Iraq Retrospective: The Quotes That Sent Us To War

[GreenEarthAl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/20/iraq-retrospective-read-_n_92575.html

Iraq Retrospective: The Quotes That Sent Us To War

As the war in Iraq enters its sixth year, Christopher Cerf and Victor
Navasky have published a "definitive, footnoted, hilarious but
depressing compilation of experts who were in error" about the war
from the beginning. You can read more about the book -- "Mission
Accomplished! Or How We Won The War In Iraq" -- here.

Below, an excerpt from the chapter titled "Their Finest Hour:
America Readies Itself To Free The Iraqi People."

CAKEWALK!

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq
would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy
Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization,
will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board,
7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for
'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of
liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy
Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country
should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan,
New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03

HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure
that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force,
principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular
units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board,
7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of
150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq"
sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something
on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you
know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, 2/25/03

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces,
I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that
will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with
reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of
American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying
before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide
stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war
itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his
army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying
before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will
send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of
troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would
undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this
fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to
stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq
can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05

"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the
point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06

WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the
Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to
prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war,
3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's
not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on
something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's
mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars
who have studied American character have come to the conclusion
that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is
not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can
finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And
I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board,
7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively
small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be
quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute
hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would
have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs,
U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American
taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government
and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S.
taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We
are talking about a country that can really finance its own
reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying
before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the
conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management
and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And
so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder
much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be
months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board,
7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind
I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or
five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any
longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego
that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing
to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six
days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a
matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be
reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism
analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The
shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it
starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in
the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we
bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and
then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war
and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

[yeahwho]

When something goes on for a long time, familiarity itself becomes the enemy of perception.

Whether we support or don't support the government in Iraq (or some coalition not under that umbrella), we cannot avoid pissing a lot of people off who will get the wrong end of such a deal.

The closest we got to dealing with that end of the business was when the Iraq Study Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group) proposal was floated and promptly sank.

Wake me up when a boat like that is spotted in the water again.

[kaiser soze]

Deaths of U.S. soldiers reaches 4,000 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23771735/)

This number does not include those who had died after being removed from battle or having been discharged. God only knows how many Iraqi's have fallen victim to this presumably "short" conflict :(

[alien autopsy]

and how many iraqi's have died? how many children will be born totally deformed and mutilated because of DU poisoning, how many troops will die from DU poisoning? war is so terrible and disgusting. its sad that we go around like servant dogs fulfilling the wishes of rich morons who have no humanity, no respect for any life whatsoever.

[Echewta]

If only Iraq would have been as easy as lets say Hawaii, Alaska, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc....

[abcdefz]

"Don't Tase me, bro!"
-Andrew Meyer, September 17, 2007

"Drainage!"
Daniel Plainview, circa 1927

[kaiser soze]

Cheney on Iraq then and now

Cheney against Iraq invasion in 94 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I)

SO? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma84zNUKXd4&feature=related)

[Carlos]

...and you still doubt this guy would have a problem allowing 911 to happen?

...he couldn't give a flying fuck about your country, or anyone else for that matter: advancing the goals of the neo-cons as stated in the PNAC doc Rebuilding America's Defenses is literally all that matters...
Read it, they've got everything they wanted.. from securing a straegic stronghold in the middle east and therefore oil reserves, to a catalysing event such as a new pearl habour (yes they actually asked for 911 to happen, so they could roll out their program).. wow they were either really really lucky, or had a load of psychics working for them, or maybe perchance they fueled such an event..

The invasion of Iraq would never have been palletable without 911 (or in their words a catalysing event such as a new pearl habour), which they quite clearly understand and acknowledge in the PNAC doc.

Even though it's comforting for a lot of people to think so: they aren't stupid - they got dozens of the most sharp minds working on every little piece of planning... the pres is the fall guy, not a decission maker. And so it's convenient to have such a blatent neanderthal as the fall guy.. why u think Bush boy got to be pres: cos he looks like dumb piece of shit, and therefore it's easy to put their evil tactics down to bad planning, or incompetance...

For example, the after war planning: you really think the pentagon operational centre wouldn't have highly intelligent people working showing Rummy what would be the outcome of a small light force to knock over Saddam, but not secure vital key infrastructure - was obvious to anyone that had any experience the whole country would disintegrate....

but that was exactly the plan: weaken Iraq: a weak Iraq = greater american influence, so can have greater power and control over it, and has secured oil reserves for haliburton and other US contractors... a strong Iraq means they would have turned round and said thanks for takin out Saddam, now fuck off.

