Yay for the Guardian

[SirNitram]

I hope you enjoyed pasting all of that in. No one is going to read it. You always have had a problem with keeping your arguments concise and to the point.

Allow me to translate from Moron for all those who don't get what jackass here is saying.

Fuck, lots of words that probably destroy my argument. I'll just ignore everything and spew bullshit nonsense that was disproven months ago, pretending it's new information!

[Vympel]

*looks at Admiral_K's concession post*

LOL- You're just a chicken shit, performing the classic Wall of Ignorance- you even proudly state you're not even going to read it (no surprise, since it interferes with your bullshit dogma and your laughable revisionism) and go blithely on, repeating your bullshit and stating your opinions as fact.

[Admiral_K]

Excuse me if I'm not going to read 3 pages of garbage which have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the argument. I skimmed it for the important parts and found he basically said the exact same things he had before. My last post was straight to the point.

My argument all along has been:

That Regime change was the policy of the United States.

That there was intelligence from multiple international sources pointing to Iraq as planning attacks against the united states.

That Saddam was willing and able to provide support to terrorist groups.

That the presence of WMDs wasn't even the primary reason for invading Iraq, it was merely the most vocalized.

And that we were justified in removing Saddam from power.

I've conceeded nothing, and I doubt either of you two members of the peanut gallery chiming in read Patricks last post either.

I'm not going to address the red herring that is the "9/11 Iraq connection".

[Vympel]

That Regime change was the policy of the United States.

So fucking what? Fucking goats up the ass could be their policy, does that mean we shouldn't discuss the merits?

That there was intelligence from multiple international sources pointing to Iraq as planning attacks against the united states.

Uncorroborated nonsense not borne out by any serious investigation.

That Saddam was willing and able to provide support to terrorist groups.

At no point have you provided any compelling evidence for this. Restating your position over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true. You can prove no Iraqi threat against the US. Period.

That the presence of WMDs wasn't even the primary reason for invading Iraq, it was merely the most vocalized.

That makes it the primary reason, idiot.

And that we were justified in removing Saddam from power.

On what basis?

I've conceeded nothing, and I doubt either of you two members of the peanut gallery chiming in read Patricks last post either.

I've argued this before myself and know it practically all off by heart. Every rationalization the administration has presented for their pre-emptive war has been gutted. Period. That you can't even read it speaks volumes as to your state of mind.

I'm not going to address the red herring that is the "9/11 Iraq connection".

It's not a red herring at all, dumbass- it's a connection that Bush and his cronies (Cheney especially) continuously flogged in the run-up to war, and is thus very relevant.

[Admiral_K]

Wow what a reply.

So fucking what? Fucking goats up the ass could be their policy, does that mean we shouldn't discuss the merits?

You can debate it all you want.

Uncorroborated nonsense not borne out by any serious investigation.

Wrong.

It was coroborated by British, American, and Russian intelligence among other sources. We know that Saddam had plotted to assassinated George H W Bush, and that he provided monetary support for terrorist groups in Israel.

At no point have you provided any compelling evidence for this. Restating your position over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true. You can prove no Iraqi threat against the US. Period.

I have provided "evidence" (see above, see the links in previous posts). Sorry if I can't produce pictures of Saddam at Osama's birthday party or on a hunting trip with Al Zarqawi. I guess thats what it would take to be "compelling" for you.

That makes it the primary reason, idiot.

No it doesn't. No more than the person who talks the most or the loudest makes them the smartest person. Yes I'm referring to you

On what basis?

On the basis of the points I stated. We were not going to risk the chance of Saddam using his substantial finances to finally strike back at the U.S.

I've argued this before myself and know it practically all off by heart. Every rationalization the administration has presented for their pre-emptive war has been gutted. Period. That you can't even read it speaks volumes as to your state of mind.

Well, I've been there and done that myself. I HAVE read it all before, presented much more eloquently. I've not been convinced by bit of it. Its the same tired line of bullshit lies that was presented in Fahrenheit 9/11.

It's not a red herring at all, dumbass- it's a connection that Bush and his cronies (Cheney especially) continuously flogged in the run-up to war, and is thus very relevant.

