Cat..why take the fuckin time to write a little note that fuckin big for absolutely nothing. It would take a verry good subject for me to type a letter that big....on a fuckin forum for absolutely nothing.. Or i would have to be Plasterd...as in drunk..or stoned....   well...cya around..if that fuckins server comes up. 8)  8)  :twisted:  :evil:

Current Wars are not "very good subject[s]"? Strange.

I am not sure how anyone proposes with a moral straightface that starting a war to jumpstart an economy is morally acceptable, let alone even effective for the long-term.

It's simple.  I put America before the rest of the world, and the bulk of Americans before any minority.  What I can't understand is how anyone here, let alone one of us (you) can profess moral superiority.

My implication was obvious as well:  We don't know for sure if there were, and unless we can search the entire world, we may never know for sure.

Serine gas.  Did you forget about that?

I already made a reason clear: he hates us and proclaimed numerous times that he'd see us fall before he died.  If he was going to die (and let's face it, he was getting there) he'd have no reason to hold back.  After all, history would certainly remember him for devastating America, wouldn't it?

How about this:  How long until he found someone with the capabilities who would be willing to sell it to him?  Given the situation of the world before 9-11, I'd say about a year, if he really wanted to.

As I said, if terrrorists are stupid enough to willingly face our army on mass, they'd be much easier to catch.  Terrorist don't run into a battlezone, though they do come from them.  If they came afterwards to kill us, knowing that the Army was there, they'd simply be a group of complete morons.  You seem to have a hard time understanding this.  If this is the case, I am willing to reword it for you.
Oh, and there is no way that Saddam, with the iron fist he used to rule, didn't know about terrorists in his own country.  That's just silly.

I never said they could vote right now.  They are going to have an election in January (I think that's what they said) and they are registering for that election.  My point, which you seemed to miss (again) was that they are showing the world, as well as the minority of their own people who are against freedom, that they want to be a free country and are willing to do face death to accomplish this.  They want to have a say in their government.  If they didn't, they wouldn't face the possibilty of being gunned down just to register.

Exactly.  Though it's extremely implausible to search all possible locations, we should still keep looking anyway.

Umm... Care is a stronger word than I'd use.  I'm really more interested in the core of the debate than the political philosophies (spelling) which drive both sides.

I do.  (sarcasm)
His words are just so passionate (sarcasm)
I can't help but be drawn to his charismatic debate (sarcasm)
It's really funny when twits try to join an intelligent argument. (not sarcasm)

Omfg god, Catbert, plz ur getting lamer and lamer of every loooong post!
Takes fucking 834873 years to read it! And who the fuck cares?
Hate U.S.A's Goverment! Hate Bush! HATE!!! :evil:

Please go elsewhere.

Simply because you fail to grasp what Cat is saying, and find it "crazy" to take a minute out of your so very important day, doesn't mean others do.

Who cares, you ask? I do. Brim apparently does. And I'm sure others do as well.

And would you be so kind as to enlighten me on who lingers on every word of your posts?

Thank you.

I agree with the necessity of this war.  Why, you ask?  Because there's something you missed:  the economy.  A war-time economy is a busy economy.  Though I think it's about time we started getting out of there, the invasion of Iraq prevented us from sliding from a recession into a full-blown depression.

I am not sure how anyone proposes with a moral straightface that starting a war to jumpstart an economy is morally acceptable, let alone even effective for the long-term.  People die in war, unspeakable evils happen during almost every military conflict and the war itself will eventually end. 

I will simply not address this as a plausible "just cause" for a war, and needless to say Bush didn't advertise the war based off of this notion of economic imperialism, at least directly.

No, I haven't.  But the military seemingly has over the last year or so and David Kay gave up and proclaimed we wouldn't find any stockpiles. 

The burden of proof his on Bush's side of the fence.  These are his claims, his war and the blood is on his hands.  You are asking me to prove a universal negative, which is frankly impossible.  You are also implying a rather dangerous logical fallacy, that being if something cannot be proven to not exist, it must exist.  This is of course silly logic.

My only implication is the obvious: We have found no weapons of mass destruction, and there is no good reason to believe we ever will after all this time and effort. 

Really?  Perhaps the CIA and 9/11 commission would be savvy to this information as well then?  If you know something they don't, I'm sure Ashcroft's boys at the DOJ would love to take you down to interrogation room 3187.

Applying your own 'logic' to your claim:

Have you searched every inch of Iraq?  Obviously not, and you cannot prove they definitely exist.  Therefore they don't exist.

^^^ The above is a mocking logical fallacy, inverse to your own, so do not take it as any argument put forward or supported by me please ^^^

Probably about 20 years, and that is assuming he was trying.  He didn't even have the capacity to go beyond 200 miles according to the Kay Report.

That is also assuming he had something to fire, a reason to fire and wanted to start a war with the UN/US kicking his ass again.

I find it hard to believe he'd use these alleged WMD in a pre-emptive strike when they weren't even used to defend Iraq when we invaded, myself.  Then again that assumes they really are mysteriously hiding there somewhere.

Hint: Terrorists in Iraq after the fall of the regime does not indicate terrorists in the country before the invasion.  Nor does it imply a working relationship between the former regime and these elements.

They came to Iraq after we invaded, most likely, and for a good reason.  Not to turn themselves in, not to give us candy or flowers as Chalabi proposed and certainly not to become easier to catch.  They came to kill us.

When you declare war on terrorism, it has a funny way of declaring war back on you.  I guess they didn't get that memo from Bush on May 1st 2003 when he decreed major combat operations over, and "mission accomplished".

Hint for Bush too: Landing on an aircraft carrier in someone else's flightsuit all top-gun like doesn't end a war.

They can't vote, they are still living under a military occupation and a hand-picked successor interim government.

To quote me, which I don't really like doing a lot:

But, then again, how do we know he'd use them?  Oh, that's right.  Because he said hundreds of times that he hates America and would see it fall before he died.

Um. . woudln't that give us more of a reason to search?

But, I'll keep it short, as I've had this argument many times here.

And of course, by "short," I meant shorter than usual and riddled with spelling/grammar errors.

I agree with the necessity of this war.  Why, you ask?  Because there's something you missed:  the economy.  A war-time economy is a busy economy.  Though I think it's about time we started getting out of there, the invasion of Iraq prevented us from sliding from a recession into a full-blown depression.  The bulk majority of funds spent on this war went to companies who make goods which aid the war effort.  This, in turn, went to the American economy.

Now, on to WMDs.  How do you know there are no WMDs?  Have you searched every square mile of sand in Iraq?  Have you found and searched the missing oil tankers?  If you have, you really need to tell the Army so they can stop looking.  We know Saddam's had chemical weapons since the gulf war.  He may not have had the capabilities for a tactical strike, but how long do you suppose it would have taken him to develope the means to hit us from afar?  But, then again, how do we know he'd use them?  Oh, that's right.  Because he said hundreds of times that he hates America and would see it fall before he died.

Moving on, terrorists.  Al-Queda is in Iraq right now.  Nick Berg would attest to that, if he could.  And it's simply illogical to think that they came to Iraq only after we invaded.  If terrorist were stupid enough to go to a place where the American Army had already invaded and were on mass, they'd be alot easier to catch.

Now, what good came from this war?  Ask the Iraqi people.  Everyday, thousands of Iraqis register to vote.  And everyday, a minority of people in the country try to stop them from doing so.  Yet, despite this, they still keep coming.  What does this tell you?  It tells me that they want to vote, that they want to have a say in their own government, and that they are willing to face death to do it.

Oh, and just because the Washington Post says something, doesn't make it true.  There is only one source that can really tell us anything and that's the Army.  Why?  Because they are the ones over there, knee deep in it all.  Not the reporters casting from a "safezone," not the politicians argueing in Washington, and not us argueing here.  Until they're done over there and can take the time to tell us everything (not that they will) we can't assume anything.  You said Fox News is still support the WMD assumption and they need to "come to terms with reality?"  Well, so does everyone else.  Me and you included.

If you agreed with this war, you are either stupid or intellectually dishonest.

Beautiful closing statement. *Loves Catbert*

This is one of the best lines I have heard in a long long time.
It really got to me...