Again showing that US lives or the lives of Iraqis is as far from a priority as can be - furthering this small cobal's power and control over the globe is the bottom line... as these neo-cons are tied with major oil companies, and defence contractors - both of which have seen profits go though the roof!! Oil is being sold at 3/4 times the price it was before 2001, from 'greater global uncertainty'.. yeah cos these fucks won't stop messin shit up - in other words the more they shit on the globe, the more money they make!!!! :mad:

that's why it's so hard for me to understand why anyone would believe (let alone try to defend) a conspiracy theory spun by such mo-fo's...

[NoFenders]

...and you still doubt this guy would have a problem allowing 911 to happen?




Ugh!!! People just can't get enough. Whatever gets ya through the night. What a shame.

:rolleyes:



:cool:

[abcdefz]

...and you still doubt this guy would have a problem allowing 911 to happen?



Emergency telephone services have been around for a long time.

[Schmeltz]

Ignore Carlos, he'd make every thread on the board into a 9/11 convo if he could.

NoFenders, as a self-confessed war supporter, do you have nothing else to say about how profoundly, fundamentally, foundationally wrong your leaders were about every single thing they predicted would happen? If I were you I would be quite concerned about the fact that the loss of so many young soldiers, so many innocent Iraqi lives, and the waste of so many hundreds of billions of dollars was justified on the basis of such patently absurd and falsified reasoning.

Well, whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

[NoFenders]

NoFenders, as a self-confessed war supporter, do you have nothing else to say about how profoundly, fundamentally, foundationally wrong your leaders were about every single thing they predicted would happen? If I were you I would be quite concerned about the fact that the loss of so many young soldiers, so many innocent Iraqi lives, and the waste of so many hundreds of billions of dollars was justified on the basis of such patently absurd and falsified reasoning.

Well, whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

Nice try. You all know my stance, and it hasn't changed. We needed to go in, we're in, and we shouldn't leave anytime soon. There mistakes made, and that doesn't go under the rug. I feel safer knowing we're there, instead of them here. That's all. If you disagree, sorry, but that's what makes this country great.
:cool:

[afronaut]

Nice try. You all know my stance, and it hasn't changed. We needed to go in, we're in, and we shouldn't leave anytime soon. There mistakes made, and that doesn't go under the rug. I feel safer knowing we're there, instead of them here. That's all. If you disagree, sorry, but that's what makes this country great.
:cool:

Instead of who here? "They" weren't even "there," until we made the place as unstable as it is now.

Maybe Osama would have been caught by now if we had focused all the wasted resources and manpower we used on Iraq on catching the true perpetrators of 9/11.

And maybe it would be easier (or at least more rational) to keep "them" from coming over "here" if we had actually fought "them" were they were actually located, instead of opening up an entire country (Iraq) to be vulnerable to the influence of radical Islam. Yeah, way to go, us. Now Al-Qaeda has a whole new demographic to target: pissed off Iraqis.

And way to go, once again instead of demonstrating some real, original, intelligent thought, you go ahead and spew the same old neocon obviously bullshit rhetoric you'll see on tv: better us there than them here. Be for the war, buddy. Thats your right. How about you give some kind of intelligent reason for why you feel the way you do, instead of hiding behind rhetoric.

What I'm saying is, if you believe so strongly in what you believe, convince me with some original and intelligent thought. I'm not adverse to seeing the other side of things. But you have to show me the rational, intelligent side, and not some cheap slogans you heard on the tv.

Oh wait, I forgot, you enjoy being "vague" and "shooting from the hip." Which I guess is code for, "i believe in what i believe in, but i don't have any concrete, rational arguments to back up what i say. but i'm sure i'm right, so i don't have to give any arguments! they should just listen to what i say!"

[NoFenders]

Instead of who here? "They" weren't even "there," until we made the place as unstable as it is now.

Ok, you answered your own question, good job on that.

Maybe Osama would have been caught by now if we had focused all the wasted resources and manpower we used on Iraq on catching the true perpetrators of 9/11.

The true perpetators of 911 isn't just Osama, and we're getting them as well.

And maybe it would be easier (or at least more rational) to keep "them" from coming over "here" if we had actually fought "them" were they were actually located, instead of opening up an entire country (Iraq) to be vulnerable to the influence of radical Islam. Yeah, way to go, us. Now Al-Qaeda has a whole new demographic to target: pissed off Iraqis.

