It's Official -- No WMDs

Link

Read it.

Comment.

Also, as much as Vice-President Dick wants to believe so, Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9/11.

So, no WMDs. No connection to 9/11. Oh, and over 12,000 Iraqi civilians dead. I don't think I can take four more years of this.

...........................................

Last edited by hmm on Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

It always scares me to see you reply to threads that take some general knowledge and a suitable thought pattern Homer.

Bush = PWNED

But I want him to win the election instead of Horseface Kerry.

well, big surprise here...

It just makes me mad that he's sending soo many people, mostly young kids our (at least my) age to die for a link to 9-11 that is false and WMDs that don't exist? I mean, it isn't the troops' fault that Bush has to do what his daddy couldn't do 10 years ago... I guess this was all just unfinished business and about the oil. I'm sooo glad I'm 18 so I can vote for Kerry. It doesn't really matter here in California because Kerry's gonna win here, but it's still important to vote.

what surprises me the most is that they declare it just before the US elections, meaning that they no longer need to hide it, as if US people doesn't really give it a damn fork.

isn't it also interesting that 850 US soldiers died after the intense violence was announced to have been stopped in April?

Bush doesn't know what the hell he's doing

Yeah that makes everything "official" then.

Bush doesn't know what the hell he's doing

And you do?

It just makes me mad that he's sending soo many people, mostly young kids our (at least my) age to die for a link to 9-11 that is false and WMDs that don't exist? I mean, it isn't the troops' fault that Bush has to do what his daddy couldn't do 10 years ago...

Thats the joys of being in the army.. and this had nothing to do with his dad.

Do you really think it was because iraq or saddam is connected to 9/11 ?

At first it was speculated that Saddam was harbouring Osama, after it was researched and proved he had no connections with Osama, that theory went out the window. I'm sure lots of people thought Saddam had connections too. Alrgiht, now that he didn't have connections to Osama, should he have left Iraq? According to some people's mindset...or should I say hatred for Bush, yes. I say no. Why? The whole campaign was called "The War Against Terrorism." Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was a form of terrorism. Hell, it was terrorising to the people who had to suffer under him. So if it was a war against terrorism...didn't they do the correct thing by removing him? You all are so hung up on the reason you all forgot the outcome. Saddam is gone, that's a shitload of relief to tons and tons of people. Funny how that little part is often forgotten.

No. it is about oil. And not only iraq . But Bush wants whole mid-east.

You're shitting your pants already aren't you? Don't worry, I don't think he'll want to take over Turkey. You're safe.

Just to make it clear, I don't want Bush to win, I want Kerry to win, but don't forget the good things Bush has done. Sure he's a moron, but his moronic stuff did help a few people, don't act as if it didn't help shit.

Link

Read it.

Comment.

Also, as much as Vice-President Dick wants to believe so, Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9/11.

So, no WMDs. No connection to 9/11. Oh, and over 12,000 Iraqi civilians dead. I don't think I can take four more years of this.

interesting. not really a surprise though.

Do you really think it was because iraq or saddam is connected to 9/11 ?

No. it is about oil. And not only iraq . But Bush wants whole mid-east.

You're shitting your pants already aren't you?

Jackal, nothing has been proven yet. One report doesnt mean much... there were countless reports before the war telling George Bush that there were wmd's (which i still believe are there, how easy would it be for them to hid them, considering they hid sadaam for 20 + years?)

Just to make it clear, I don't want Bush to win, I want Kerry to win,

May I ask why?

Who cares either way? Foreign country, foreign elections, foreign government... the only way it affects our respective countries is if we get pulled into these little crusades by dumbasses from Texas or that other guy who looks like a donkey (if elected). No one on these forums really knows what's going on, not Jackal nor Matthew nor Ben. The only people who know what is going on are the President of the USA and whoever works for him, not even John Kerry knows exactly what's going on so why do we all pretend like we're political analysts?

Anyways, these political threads bore the shit outta me. Stupid need to check all threads due to moderating

Australia is a close ally to America.. a relationship that has gotten alot stronger with President Bush and Johnny howard. If either Kerry or Laethaem get elected, it can effect that relationship, which can effect our economy. I'm not saying who to vote for or such, i just would like to know why some people prefer kerry. I can't see any reason...

And Jae, we're all entitled to our opinion. Just becuase we arent political experts doesnt mean we cant voice our opinions and such... these threads wont stop till the elections are over.

I'm not saying people aren't entitled to their opinion, the problem is people aren't giving their opinion they're stating what they say as facts. Everyone's like "oh these many people have died so Bush is obviously doing this" or "Bush has removed Saddam and everyone's happy"... no one's stating opinions at all.

