I didn't think it would be too hard to draw you out of the woodwork. Nice sabbatical, rookie. With regard to your satire, I just hope you are able to admit defeat if these chemical stories turn out to be true. If they do turn out to be true, and Saddam has been hiding chem/bio weapons, then there is going to be a lot of egg on the lunatic fringe extremists' collective faces.
I don't know why it's so hard to understand what Cohen is saying. All the soldiers need is a simple card with some instructions in arabic to let the family know what the procedure is and to let them know they will search the house and then be gone. I fail to see what extra danger there is in giving a card or a flier to the head of the family. If anything, it will speed the process up and aid us in the mission of winning over the hearts of the Iraqi people. If you still can't grasp that, just imagine a foreign soldier busting into your house or apartment with a loaded gun aimed right at you and yelling at you in a language you can't understand. You'd be lying if you claim you wouldn't crap your pants at that prospect. Now, if those soldiers gave you a card with english instructions that tell you they are there to search your place and that everything will be fine if you aren't hiding anything or anyone, wouldn't that make you feel better and less scared?
No. No there won't. Unless you're talking about Saddam's government: NO. THERE. WON'T. Not a single one of the people who's opposed this war has said Saddam didn't have WMD. What we have said it that there'd been no credible evidence of WMD. And we've said that we didn't think it was worth attacking unprovoked on an assumption. What we've said further is that even if they had them, they didn't have the capability of reaching the US with them, but that's neither here nor there. If the US had presented evidence of WMD to the UN, they would have backed the war. I have always said if was perfectly likely that Saddam was lying, but that we shouldn't kill innocent civilians on a "perfectly likely" scenario. Especially since they have no missiles that can travel further than 400 miles. If they find chemical weapons I will say it's good news for Israel that we took him out, but I will not have egg on my face. Bush failed to make a credible case for this war. If he finds WMD, he'll look better. If he doesn't, this will go down as the most unjust war this country's ever fought. If they find a viable nuclear program with capability of striking the US, that they then tell us was there all along, that they couldn't tell us about before for security reasons, then I will have egg on my face and I will thank Bush for the war. Pretty much anything short of a clear danger averted though, I will say this war was unjust and unnecessary, regardless of how much anthrax or mustard gas they MIGHT HAVE been able to (but didn't) attack Israel with.
I might sound like a prick, but I don't think marines are doing anything wrong. Their guns are pointed away from those Iraqis.
I don't think that's being a prick.(the continued use of the blue font is another story though) I think what Cohen and others are saying is that it could be done better. Maybe a pre-recorded message in arabic or something to at least bridge the language barrier could be used. How are these people supposed to understand what is being asked of them when they don't speak english?
Me culpa. I appreciate Cohen, et al. But bearing in mind, US troops are not fighting a conventional war. When the opponents use pregnant woman as suicide bombers, that's the lowest of lows.
I agree with that completely thats why something should be done. It would only help save lives, innocent Iraqi and US alike if there was a way to get the people who want to cooperate to understand. And thank you.
Of course they're not fighting a conventional war. A piece of paper with some instructions doesn't put anybody in danger though, it only helps the situation.
p.s. They didn't. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...l_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd&cid=1514&ncid=1473 "Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide Mon Apr 7, 1:52 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo! NEAR NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) - A facility near Baghdad that a US officer had said might finally be "smoking gun" evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons production turned out to contain pesticide, not sarin gas as feared. A military intelligence officer for the US 101st Airborne Division's aviation brigade, Captain Adam Mastrianni, told AFP that comprehensive tests determined the presence of the pesticide compounds. Initial tests had reportedly detected traces of sarin -- a powerful toxin that quickly affects the nervous system -- after US soldiers guarding the facility near Hindiyah, 100 kilometres (60 miles) south of Baghdad, fell ill. Mastrianni said: "They thought it was a nerve agent. That's what it tested. But it is pesticide." He said a "theatre-level chemical testing team" made up of biologists and chemists had finally disproved the preliminary field tests results and established that pesticide was the substance involved. Mastrianni added that sick soldiers, who had become nauseous, dizzy and developed skin blotches, had all recovered. The turnaround was an embarrassment for the US forces in the region, which had been quick to say that they thought they had finally found the proof they have been actively looking for that Iraq (news - web sites) was hiding weapons of mass destruction. A spokesman for the US army's 3rd Infantry Division, Major Ross Coffman, had told journalists at Baghdad's airport that the site "could be a smoking gun". "We are talking about finding a site of possible weapons of mass destruction," he added. The fact that the coalition forces have come up with no clear evidence of WMD after capturing much of Iraq in 19 days of fighting has raised questions over the war's justification.