Hey genius, we didn't go there to fight Osama. We went there for weapons. Gee wizz, what a surprise, there weren't any there since it only took us three years to get a foot in the door. The bees that buzz on our picnic are kept far away in that pop can called Iraq. I'm happy I can eat in peace while they buzz bomb our forces instead of our kids on a playground.


And way to go, once again instead of demonstrating some real, original, intelligent thought, you go ahead and spew the same old neocon obviously bullshit rhetoric you'll see on tv: better us there than them here. Be for the war, buddy. Thats your right. How about you give some kind of intelligent reason for why you feel the way you do, instead of hiding behind rhetoric.

What a laugh, you've just defined your own self. My thoughts are real and original, intelligent?? some might argue that one, but I think I have a little. I'm not the one quoting and linking every chance I get to prove to some random person that I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do.


What I'm saying is, if you believe so strongly in what you believe, convince me with some original and intelligent thought. I'm not adverse to seeing the other side of things. But you have to show me the rational, intelligent side, and not some cheap slogans you heard on the tv.

Where's the cheap slogans???


Oh wait, I forgot, you enjoy being "vague" and "shooting from the hip." Which I guess is code for, "i believe in what i believe in, but i don't have any concrete, rational arguments to back up what i say. but i'm sure i'm right, so i don't have to give any arguments! they should just listen to what i say!"

Yeah, keep that in mind next time.

:cool:

[Schmeltz]

That "picnic" metaphor is really very telling: for people like NoFenders, the world is indeed a happy picnic where the only concern is the distant prospect of a mild and insignificant irritation, a minor disruption to the pleasant detachment of their lives. Fortunately they have others to deal with that sort of thing, no matter what the cost - so long as it's other people paying it, and so long as he feels safe.

Willful ignorance is one of the saddest and most disgusting features of conservatism. At least it reminds me to always be thankful.

[QueenAdrock]

It's absolutely astounding. How anyone can have such a high sense of false security, I don't know. Just because nothing has happened on US soil since 9/11 (of course, terrorism has happened on US soil abroad, but we're not counting that, are we?) doesn't mean it never will.

Don't bury your head in the sand. That's what people did before 9/11. Everyone thought that we had security and were perfectly fine - that's why it shook America to the core. No one had ANY IDEA that something that badly could have snuck through American security the way it did. You honestly think that there's no way another terrorist could sneak stuff onto a plane? Because we're "killing them all off" over there? News flash - terrorists are in more places than Iraq (especially considering how they weren't even there when we went into the country!). Every "terrorist" that's killed over there breeds propaganda that recruits 3 more. Terrorists are in England, France, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, America, Canada. I don't know how you can say you feel "safe" knowing we're over there, seeing as how terrorists in the other countries aren't even being dealt with. The terrorists that orchestrated 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq.

I mean, just because we have policemen on the streets doesn't mean that there's no possibility of you being shot or robbed, even in broad daylight, right? They don't catch all the criminals, even if they try. Use the same logic.

[NoFenders]

That "picnic" metaphor is really very telling: for people like NoFenders, the world is indeed a happy picnic where the only concern is the distant prospect of a mild and insignificant irritation, a minor disruption to the pleasant detachment of their lives.

Distant prospect of a mild insignificant irritaion???? Are you my wife???? lmao

Fortunately they have others to deal with that sort of thing, no matter what the cost - so long as it's other people paying it, and so long as he feels safe.

If that's how you feel, you're way out of touch. I happen to have family and friends there now. So "other people" are my people. I don't feel safe, but I certainly feel safer knowing that we're doing what needs to be done.


Willful ignorance is one of the saddest and most disgusting features of conservatism. At least it reminds me to always be thankful.

Willful ignorance can be a description of yourself as well. You fail to see how much danger we could be in, and you choose to let your political opinion be judge for the entire situation.

Funny thing though, I never need to be reminded to be thankful. I thank my lucky stars every day that I was born and live in this country. I'm thankful my family has served in every war since the Civil war, and they've fought for myself and my family. I give them the recognition they deserve.

Next time you wanna label me as some ignorant jack ass, try a little harder.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

It's absolutely astounding. How anyone can have such a high sense of false security, I don't know. Just because nothing has happened on US soil since 9/11 (of course, terrorism has happened on US soil abroad, but we're not counting that, are we?) doesn't mean it never will.

False security??? Maybe you don't know exactly what they stand for, and who they think we are. Do a little research on that one.

Don't bury your head in the sand. That's what people did before 9/11. Everyone thought that we had security and were perfectly fine - that's why it shook America to the core. No one had ANY IDEA that something that badly could have snuck through American security the way it did.

