictators..that go rogue.

My feeling is that we should help popular uprisings if they:

1. Stop a genocide.
2. Are important to our interests.
3. Prevent a worse situation from happening.

Other then that..if a country somehow winds up with a popular dictator..it's really none of our business. Like Belarus or Burma.

Except given enough time, it always becomes our problem. They all "go rogue" or become liabilities to our credibility and prestige soon enough.

Friendly dictators just mean we are putting off the inevitable. There is really no such thing as a stable dictatorship. Peacetime kills them from the inside. Without some kind of outside conflict to keep its internal repression/military forces occupied, they start looting the system or grabbing power for themselves.

I think we should support the ouster of dictatorships where it is most feasible with our resources. Some require more effort than others. Above all, the US should really stand behind the democratization of the world. Ultimately it is a worthy goal of a superpower and pays off dividends. A more democratic world is ultimately a less violent one. Tacit acceptance of dictatorship is just being lazy or taking the most expedient action. It seldom works well for us.

Saddam had over 10 years to do the right thing
He was told to rid his country of WMDs long before the 500 munitions were found in 04 that people say were "no good"
There were not in that shape in the 90s when he told the world he had none left. there is also evidence many of those munitions were moved
After 9-11 Saddam had 2 choices
He chose the later
his own people hung him for it

 

[JakeStarkey]

And they will hang us later on when they are allied with Iran.

JRK, there is no way you can make this work well for your side.

We should not have gone, we went, and the world has been messed seriously since. Obama has would down Iraq, killed Osama, is winding down Afghanistan, and is going to win in Libya.

You are voting for him, right?

 

[BlindBoo]

Most of our problems come as a result of installing "friendly" dictators..that go rogue.

My feeling is that we should help popular uprisings if they:

1. Stop a genocide.
2. Are important to our interests.
3. Prevent a worse situation from happening.

Other then that..if a country somehow winds up with a popular dictator..it's really none of our business. Like Belarus or Burma.

Except given enough time, it always becomes our problem. They all "go rogue" or become liabilities to our credibility and prestige soon enough.

Friendly dictators just mean we are putting off the inevitable. There is really no such thing as a stable dictatorship. Peacetime kills them from the inside. Without some kind of outside conflict to keep its internal repression/military forces occupied, they start looting the system or grabbing power for themselves.

I think we should support the ouster of dictatorships where it is most feasible with our resources. Some require more effort than others. Above all, the US should really stand behind the democratization of the world. Ultimately it is a worthy goal of a superpower and pays off dividends. A more democratic world is ultimately a less violent one. Tacit acceptance of dictatorship is just being lazy or taking the most expedient action. It seldom works well for us.

Saddam had over 10 years to do the right thing
He was told to rid his country of WMDs long before the 500 munitions were found in 04 that people say were "no good"
There were not in that shape in the 90s when he told the world he had none left. there is also evidence many of those munitions were moved
After 9-11 Saddam had 2 choices
He chose the later
his own people hung him for it

First, here are the spin-free conclusions of the Duelfer report with regrd to weapons of mass destruction:

"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991, following the Gulf War. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

***

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

***

"ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent."

***

"...ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad's ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions. In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes... [T]here appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level [from the mid-1990s forward]."

***

"The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam."


Unfortunately, beyond that, the spinning starts.

The Iraq Papers #10: The Iraq Survey Group & Its Conclusions

 

[CryingKoala]

How interesting to see failed liberal neo-cons like Ukotare and Uncensored lined up with Obama on this issue. BHO killed Osama, wound down Iraq, is winding down Afghanistan, and directed quietly the coalition that has knocked out the Khadaffis from power in Libya. Bet these neo-cons are going to vote for him next year.

I would take that over Ron Paul isolationism any day!

There is nothing logical about retreating from interests beyond our borders.