As far as Australia's involvement goes, lets be realistic about this. We're not needed there, if Mark Latham pulled us out of Iraq the Americans would have more than enough soldiers in reserve to replace us. We're only there out of courtesy.

Politics are controversial.. the majority of the time there is no right or wrong answer, so when people give their opinion, they state them as facts most of the time, becuase they tend to believe them. Politics arent much different from the nba in terms of fans. Matt calls Isiah Thomas the worst gm in the nba. Is this a fact? No it's an opinion, but stated as a fact becuase thats what he thinks.

If Australia does pull out, what does that say about us as a country? Who will protect our non combatant australians over there? The americans? Yeah thats real logical.. Not one australian has died in combat in iraq. If we have civillians over there, then our troops should be there protecting them. America shouldn't have to fight this war alone.. australia has been a target since east timor, and if we want americas support, we shouldnt be hypocrit's...

australia has been a target since east timor

I don't hear of any actual attacks on Australian soil.

Politics are controversial.. the majority of the time there is no right or wrong answer, so when people give their opinion, they state them as facts most of the time, becuase they tend to believe them.

That's exactly what I was saying, people are stating their opinions as facts purely based on random articles on the war and whatever other things they've read on the internet and seen on TV.

I don't buy any of the stuff about Australia being a major target, shit, everywhere's a target. The only reason we're currently a target is because we're involved in this war I think, I've heard things on the news where terrorist leaders have actually said that... I just wish everyone would stop believing the scare tactics used by people like George Bush or John Howard, well, Bush to a lesser extent... at least his country actually got attacked.

Bali was an attack on australia. Listen to the perpetrators testimony's, even they admitted it was an attack on australia...

That's exactly what I was saying, people are stating their opinions as facts purely based on random articles on the war and whatever other things they've read on the internet and seen on TV.

But this happens all over the forum, not just in political threads. From espn vs nba live threads, to nba talk threads..

I don't buy any of the stuff about Australia being a major target, shit, everywhere's a target. The only reason we're currently a target is because we're involved in this war I think, I've heard things on the news where terrorist leaders have actually said that... I just wish everyone would stop believing the scare tactics used by people like George Bush or John Howard, well, Bush to a lesser extent... at least his country actually got attacked.

We have been a target of indosian terrorists since east timor. There has only been one attack on australia, and that was bali. Bali was in november 2002, the war in iraq was in march 2003? So we couldnt be a threat becuase of the war in iraq. And John Howard hasn't really done any kind of scare campeign invloving terrorism..

Bali was an attack on australia. Listen to the perpetrators testimony's, even they admitted it was an attack on australia...

I said there has not been an attack on Australian soil, Bali is not Australian soil.

Ignorance is a bliss..

Lol you just don't get it. Who's bombing Australia? When was the last car bomb that wasn't exploded by a Bulldogs fan? They can bomb Bali and whatever foreign embassies, but they're not bombing the country of Australia so it doesn't concern me. When/if they start bombing here, then I'll worry.

Edit: It's like Shaquille O'Neal bashing up Devean George and saying it's an attack on Kobe Bryant... they bomb Bali and call it an attack on Australia, how does that work?

No its nothing like "attacking devean george and saying its an attack on kobe". Australians were the target of bali, and 88 died. I know indosians also died, but who were the targets?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/13/1037080786324.html?oneclick=true
"Most of the conversation was inaudible to dozens of journalists and photographers who watched from behind glass, but at one moment Amrozi pointed to Western journalists and said in Indonesian: "Those are the sorts of people that I wanted to kill," prompting laughter in the room full of police."

Hmm... also this

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/18/1053196476497.html?oneclick=true

Questions to Amrozi: Q: Will there be more bombs in Bali?

Amrozi: There will be more bombs until the Westerners are finished . . . and all of them who attack Muslims and who attack humanity.

I guess this was really an attack on indosia, considering their low muslim population (who amroze was "fighting" for) and high western numbers (who were the target.

Hang on a sec I think you're getting me confused with Ben, I'm not into political debates on any level... I made a statement, you can not disprove it. Simple. I didn't say Australians weren't the target in the Bali attacks, I said Australian soil has not been attacked by terrorists. And it hasn't. It's not that difficult.

Have a look at what you quoted directly before your statement of "I don't hear of any actual attacks on Australian soil. ". It's implying Australia wasnt attacked...

I dont' care what it implies or not, I made a statement which was followed up by some random quotes and something about Australians being the target of the Bali bombings.

I wasn't even living in the country when Bali was attacked so I don't know half the story, what I do know is that until they're blowing up buildings in this country I don't see why I should be worried about us being this massive terrorist target. Australians overrate our own importance.

Dude, terrorists said Australians and westerners were the target, we didnt say that.