Yeah, one person could be to blame for that.Slick Willy sure did make this place great.Way to go on destroying our entire spy program.I don't bury my head in the sand. I have no need to. What are you talking about??


You honestly think that there's no way another terrorist could sneak stuff onto a plane? Because we're "killing them all off" over there? News flash - terrorists are in more places than Iraq (especially considering how they weren't even there when we went into the country!). Every "terrorist" that's killed over there breeds propaganda that recruits 3 more.

I didn't know you were so involved over there. Where do you get your numbers from. Is it some poll that was sent into Iraq. Yes, people are trying to get more terrorists to join their fight, so that means we just give up huh. Great plan.

Terrorists are in England, France, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, America, Canada. I don't know how you can say you feel "safe" knowing we're over there, seeing as how terrorists in the other countries aren't even being dealt with. The terrorists that orchestrated 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq.

Yeah, but most are in Iraq and its surrounding borders. There's most likely a terrorist 3 miles away from where I am right now. Yeah, it's bothersome, but not as much as it would be if I didn't know we were fighting them with all of our force that the public would allow.

I mean, just because we have policemen on the streets doesn't mean that there's no possibility of you being shot or robbed, even in broad daylight, right? They don't catch all the criminals, even if they try. Use the same logic.

They catch most, and that's good enough for me.

:cool:

[afronaut]

The true perpetators of 911 isn't just Osama, and we're getting them as well.

Thats true there were more perpetrators than just Osama, but how many exactly? Enough that it takes more than 7 years to crack down on all of them? Where are Bush's addresses to the public where he talks about his grand plans on a surge on the crackdowns against the real terrorists? No, instead our boys over there are trying to not get killed by insurgents who wouldn't even have given a damn about America until they saw all the chaos we caused, and the opportunities that opened for all the radicals.

How are we going to have a successful democracy over there if the majority of people don't want a democracy? How about we give any Iraqi who wants to live in a peaceful democracy asylum here in America, and leave the radicals to fight it out over there? You wouldn't like that though, more foreigners. It's ok to support foreigners who want democracy as long as they're dying for it in some other country, and not in ours.

We both know that a democracy in Iraq is never going to happen in our lifetime. It took the western world hundreds of years to get over the religious purging and strife and violence that they're just only now in the midst of over in the middle east.

Hey genius, we didn't go there to fight Osama.
Uh yeah, no shit. Thats the problem. Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda, and we knew it. And if we didn't know it, then we were just dumb, rash, uninformed, trigger happy assholes. 2 years after 9/11 happened, the majority of the terrorists are still at large, and then all of the sudden we decide that Iraq is about to bomb us or something and to hell with our main focus being on catching the terrorists.

We went there for weapons. Gee wizz, what a surprise, there weren't any there since it only took us three years to get a foot in the door.
Well it didn't really sound like the Bushies were too scared with weapons not being there anymore because it apparently took us "three years to get a foot in the door." I thought those weapons were there right then, and a lot of them too. And deadly ones, like some crazy biological shit or some nukes. So I guess three years before we decided to bomb Iraq, Saddam decided to get rid of his weapons just in case? Well then, what was he just about to bomb us with then if he had already gotten rid of his weapons?

The bees that buzz on our picnic are kept far away in that pop can called Iraq. I'm happy I can eat in peace while they buzz bomb our forces instead of our kids on a playground.
Why didn't we keep those "bees" in the places where they were originally stuck and crack down on them there? Is it easier to kill terrorists when they have even more territory to hide out and cause chaos in? And now we have these terrorists all mixed up with insurgents who just want us out of their land, so instead of just taking on the terrorists, we have to fight these guys now too on top of everything else.

So thats good, more territory for the terrorists to train, hide, and destroy, and on top of that, more enemies on top of the original terrorists we were trying to get. Yeah, thats how smart people fight terrorism. Thats the real concise, rational, not-messy way to do things. That'll really get shit done. I mean, it hasn't yet. But just wait, in maybe 10 years, we'll start to see some progress. The only problem is, in the meantime, we'll have lost complete focus of the terrorists that don't operate in Iraq.

What a laugh, you've just defined your own self. My thoughts are real and original, intelligent?? some might argue that one, but I think I have a little. I'm not the one quoting and linking every chance I get to prove to some random person that I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do.
Laugh all you want, you get into more debates here than I do. The only difference between you and I is that I care enough and am informed enough to back up my arguments. That and I actually at least try to be informed about what I'm talking about. You refuse to look at any link, any news story, any piece of evidence we provide for our arguments, while you don't seem to have anything at all to back up yours. And apparently we're assholes for actually backing up our arguments. I'm sorry we don't "shoot from the hip" like you. In fact, there is no point with debating with you, because you debate with your "gut" instead of your brain, and you have in interest in proper discourse.