What is interesting is the GOP flip/flop now that Libya is becoming a success
The GOP candidates on the fall of Qaddafi | FP Passport

Rommey
""The world is about to be rid of Muammar al-Qaddafi, the brutal tyrant who terrorized the Libyan people. It is my hope that Libya will now move toward a representative form of government that supports freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. As a first step, I call on this new government to arrest and extradite the mastermind behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, so justice can finally be done," "

Huntsman
""The impending fall of Colonel Gaddafi is one chapter in the developing story of a nation in turmoil. Gaddafi has been a longtime opponent of freedom, and I am hopeful - as the whole world should be - that his defeat is a step toward openness, democracy and human rights for a people who greatly deserve it." "

Rick Perry stated today's events are cause for cautious celebration:
"The lasting impact of events in Libya will depend on ensuring rebel factions form a unified, civil government that guarantees personal freedoms, and builds a new relationship with the West where we are allies instead of adversaries."
Of the top GOP contenders, the most stridently anti-intervention have been Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul. As far as I can tell, neither has made statements yet today. The latest developments won't change much for Paul or his supporters, who oppose humanitarian intervention on principle and would have still been against this war if it had toppled Qaddafi in a matter of hours and cost $20.

Things are a little more complicated for Bachmann, who has suggested that there are "elements of al Qaeda in North Africa and Hezbollah in the opposition forces" and has accused the administration of "creating a toehold for al Qaeda in North Africa to take over Libya." Will she stick to that characterization now that the rebels are in power?

As for Newt Gingrich, who was for intervening before he was against it, we haven't anything from Maui quite yet.

 

[NoNukes]

How about the fact that his even crazier sons will never rule Iraq?

How was this America's responsibility?

The very minute we allowed him to get away with the 93 event as well as the very second 9-11 took place
"Saddam's Fingerprints on N.Y. Bombings" (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)

Military retaliation from Baghdad was the main administration concern following Saturday's strike on Iraq. Yet U.S. officials should start thinking seriously about the question of retaliation through terror. It is quite possible, for example, that there was a connection between Saddam and recent attempts to blow up Manhattan. It is quite possible that New York's terror is Saddam's revenge.

Speculation about the responsibility for last week's bombing plot and the earlier World Trade Center bombing has focused on Iran, Sudan, and the fundamentalist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. Much energy has been spent linking the terror to Islamic fundamentalism. Yet Saddam, a secular tyrant, is also suspect.

Information already in the public domain allows us to make this case. Start with the fact that the most important person in the Trade Center bombing is an Iraqi, Ramzi Ahmad Yusuf. Known in New York as Rashid, Mr. Yusuf has 11 aliases. The U.S. press has reported that he left Iraq in early 1992, transiting Jordan to Pakistan. He entered New York in early September on Pakistan Airways. Mr. Yusuf, traveling on his Iraqi passport, passed through immigration by requesting asylum. The FBI claims the plot began in August, while Mr. Yusuf was abroad.

Ordering Chemicals
Mr. Yusuf soon became the roomate of Mohammed Salameh, the naive Palestinian who repeatedly returned to the van rental agency for his deposit. Passionate, but not bright, Mr. Salameh would appear a ready dupe to an intelligence operative. In trial documents, an Iraqi-American, Musaab Yassin, has stated that he had known Mr. Salameh two years. Mr. Yassin moved into Mr. Salameh's apartment in September 1992, and Mr. Salameh moved out. Mr. Yassin's younger brother, Abboud, lived with him. An Arab who knows Musaab Yassin, like Mr. Yusuf, came to the U.S. in the fall of 1992, seeking medical treatment.

In late November, Mr. Yusuf allegedly ordered chemicals for the bomb and Mr. Salameh rented a locker to store them. The plot was underway. In early February, Mr. Salameh notified his landlord that he and Mr. Yusuf would leave at month's end. On Feb. 26 the World Trade Center was bombed. Messrs. Salameh and Yusuf vacated their apartment two days later.

Mr. Salameh was arrested March 4. Musaab Yassin returned home that day to find the FBI searching his apartment, while Abboud had been taken for questioning. Abboud Yassin told the FBI that he taught Mr. Salameh to drive the van that carried the bomb, that he accompanied Mr. Salameh to an apartment later identified as the bomb's testing ground; and Abboud Yassin's information helped lead the FBI to the locker where the chemicals had been stored. The U.S. press reports that Abboud Yassin then returned to Iraq, as did Mr. Yusuf. The New York Times reported that Arabs who knew Mr. Salameh and the second Palestinian arrested, Nidal Ayyad, said that the two had "close ties with two Iraqis, one of whom they say was named Rashid, but both of whom have since disappeared."

