Staredit Network

And what report is this? And if you want people to take you seriously you won't use caps like that again.

I actually agree with Stars (Yet again)

But I did hear from the media about the CIA's reports about no weapons in Iraq. Or was it the UN o.O?

Anyways. Aik. You should just quit trying to prove something, that you cannot, right.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
"Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes."

In your face.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

Even the republicans of FOX seem to agree there are no WMDs.

"WASHINGTON — The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction production by Saddam Hussein's regime after 1991."

All you did was make me actually work and find the articles. If you want though, I could find even more.

Further in this article is...

"...no evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda exchanged weapons; and there is no evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq shared information, technology or personnel in developing weapons..."

Wow, NO WMDs, NO LINK BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QAEDA. Tell me, why did we go there?

We went in to take out a ruthless dictator who had murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

Also good job in supplying proof. And stop acting like a child, "In your face" just made me crack up laughing at you.

I dont care if you laugh at me, because I had the proof, and you know it.

And why didn't bush just say out loud that we were going in to take out a ruthless dictator, instead of making up bull about WMDs and Al Quaeda/Iraq links?

Well?

Good for you. You had proof. Now quit acting like a noob. Oh! I'm sorry, you can't.

The reason he just didn't come out and say it, was because Congress would have said no. It's that simple. Are you to rediculous to realize that most the presidents in history have lied about something to get their way? (And yes. I said rediculous. Get over it)

Yeah, you said "to rediculous". That's two wrong words. Don't call me a noob if you can't spell.

You're avoiding the topic.

Fine.

Every politician I know has lied. However, is lying to get us into a war worth it? The fact that bush lied doesen't make the war more just, and if he had told the truth: Saddam intended to make WMDs after the end of sanctions, we probably still would have gone to war AND he would have told the truth.


Reason why I avoided the topic? I was pissed at Kellimus, and next time he pulls crap like that I report it.

Report me for what? The truth? Does it hurt you to know, that your reasoning is flawed, and you biznatch (The vulgar word for complain), and act like a noob? Report me. I don't care. If you're going to cry because of your own faults, then you are a noob.

And no. Lieing to get to war is not worth it, but that's how politicians are. Do you fail to realize that the politics of America is one of the most corrupted?

Where do you come up with the idea that he planned on making them after? Do you have a source that is reliable to back up this assumption?

Edit: Added, (The vulgar word for complain) because the swear filter makes it look like i'm flamming him.

President Bush didn't even help out during Hurricane Katrina IN TIME. It was 2 days after the hurrican hit and he is enjoying a vacation with some country star and earning a guitar. Then he doesn't have time to go to Washinton D.C. and instead made his speech in Arizona (?). Then like 2-4 days after the hurricane gone, Bush FINALLY sends the military to clean up the mess from the hurricane. And Bush didn't even bother to evacuate the people in the first place since he thought the Mayor and the Governer could handle the job. But Bush IS THE GOVERNMENT. He needed to help them out.

Final Thought: Bush needs to get fired and we need Hilary Clinton or John Kerry.

I already supplied two sources. Apparently though, you don't trust CNN or FOX. Unless you didnt read the sources.

Hmm.. Considering that Fox is full fledged Republican, and says many things to support Bush (Even though it is useless now) that aren't true, of course i'm not going to believe the Fox story. The CNN, is possibly a different story.

How could the CIA know what Sadam is thinking hmm? Exactly. That is why i'm skeptical. You don't know what people are thinking, so therefore I don't agree with the CIA "knowing" that Sadam was going to produce them.

Again, "Where do you come up with the assumption"? Because the CIA assumes that he would?

If that's your reasoning, then i'm sorry for your kids.

Because the CIA assumes he would, yes, and because Saddam, even though he was a terror of his people, was smart enough to realize that if he had nukes, America would take the risk of invading him.

Actually it would be unconstitutional for the government to barge on in, in a state's affair. The state must formally request assistance from the government in order to get help.

Its under Article 10 of the constitution.

Yeah you shouldn't jump to conclusions like that, it really gets old you know. Bush was the one that pushed for assistance, the govener and mayor did a HORRIBLE job, they are the cause for most of the mess in the south.



Fox is not entirely right wing at all. You just don't like them BECUASE they DON'T bash Bush 24/7. Also can you show me examples that they are untruthful? If they have bad reporting, untruthful stories, and lie then why are they the number one news channel/show? And wouldn't the other news channels be quick to report the falseness of Fox?

It's not mainily that fox is wrong. It's more that they report different stories.

Me personally, I only watch local news for a just a few minutes each day.

I read the newspaper daily and watch the news, national and local, daily.

They report the same stories as every one else....I have gone through (Channel flipping) Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and they were all running the same story at the same time, and that story was the one about the teenaged boyfriend of a girl kill's her parents and they run off together or something...well now the boy is caught so yea.



Good for you?

Yeah, good for me.

Generally, FOX is just a news program. They seem to like sensational stories.

CNN and the rest love to bash bush. Since all the other programs are bashing bush and FOX isnt, everyone thinks FOX is a republicans channel.

I hate bush though, so I don't like fox =P.

thank you, seriously you are the first person besides me to see this.

My family watches Fox news more than CNN and other big news stations. There reasons are not because it's right winged but because that station gives more news about actual politics, foreign affairs, breaking news (events), etc. Rather than just news about people's lives in the US, fashion, unimportant domestic things, etc.

Rofl my post was unneccesary

You can prove this how? Can you read my mind? Do you delve into its far recesses? No, you don't, and can't.

So don't assume, or accuse foolish (Since the filter loooooooves to fark words over) things such as this.

Only noobs do that.

Oopsie. I forgot.



And you provide sources?

If you read my posts, i'm not posting anything worth presenting evidence, so ergo, I have no reason to.

Stfu.

I can read minds, and right now you reading this I am reading your mind and your mind doesn't believe me.

ADDITION:


Common sence is different from person to person, the state may think it can handle the matter/problem while the national government says its a bigger problem and barges in.

Or, the national government abuses the constitution and barges into a state for little or no reason.

Plus we don't want to be unconstitutional now do we ergo visa vi concordently.