I mean shit, at least Rob backs up what he says. You just say stuff.

Where's the cheap slogans???
"Better to fight them there than to fight them here?" I mean it sounds like it makes sense, and in a perfect world it would, it's just too bad that it's completely removed from the reality of the situation.

[NoFenders]

I've become tired and bored of this. You and I disagree. That's all. So be it.It's been fun, but I really don't have time anymore. We'll just wait and see what happens in the long run.

That being said, it's great that we can have these talks and not get too crazy with it. I serioulsy think that all of you are good people, and would love to one day have a beer with any one of you. Sorry my opinion doesn't count for shit in this world, but it's mine and I'm proud of it. As you are of yours. Keep that, and never let it go.

So, farewell gen pol board!! You dirty dirty bitch. (y)

Been fun!!!

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

"Most terrorists are in Iraq and the surrounding borders" - tell me, where do you get your statistics? Oh, I forgot. Your head. Your gut. You don't need "facts" or "statistics" or "news reports" to tell YOU what to think! You KNOW there are terrorists in Iraq and that we're killing them, despite government defense reports that come out saying otherwise. It's sad that I've posted valid EVIDENCE that verifies everything I've said; it's obvious you haven't read anything and are just perfectly happy being willfully ignorant.

You telling me to do research has got to be THE most laughable thing I've seen today. You don't know the meaning of research. You've never done it. You don't read the news, and if you do, you don't believe anything you don't want to, if it goes against your narrow world view.

I pray that you're able to one day learn facts and THEN base your opinion around those facts, rather than the other way around. Arguing with you is like arguing to people centuries ago that the world was round.
"The world is round, we have scientific evidence that says so."
"Oooh, "evidence"! I don't need science telling me what to think, I use my experience! And in my experience, I walk outside and see the road is flat, and therefore I KNOW that means that the rest of the world is flat too. Nothing you can say can convince me otherwise, because I don't care about news reports or your so-called 'facts'."

See how ridiculous that logic is? Sigh.

[Schmeltz]

Well, NoFenders, you're right when you say that everyone has a right to their own opinion, and to the expression thereof - even if that doesn't count for too much. But having a right to an opinion isn't the same thing as having an informed or substantial opinion, and nobody is bound to respect an opinion that is at total odds with the facts - especially when they use those same facts to back their own ideas up. "Good enough for me" isn't good enough for someone who's more informed or educated, even in comparatively minor terms, about the subject at hand.

Anyway, you'll be back. They always come back.

[yeahwho]

I've become tired and bored of this. You and I disagree. That's all. So be it.It's been fun, but I really don't have time anymore. We'll just wait and see what happens in the long run.

That being said, it's great that we can have these talks and not get too crazy with it. I serioulsy think that all of you are good people, and would love to one day have a beer with any one of you. Sorry my opinion doesn't count for shit in this world, but it's mine and I'm proud of it. As you are of yours. Keep that, and never let it go.

So, farewell gen pol board!! You dirty dirty bitch.

Been fun!!!



Anyway, you'll be back. They always come back.

I really would enjoy it if one day a very articulate McCain or Clinton supporter did come on board here and submit facts, statistics and an actual passionate argument for the candidate they support. My take is this, cynicism and hopelessness has pretty much crumbled the republican party at the very highest levels. Many people who come here to straighten us out just cannot believe that we have a core belief system. That a sense of history, facts and purpose are part of our criteria. When asking for a mutual respect on that level insults that person, I come to this conclusion,

Obliviousness;

1. Lacking all memory; forgetful.
2. Lacking conscious awareness; unmindful.

[JohnnyChavello]

So, farewell gen pol board!! You dirty dirty bitch. (y)

Been fun!!!

:cool:

God, I hope he found the Nickelback message board.

[afronaut]

I've become tired and bored of this. You and I disagree. That's all. So be it.It's been fun, but I really don't have time anymore. We'll just wait and see what happens in the long run.

That being said, it's great that we can have these talks and not get too crazy with it. I serioulsy think that all of you are good people, and would love to one day have a beer with any one of you. Sorry my opinion doesn't count for shit in this world, but it's mine and I'm proud of it. As you are of yours. Keep that, and never let it go.

So, farewell gen pol board!! You dirty dirty bitch. (y)

Been fun!!!

:cool:

My ideology is whatever ugliness happens in the political forum, stays in the political forum. It's been fun, peace.