This information, although sketchy, indicates Iraqi activity. If Mr. Yusuf, the key figure, had worked for Iran, Tehran would not have let him return to Iraq. Given the totalitarian nature of the Iraqi regime, even Abboud Yassin's return to Iraq is significant. An innocent man would, arguably, have chosen to stay in the U.S. - he would have a better chance of a fair hearing in a U.S. court than before an Iraqi intelligence officer. If Abboud Yassin was involved in the bombing - but was not acting under Baghdad's instruction - then it was even more imprudent for him to return to Iraq. Mr. Yusuf and Abboud Yassin could have gone to Afghanistan, where they would not have exposed themselves to the potentially fatal suspicions of Baghdad's intelligence agencies.

That two men involved came from Iraq and returned there is reason enough to consider an Iraqi role in the World Trade Center bombing. What other possible evidence is there? It has been reported that the bombing suspects received money from abroad: up to $100,000 from Germany, Iran, and "another Middle Eastern Country." That country is probably Jordan, shielded by U.S. authorities who continue protecting Amman for the sake of the "peace process." Without knowing how much money came from each country, though, it is hard to exclude Iraq. Last but not least, it is worth noting that the February bombing occurred on the second anniversary of Kuwait's liberation.

What about last week's arrests? The FBI arrested five Sudanese and three others as it broke up a second bombing plot. The conspirators' first target was the United Nations' headquarters. Other targets were added, including FBI headquarters in New York. Additionally, four assassinations were planned, including that of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and U.N. secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Like the Trade Center bombing, much of this operation was amateurish. The conspiracy instigator, Siddiq Ibrahim Ali, had a plan to get a car into the FBI building, but it was amateurish (he proposed shooting the guards). Professional terrorists divide their organizations into small cells, each devoted to specific tasks. These planners used a large group in which every participant was known to the others, so that the entire plot could quickly unravel once one member was caught. Yet, like the World Trade Center bombing, this was audacious. Had it suceeded, thousands could have died.

It's important to note that both the Trade Center bombing and the later plot represent something new - at least in the West. Saddam, however, commits that kind of carnage on a daily basis. Two of the nations thought to be behind the second plot are not ideal suspects. Khartoum is suspected, because Sudanese played a big role in the plot. With Iran, Sudanese has been involved in a violent campaign to overthrow secular governments in North Africa, including Mr. Boutros-Ghali's own government in Cairo. But Khartoum has not sponsored terrorism against U.S. targets. That it should suddenly support potentially the most devastating anti-American attack ever makes little sense. A separate question though is whether Sudanese diplomats could be bought. This is possible, since Khartoum is broke, and months behind in paying its diplomats. Iranian sponsorship of the plot is also unlikely. Iran has no big quarrel with the U.N. - it benefits from the U.N.'s disarmament of Iraq. The U.N. is not the obvious target for Muslim extremists. Their quarrel is with the U.S. They could have easily chosen an American target. Explaining why fundamentalists would bomb the U.N. is possible, but the explanation is strained - that they see the U.N. as a U.S. surrogate; that their violence is caused by anger at many issues involving the U.N., including Bosnia, Somalia and the Palestinians. The Trade Center suspects issued a set of demands that the U.S. stop aiding Israel and stop interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries.

Saddam by contrast has every reason to attack the U.N. Saddam also hates Egypt's Mubarak and wants him dead, no less than he wanted George Bush dead. Baghdad Radio threatened Mr. Bush personally during the Gulf War and Mubarak as well, "Does he (Mubarak) think that the crime he committed against the people of Iraq will go unpunished?... Prepare yourself for it and shiver at the thought."

More To Come

Pure paranoia and not factual. If so, this would have been our reason for going into Iraq.

 

[NoNukes]

Close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and start singing really loudly so you don't have to acknowledge the reality unfolding around you.

Your reality is not necessarily reality.

But by some coincidence it turns out that it is.

To you it is, and that is not coincidence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

To you it is, and that is not coincidence.

Have you ever considered that if you were to use less drugs, you might experience a reality more similar to that which other people experience?

 

[NoNukes]

To you it is, and that is not coincidence.

Have you ever considered that if you were to use less drugs, you might experience a reality more similar to that which other people experience?

Have you ever considered knowing some facts before you speak?