Bush never connected 9/11 and Iraq. He connected Al Qaeda and Iraq. And it is generally conceded that there was communication between the groups. Exactly how much communication is up for debate. And again, it is irrelevant because "Al Qaeda" isn't the only terrorist group out there.

[Vympel]

You can debate it all you want.

Good.

Wrong.

It was coroborated by British, American, and Russian intelligence among other sources.

Then I'm sure you can present the evidence that these intelligence sources found. Go ahead, by all means. Oh wait- you can't? Let me guess- it's a secret!

We know that Saddam had plotted to assassinated George H W Bush

LOL- so fucking what? The same way Bush 41 tried to kill Saddam? Clinton already retaliated for that when it happened, at least he had the fucking sense not to treat it as casus belli for war, invasion and occupaiton.

and that he provided monetary support for terrorist groups in Israel.

Ah yes, the widows and orphans fund Degan has already belittled. That's the best you can do? Perhaps you can also inform us when the fuck Israel became the 51st State of the Union, and why you think American soldiers should die for Israel.

I have provided "evidence" (see above, see the links in previous posts). Sorry if I can't produce pictures of Saddam at Osama's birthday party or on a hunting trip with Al Zarqawi. I guess thats what it would take to be "compelling" for you.

Nice strawman, fuckwit. If you can't provide the evidence, STFU.

No it doesn't. No more than the person who talks the most or the loudest makes them the smartest person. Yes I'm referring to you

Nice false analogy retard- you have continuously pretended that the emphasis on WMD was unjustfied because the media didnt' divine from tea leaves or some such that it wasn't the 'true' reason, even though that's what was flogged the most before the war began, overwhelmingly. Well excuse everyone for hanging them by their own petard of falsehoods.

On the basis of the points I stated. We were not going to risk the chance of Saddam using his substantial finances to finally strike back at the U.S.

Ah, so that would be no real basis. Gotcha.

Well, I've been there and done that myself. I HAVE read it all before, presented much more eloquently. I've not been convinced by bit of it. Its the same tired line of bullshit lies that was presented in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Actually it's got nothing do with Fahrenheit 9/11, which I have seen and makes virtually none of those points. Too bad you're too much of a fuckwit to read it before saying something so stupid as above. That you have the gall to talk about "not being convinced" when you've presented no compelling evidence of any kind and when governemnt investigation after investigation has held up all the pre-war rationales to hold no water really takes the cake.

Bush never connected 9/11 and Iraq.

Yes, he did. Degan's quotes make that quite clear. You know, the ones you didn't read.

He connected Al Qaeda and Iraq. And it is generally conceded that there was communication between the groups.

And NO OPERATIONAL TIES.

Exactly how much communication is up for debate.

No, it isn't. The commission has already made its finding in that regard. Reality once again interferes, I'm afraid.

And again, it is irrelevant because "Al Qaeda" isn't the only terrorist group out there.

Yeah, gotta stop those evil Palestinian widows and orphan funds from blowing up Israelis, that's America's job after all.

[Patrick Degan]

It's very simple, Admiral_K. When you say that intel on alleged plots by Saddam for terrorist attacks on the United States were corroborated and you cannot present the actual evidence for this so-called corroboration, that statement is a lie. When you say that it's the "liberal media" which are the ones linking Iraq and 9-11 when the proof stands clear that the White House did so through 2002, that statement is a lie. And when you deny the quotes which demonstrate this beyond all doubt, that is also a LIE. As shabby and unimaginative a lie as any told by Dick Cheney or Condi Rice or Faux News.

Enjoy your stay here as the N&P's new chew-toy.

[Durandal]

Notice how Admiral_K automatically associates any refutation of his arguments as demon-spawned counter-points borne from the illegitimate and tainted womb of Fahrenheit 9/11, which near as I can tell, nobody in the thread but him has referenced or even mentioned.

Can we say "poisoning the well"?

[K. A. Pital]

Hurra-patriotism is dangerous. Not even anywhere near to real patriotism, it's sort of a brain dysfunction.

I'm just sick and tired of those that take no responsibility for the world

Yeah, I wonder when exactly did the "world" (do you seriosly mean "the world", or just kidding?) ask the United States to be responsible for it?
The "world" is a bunch of different sovereign states. Each can take care of itself in the most cases.

[Colonel Olrik]

Necromancy