I honestly think that the U.S. used the Weapons of Mass Destruction as a reason to go in. Even tho' they weren't really believing it themselves. but Eventually they began to believe their own nonsense after a while. I mean look at the evidence. There is none. The U.S. hasn't really given me any evidence that I could convict on. Not at the U.N. Not now. All that being said, I think that even if they don't find anything. The other reasons for going in are still justified. Iraq was in bad shape under Hussein. But I have serious doubts that the U.S. will find anything substantial in terms of weapons of mass destruction.
Wrong. Bush and Powell presented a mountain of information and evidence numerous times to various organizations. The lunatic fringe extremists dismissed this evidence as lies based principally on their dislike for the administration. They were blinded by their distrust and disdain and now they must recognize that one side was right, and one side was wrong. Their malicious attacks were based purely on emotion, not fact. These attacks and peace riots caused considerable damage to worldwide opinion of the US. The LFE's will have to live with the consequences, which should include dramatic losses in support for the Democratic party. Wrong. First, the cease fire in 1991 was not predicated solely on the weapons being able to reach the US. Second, a hostile regime such as Iraq is capable of handing off the weapons to terrorists who could find a non-conventional way of transporting them here and killing thousands of Americans (again). Not your best effort, Batman.
I keep looking at these words and laughing! Can you not see the inherent contradiction in your logic? Wow. Unbelievable. So using your logic, you didn't think Saddam didn't have WMD. This means you think he had WMD. Then you say there's no credible evidence of WMD (lie, but for the sake of argument I'll go on). Let me explain something. If you think that Saddam has WMD, then you are basing that on some type of evidence. If you deny that evidence was not presented, then you are exposed as being a hypocrite. What took place when the LFE's denied that evidence had been presented were baseless, partisan attacks. The extremists were simply trying to disparage the Commander in Chief while simultaneously covering their behinds in case he did actually have WMD (which we now know is true). Pure Democratic party strategy at its best! EXPOSED
1) What mountain of evidence? 2) The 'lunatic fringe' comprises most of the rest of the world. Isn't a 'lunatic fringe' usually chracterized by being a monority of people who zealously cling to the beliefs of their leader irrespective of evidence? 3) ...'and now must recognize'....what, exactly? So the logic is that mist of the rest of the world said there was no real evidence for the WMD, irrespective of whether we saw it as likely or not...and we invaded anyways, and afet weeks of taking over most of their country, and many false reports, we have yet to find one molehill of evidence of WMD, let alone a mountain...but the conventional war, as expected, has been one sided. And this is, according to you, cause for those who claimed insufficient evidence to claim they were wrong!?!?!?!? I actually expeted to find something...but the fact that we haven't is not, in any way i can see, evidence that it was clear that it was there. 4) I agree that there have been many malicious attacks based purely on emotion, not fact. One very recently... 5) I have nothing to do with the Democratic party, so won't comment on that aspect, but if you seriously believe that the single greatest factor in damaging the US's reputation worldwide HASN'T been the White House handling of this whole thing, irrespective of whether you suport the war or not, you are not even trying to look. I have seen hard core war supporters admit that countless times. 6) Cease fire was negotiated under the auspices of the UN secirity council...we can't treat international agreements like a menu, picking off the parts we want to keep and rejecting the rest. It's all part of the same package we chicked out the window a few weeks back... 7) Any nation is capable of 'handing off WMD to terrorists.' What the hell does that prove?
WRONG...The distinction he is making...and most everyone else, is between supposition and conclusion. Between opinion and fact. Between something which supports an inference, and something which supports an invasion....
You're absolutely right Macbeth. Batman and the other members of the lunatic fringe 'suppose' that they hate our armed forces' Commander in Chief, therefore they 'conclude' that anything he says is wrong. Surely you are able to see the inherent contradiction in the extremists' logic. Surely you are able to see that they are trying to argue both sides of the argument here. This is the most blatant attempt at gluteous maximus covering I have ever seen in my history of following politics.
Or Iran-Contra. The rest of it's not worth my time (and I think you all know I employ a pretty 'liberal' standard there).
This whole 'it is so cause I say so' act is really tired, Jorge. I stand by my earlier posts. You did nothing to refute them and whatever feeble attempts you made to do so were appropriately deflected by MacBeth. I've never walked away from a "debate" with you (though you've done so with me on several occasions), but here you're going in circles and I'm gonna go ahead and draw the limit there. Rookie.
