rh535 Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 (edited) He is only saying all this stuff because his ratings in the polls are horrible!!! Edited December 15, 2005 by rh535 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoArmistead Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 Taz, you are reading too far into his 'double dutch.' Saddam had used and had (at the time we demanded he leave the country) WMD's in his possession. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that he would've used the WMD's he had if we would not have taken him out. What Bush meant by 'fully materialize' is "the use of a WMD against us." Saddam already had fully materialized WMD's...we found some of them. It was just a matter of whether or not he was going to use them and/or put them in the hands of terrorists. Bush was using past tense verbage such as "had used" because Saddam was a threat in the past and had used his WMD's in the past. He used subjunctive verbage like "would've" because Saddam hadn't actally used them against us...yet. Based on what you were saying in your first post, you just completely contradicted yourself above. The problem is you are having to read 'double dutch' to back your theories. It's OK to just take things at face value every once in a while. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamikaze_Badger Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 rh, polls mean very little . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoArmistead Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 Plus his poll numbers are up to average ratings for 5th year encumbents... aka Bush is maintaing the re-election status quo. It's OK to admit he isn't the worst person since Stalin guys ^_^ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazwegion Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 Taz, you are reading too far into his 'double dutch.' Saddam had used and had (at the time we demanded he leave the country) WMD's in his possession. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that he would've used the WMD's he had if we would not have taken him out. What Bush meant by 'fully materialize' is "the use of a WMD against us." Saddam already had fully materialized WMD's...we found some of them. It was just a matter of whether or not he was going to use them and/or put them in the hands of terrorists. Bush was using past tense verbage such as "had used" because Saddam was a threat in the past and had used his WMD's in the past. He used subjunctive verbage like "would've" because Saddam hadn't actally used them against us...yet. Based on what you were saying in your first post, you just completely contradicted yourself above. The problem is you are having to read 'double dutch' to back your theories. It's OK to just take things at face value every once in a while. 597984[/snapback] Oh... you'd so like it to be true (that I contradicted myself ) however... the second post was more direct as to allow you to follow his speech I never denied the existence of the US supplied weapons used against the Kurds in the last 10 year period,.. quite simply you cannot (still) have WMD's if you've already used them Haven't you learnt yet Lo' never take anything @ face value... especially when it's coming out of the mouth of a politician okay? Lastly the keyword in your post was yet, btw congrat's on the grammar & wordage used in that particular post... I hope you didn't go to all that trouble just to impress the Liberal hordes & I LMAO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchuwato Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 Do you conservative Americans actually realise that most people in Iraq don't actually like you? I'm not a liberal, and I'm not a conservative, and I appreciate that Saddam was not a very nice bloke, but I have to agree with the anti-war hippies on this. sorry. On the subject of WMDs... Yeah, the intelligence was flawed. But you must remember that they were looking for any excuse possible to invade Iraq. (Let's not start debating why.. it'll escallate out of hand) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammin Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 (edited) I certainly don't think you can say there was no doubt in anyones mind that Saddam would have used any weapons he might of had in his possesion against the US. But like I said before.. I don't think it matters why it went ahead now (because there are troops there and its in the past), the fact is that it has. edit- can we actually stop posting here now? Edited December 15, 2005 by jammin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoArmistead Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 70% of Iraqis agree that their life is better off since Saddam was taken out of power 66% of Iraqis believe their lives will be better at this time next year. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want US troops in Iraq (which is understandable), but agree that it is in their best interest for the time being. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis believe that the US withdrawing troops too soon would lead to disaster. Did you all not get those ABC/AP poll results in the European media? I think we need some more unbiased media around here. Too many people not knowing things that should be known....or too many people just not watching the news and jumping to their own conclusions. Bush is not out to get you, and he certainly isn't running for re-election again. Plus, all you Europeans know about him is what you read or see in the anti-Bush TV shows and newspapers...how in the hell is that supposed to give you an accurate represenation of the man? Have you ever seen him in person? Have you ever talked to him? Hell, just an nonpartisan journalist interview with him; have you ever seen one of those? I didn't think so. Please stop passing judgement on our president, our military, and our war on terror without the proper knowledge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhenKittensATK Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 it really doesnt matter anymore cause the US was bombing key targets in Iraq long be4 the war even went public and the UN where always sending peacekeepers. Saddam was a bad person and now he is taken away from his seat of power. Done deal. now iraq is in reconstrution all we can hope is it will be a successful one and not lead to civil war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoArmistead Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 I am glad you have a positive outlook on things, Krazyxazn. If some people had it their way, Saddam would still be killing his people and handing off Sarin to Baath and Al Qaeda terrorists. We can only hope it wouldn't be put on a London subway... but then again... who would want to risk that? Certainly not people who have sworn to Allah to kill the white devils at any cost. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 Well Al Qaeda is allready in Iraq so how do you go by getting rid of them Irregardless of the present situation, London subway bombings would have happened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamikaze_Badger Posted December 16, 2005 Posted December 16, 2005 Gremlin: Hunting them down and killing them one by one, or letting them die out naturally. Right now, we only have one more generation to take care of. Iraq is getting democracy, and democratic rights. People are seeing what they would of never seen under Saddam's rule. They're experiencing freedoms that they would of been thrown into meat grinders (feet first, btw) for even thinking of under Saddam's rule. Lego: Have you asked every indvidual Iraqi whether or not they like the US? Or, are you getting info from polls that rarely are true? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts