jross

Facts have been checked, posting back SIR! This whole WMD thing is all up in the air man, no one will ever know for sure. My point was exactly that... NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW. You can have WMD without producing them yourself... Uranium can be bought, Sarin Gas can be bought...

You doubt Iraq would have sold their WMD's to Al-Queda? WDF? And you're in any position to say that they would or wouldn't sell their WMD's? Were you and Sadaam pals? Al-Queda isn't some effing hotel in Afganistan that we can just plow over and say, "sweet. that's done." Al-Queda is an internation group of fanatics that have no way of being traced at all...

←

I find it amuzing that people are concerned over Iraq potentially selling WMDs to Al-Queda down the road, and have overlooked things like Russia's missing suitcase nukes, which "disappeared" in shady circumstances during the break-up of the USSR. Besides, what makes you think Saddam still had the Sarin that he bought? Last time I checked, his gassing of the Kurds was not a small undertaking.

(On that note, why the hell didn't we do anything then? If we're so up in arms over how people are treated over there, why did we just let him do it? Sure, we set up a "no-fly" zone, but it's not like that wasn't violated a dozen times over)

Stockpiles?  We have not found "stockpiles" .  Lets thinks about the way these reports are always phrased.  Whats the one word thats a constant? 

BTW:  Please vote Nader.  Bush thanks you 

←

You show me something where they have found ANY SINGLE DEVICE that counts as a WMD.

How high is your government clearance?

←

We're talking about information available to the public, and what was in the public domain. Things requiring use of clearances are out of the scope of the discussion.

(And to answer your question: high enough to work for the DoS abroad)

Bush never linked Sadam and 9/11 like most libbies would suggest.  However in the 9/11 report there is a link between Sadam and Al qaeda.  It may not be a large one, but it is there.  There were Al qaeda operatives in Iraq before we invaded.  Also it is a war on Terrorism not just al qaeda. Sadam was a terrorist supporter.

←

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/

Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.

Do you have ANY idea how much Sarin gas it takes to kill thousands of people?  NOT MUCH... You've got to know that it could be hidden anywhere in Iraq. 

This is what would have happed if we didn't go after Sadaam; The liberals would be all excited that no american lives would have been lost, claiming it to be a huge vicotry for America.  Then 6 months down the road, Sadaam and Iraq would have sold their nerve gas to Al-Queda, and then they would have used it on us... killing thousands of people.  Then guess what would have happend?  The Kerry bed-wetter coningency would have cried to the press about "what a tragedy that this happened, and if only we would have taken Sadaam out of power when we had the chance...  " PUHH-LEASE...

←

Wow, you're further out there than the liberals you're deriding. Go check your facts, son, and then post back. I doubt Iraq would have sold their WMDs to Al-Queda, and the fact that Al-Queda still hasn't been eradicated should tell you something.

Heh.. 3 replies inbound. This should be fun.

Mini-rant: I'm sick of everyone assuming that since I'm anti-Bush, I'm pro-Kerry. I'm anti-Idiot, and both candidates can suck my big fat pasty cock. I'm almost fed up enough to vote for that crackpot Nader, but I'm afraid of what he'd try and do in the White House. Why the hell can't we have decent canidates? I mean, is that too much to ask? Just one canidate that I don't have the irrepressible urge to beat senseless with a rubber truncheon?

Prove it. I'd like to see this evidence. Like Charles said. Monday morning quarterbacking is awefully easy.

←

There were a number of reports and documents that were in the public domain and in active discussion when the decision to invade Iraq was made which cast doubt upon the intelligence US and Britain were basing their decisions on. Go look through backissues of any major publication, and you'll see references. Maybe later, when I'm bored, I'll do it and post the articles for those of you too lazy to do your own research.

Please give a quoted example where Bush Lied about Iraq.  That is quoted from a major newspaper and not Al Jazeera.  This whole Bush lied crap is wearing really thin considering John F'ing Kerry voted for the war and had as good of intelligence as the president did.  The CIC does NOT keep other people from seeing intelligence.  Bush NEVER said that Sadam was an imminent threat and everybody agreed that he had WMDs and we have found some.

I can't believe an intelligent person like you can still be fooled by the Bush lied crap.  It is designed to cover Kerry's political jerk for voting both ways and cover the Democrats behinds with their base for being pro remove a dictator for once.

←

1) I hate Kerry almost as much as Bush, and I'm not a democrat

2) Show me one verified instance where we have found a WMD

3) Bush did lie. He lied when he claimed Iraq had WMDs (found one yet? Nope), he lied when he claimed Saddam had Al-Queda links, he's lied throughout the process.

1) I doubt it, evidence shows otherwise

2) That's true, but we've firmly established the American people are I mean, look, they're polarized over Bush vs. Kerry...

3) That's fine, and I'm all for that. If they had said that was why, I'd be behind them. They didn't, though.

I think the big problem most of us who are anti-Iraq war are having is that Shrub blatantly lied to the American public about why we were going to war, and our soldiers are dying as a result. I realize that military service isn't about drinking beer and chasing skirt, and playing with assault weapons, but I think it's stupid to waste the lives of the men and women in arms. Yes, I'm sure some of the ones run over would have met their demise over here, and surprisingly, I actually do support our troops over there (well, if sending care packages to family counts.. but we send enough that they share), but that doesn't mean I like the dishonesty behind the war. If they had been honest about their motives, fine... now they just made us look like an jerk in the international arena, and squandered the goodwill of the rest of the world. Great going.

Not true, you can do all the research you want to, there is no law against it, the point with the debates is that the Government is ONLY paying for stem cell research. If you want to do embro research, get all the people that are for it and have deep pockets and have them start digging. All the rich that are complaining about the tax cut being for only them, let them fund it, they seem to have so much extra money.

←

My comment was aimed at "Because that makes sense!".. "We can't have that, can we?". It wasn't touching on the stem cell bit, but the fact that this country feels like it's running in circles sometimes. Or maybe ovals. Definitely something closed-loop.

Can't have that can we!

←

Not in this country, apparently.

My thing with embryonic stem-cell research is this: If they embryos from abortions are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for something useful?

←

Because that makes sense

Regan's son is complete TOOL. Just thought I'd add that in there.

←

Such an informative response.

:P

I'm beginning to remember why I hate trying to explain things to pro-lifers, and the like. Matt, myself and others have all explained our positions quite fully, but you seem to just skip over it, pick something you don't like, and attack us on it. If you're not man enough to be able to see other people's views on things, that's fine -- but frankly, this is no longer a debate. It's just you guys embarrasing yourself by your behavior. Since I guess I'm nebulously responsible for this thread, I'd like to see if locked now.

dude... they were both presidents.. in the same political party...

how is this even close? kerry sux.

←

The Bushes and the Regans may have been in the same party, but they didn't get along. Did you not see Regan's son's speech after his death?

Also, to everyone that's bitching about Kerry's mention of stem cell research in regards to Mr. Reeve, you're all aware the he (Reeve) was a big proponent of stem cell research -- just like Regan? Kerry was trying to honor that.

Do your research, people. Honestly.

You know the news story I'm really disgusted hasn't caught on more?

Fox News apologises for Kerry fabrication

Given the fuss stirred up over CBS's use of questionable documents, I'm really disappointed noone has made a stink over Fox admitting to an outright lie. The media machine in this country is seriously out of line.

The one celled Zygote is no more alive than the bacteria I fight off with Lysol, if you really want to get scientific.  I don't care if it's alive or not, as long as it isn't aware and intelligent I couldn't care less.

←

For once, I'm having to agree with Matt.

Really? It was my understanding that those missiles were still in testing.

←

Technically, yes, you're right, they are still in "testing". However, they have done some test shots as I recall, and I suspect that N. Korea would not (given their secretive nature) have tested them publically without having a reserve force already ready.

1) wrong forum

2) Bush did this too. With Regan. Quit yer bitchin.

Unfortunately, I don't think Bush's policy has been much better...I mean they actually have the bombs now. I'd like to see something MUCH tougher done about N. Korea. Time to demand disarmament from them, IMO. They can't yet hit us with Nukes, but we could turn them into a smoldering crater in a heart-beat. Therefore, we have all the leverage in negotiation, much more so than China.

←

Actually, they can hit the West Coast. Just a thought.

Also, there is no verification yet that N. Korea, did, in fact, detonate a nuclear device (that I have seen). We're actually working on verifying that in the lab, though (don't ask, but we can tell these things.. it takes time).

Course Austin, if they hadn't, how would you know the difference

That sounds heartless but it does beg to be asked.

←

Well put Sorry, I'm too grumpy today to look at this stuff in the proper light. Figures Doug would show me up :rolleyes:

i was born six weeks premature...i'm sure as hell glad my parents didn't have the same sentiment as you do, jross.  my lungs weren't fully developed and i was in neo-natal intensive care for a couple weeks after i was born.  the thing is, i don't remember a thing from that whole ordeal.  right now, i would not like to have all kinds of tubes running from my wrists, mouth, and foot, but i am definitley glad my parents did it.

←

You know, it's funny -- you're assuming alot about me from what I'm writing. Granted, you don't have anything else to judge me by, but you're still leaping to conclusions alot. I'm not saying "oh, kill the premies" or, "kill the fetuses" or anything like that. By the time you're in the final trimester, in my book, you're human, or close enough it's unfair not to give you a shot at becoming one. If you think that from a discussion of a child born more than 4 months premature, you can extrapolate that I would have argued they should have let you die when you were 6 weeks premature, I think you're full of stuff. I've tried to make clear, and have explicitly stated repeatedly, that in the final trimester, the rules are different. Honestly, I can say that if I had a child 4 months premature, I probably would not try and have them artificially keep it alive -- at that point, it would seem to me that it would not be likely to have much of a life, if it survived (which would be highly unlikely). At 6 weeks? I'd have to be an nice guy to give up hope. I understand the stance that life is sacred, which seems to be most people's hinge point, but I guess my background forces me to look at the quality of the life they're given. I speak as someone who was microseconds away from living the rest of their life -- if they survived -- missing an arm and a leg, and having a face so disfigured that it would be unrecognizable as human. Instead, I broke most of the bones in my body, and it's taken them over a decade of reconstructive surgery to give me a face. I've seen enough that I can't help but take the quality of the prospective life into account. There are times to fight the odds, and times that you have to realize that the "best" answers are the hardest. Sometimes, death is the "best" answer.

Just my $.02, as someone working in the nuclear power industry:

It's not really a huge problem, and we've got bigger things to worry about.

First of all, did I say anything about animals?  No, I don't frickin care about animals.

You didn't. I was using it as an example.

And just because a fetus doesn't go through cognitive processes doesn't mean it never will.  And never will that justify its elimination.

We live in a society with government sactioned murder in the forms of warfare and capital punishment. Saving an unwanted life the pain and suffering attendant on it's entry to this world seems justification enough. Besides, the only thing standing between becoming human (from that stage) and just another animal are a series of biochemical processes, not all of which would succeed anyways. But then, you have your way of looking at it, I have mine.

The most premature baby was born in 1987 and was 128 days premature.  That is a little more than 4 months premature.  He was 1lb. 6oz. his skin, hands, ears, and feet were still developing.  His parents were told he had no chance of survival, but he survived.  I know this is an extreme case but who is to say that he couldn't have been aborted.  Had his parents not wanted him, you feel that they should have the option to kill him after a week or two after having him?  And call it medicine?  Its still the 2nd trimester.

"Yeah, why don't we hurry up and kill that fetus before it turns into a human being!"

I think that had the parents felt it was better to put down the child at that point, they would have been within their rights. They gambled that the baby would survive, and they were right -- but imagine all the pain and suffering inflicted upon the baby in the meantime. Sometimes, the greatest mercy is a painless death.