Okay, you just randomly changed the subject. Kill is not the definition of an entire Military Force against a single individual. And we were talking about that we [i]don't[/i] want to have Obama assassinated. And if you're just going to make posts for minerals, go away because these arguments that you are making here a bit flawed.

Okay, you just randomly changed the subject. Kill is not the definition of an entire Military Force against a single individual. And we were talking about that we don't want to have Obama assassinated. And if you're just going to make posts for minerals, go away because these arguments that you are making here a bit flawed.

No, We didn't propose to only find Osama Bin Laden. The government proposed a war against terror because many incidents of terror attacks were happening around the world. For example, Europe.

No, We didn't propose to only find Osama Bin Laden. The government proposed a war against terror because many incidents of terror attacks were happening around the world. For example, Europe.

Osama is an issue, shoot me for stating the obvious but hear me out... The position he is in is strategic toward his advantage. Terrain wise, he is in a mountainous area with thousands and thousands of caves. he is olmost completely undetected. You cant just waltz into a country blow everything up and hope that osama is all that is left standing. this is not something that brute military force can handle. You need dedicated inside men. people who are willing to get close, to die for the cause. find a date, then contact the u.s. with coordinates. thats the best way to handle the osama issue.

Osama is an issue, shoot me for stating the obvious but hear me out... The position he is in is strategic toward his advantage. Terrain wise, he is in a mountainous area with thousands and thousands of caves. he is olmost completely undetected. You cant just waltz into a country blow everything up and hope that osama is all that is left standing. this is not something that brute military force can handle. You need dedicated inside men. people who are willing to get close, to die for the cause. find a date, then contact the u.s. with coordinates. thats the best way to handle the osama issue.

[quote=name:KrayZee]Okay, you just randomly changed the subject. Kill is not the definition of an entire Military Force against a single individual. And we were talking about that we [i]don't[/i] want to have Obama assassinated. And if you're just going to make posts for minerals, go away because these arguments that you are making here a bit flawed.[/quote] Allright, you just lost the arguement and now you are criticizing me directly.. Real admirable. Anyways you said nothing that i read about not killing Osama. Also how would it [i]not[/i] take a large military force to find Osama?

Quote from KrayZee

Okay, you just randomly changed the subject. Kill is not the definition of an entire Military Force against a single individual. And we were talking about that we don't want to have Obama assassinated. And if you're just going to make posts for minerals, go away because these arguments that you are making here a bit flawed.

Allright, you just lost the arguement and now you are criticizing me directly.. Real admirable. Anyways you said nothing that i read about not killing Osama. Also how would it not take a large military force to find Osama?

[quote=name:O)Silent][quote=name:KrayZee]Okay, you just randomly changed the subject. Kill is not the definition of an entire Military Force against a single individual. And we were talking about that we [i]don't[/i] want to have Obama assassinated. And if you're just going to make posts for minerals, go away because these arguments that you are making here a bit flawed.[/quote] Allright, you just lost the arguement and now you are criticizing me directly.. Real admirable. Anyways you said nothing that i read about not killing Osama. Also how would it [i]not[/i] take a large military force to find Osama?[/quote] ...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation. Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot. ;)

Quote from O)Silent

Quote from KrayZee

Okay, you just randomly changed the subject. Kill is not the definition of an entire Military Force against a single individual. And we were talking about that we don't want to have Obama assassinated. And if you're just going to make posts for minerals, go away because these arguments that you are making here a bit flawed.

Allright, you just lost the arguement and now you are criticizing me directly.. Real admirable. Anyways you said nothing that i read about not killing Osama. Also how would it not take a large military force to find Osama?

...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation.

Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot.

[quote=name:midget_man_66]Osama is an issue, shoot me for stating the obvious but hear me out... The position he is in is strategic toward his advantage. Terrain wise, he is in a mountainous area with thousands and thousands of caves. he is olmost completely undetected. You cant just waltz into a country blow everything up and hope that osama is all that is left standing. this is not something that brute military force can handle. You need dedicated inside men. people who are willing to get close, to die for the cause. find a date, then contact the u.s. with coordinates. thats the best way to handle the osama issue.[/quote] Quoted for Truth.

Quote from midget_man_66

Osama is an issue, shoot me for stating the obvious but hear me out... The position he is in is strategic toward his advantage. Terrain wise, he is in a mountainous area with thousands and thousands of caves. he is olmost completely undetected. You cant just waltz into a country blow everything up and hope that osama is all that is left standing. this is not something that brute military force can handle. You need dedicated inside men. people who are willing to get close, to die for the cause. find a date, then contact the u.s. with coordinates. thats the best way to handle the osama issue.

Quoted for Truth.

[quote=name:KrayZee] ...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation. Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot. ;)[/quote] the argument is mccain vs obama. I personally don't wanna make a decsision until I find out who the vice president will be, because if obamas elected well im not sure he will be around very long

Quote from KrayZee

...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation.

Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot.

the argument is mccain vs obama. I personally don't wanna make a decsision until I find out who the vice president will be, because if obamas elected well im not sure he will be around very long

[quote=name:Zell.][quote=name:KrayZee] ...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation. Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot. ;)[/quote] the argument is mccain vs obama. I personally don't wanna make a decsision until I find out who the vice president will be, because if obamas elected well im not sure he will be around very long[/quote] No, the argument between Silent and I were about Iraq and Osama... in which I find it odd why he'd change the topic. But like I said, it depends whether or not if Obama takes a vacation to republican/McCain voted state...

Quote from Zell.

Quote from KrayZee

...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation.

Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot.

the argument is mccain vs obama. I personally don't wanna make a decsision until I find out who the vice president will be, because if obamas elected well im not sure he will be around very long

No, the argument between Silent and I were about Iraq and Osama... in which I find it odd why he'd change the topic.

But like I said, it depends whether or not if Obama takes a vacation to republican/McCain voted state...

Yea i realize that but you were ignorant to realize that's not what this topic is about kk? @George Bush haters. Our agencies like the FBI said that there was reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction, all of our friends and allies were behind us before we made the decisions to go in. Kind of like at school when your buddies say "go fight that kid i got your back" and as soon as you go get in his face they go get the video camera and start giggling. When the other countries figured out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction they backed out on us immediately and we looked bad. Another fact is that when president Lincoln was in office almost nobody liked him, it was bad, worse than it is now with president bush (75% dislike) and furthermore I'd rather have a president who did what he thought was right and stayed strong to his thoughts than who changed according to the easily influenced majority of Americans.

Yea i realize that but you were ignorant to realize that's not what this topic is about kk? @George Bush haters. Our agencies like the FBI said that there was reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction, all of our friends and allies were behind us before we made the decisions to go in. Kind of like at school when your buddies say "go fight that kid i got your back" and as soon as you go get in his face they go get the video camera and start giggling. When the other countries figured out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction they backed out on us immediately and we looked bad. Another fact is that when president Lincoln was in office almost nobody liked him, it was bad, worse than it is now with president bush (75% dislike) and furthermore I'd rather have a president who did what he thought was right and stayed strong to his thoughts than who changed according to the easily influenced majority of Americans.

[quote=name:Zell.]Yea i realize that but you were ignorant to realize that's not what this topic is about kk? @George Bush haters. Our agencies like the FBI said that there was reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction, all of our friends and allies were behind us before we made the decisions to go in. Kind of like at school when your buddies say "go fight that kid i got your back" and as soon as you go get in his face they go get the video camera and start giggling. When the other countries figured out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction they backed out on us immediately and we looked bad. Another fact is that when president Lincoln was in office almost nobody liked him, it was bad, worse than it is now with president bush (75% dislike) and furthermore I'd rather have a president who did what he thought was right and stayed strong to his thoughts than who changed according to the easily influenced majority of Americans.[/quote] ...how am I ignorant? It is fucking obvious that the topic is about whether to decide about McCain or Obama. Now you really went off topic there, even if by calling ME ignorant...

Quote from Zell.

Yea i realize that but you were ignorant to realize that's not what this topic is about kk? @George Bush haters. Our agencies like the FBI said that there was reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction, all of our friends and allies were behind us before we made the decisions to go in. Kind of like at school when your buddies say "go fight that kid i got your back" and as soon as you go get in his face they go get the video camera and start giggling. When the other countries figured out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction they backed out on us immediately and we looked bad. Another fact is that when president Lincoln was in office almost nobody liked him, it was bad, worse than it is now with president bush (75% dislike) and furthermore I'd rather have a president who did what he thought was right and stayed strong to his thoughts than who changed according to the easily influenced majority of Americans.

...how am I ignorant? It is fucking obvious that the topic is about whether to decide about McCain or Obama. Now you really went off topic there, even if by calling ME ignorant...

[quote=name:KrayZee][quote=name:Zell.][quote=name:KrayZee] ...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation. Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot. ;)[/quote] the argument is mccain vs obama. I personally don't wanna make a decsision until I find out who the vice president will be, because if obamas elected well im not sure he will be around very long[/quote] No, the argument between Silent and I were about Iraq and Osama... in which I find it odd why he'd change the topic. But like I said, it depends whether or not if Obama takes a vacation to republican/McCain voted state...[/quote] I didnt change the subject lol. I said there were many ppl involved in the choice to go into Iraq. You said elaborate, then i elaborated. Then someone else said americans were hypocrites because when the towers fell we all wanted to move into iraq, and krayzee said, no, we wanted to assassinate Osama. I then said assassinating Osama [i]is[/i] moving into Iraq because it would require a large military force to pursue him in Afghanistan, and any followers or helpers of the cause in Iraq. This was all in defense to Bush, and none was off topic, or involved a major subject change. As about my grammar that doesn't have too much to do with Bush or Obama, so I don't think YOU, krayzee should change the topic. Also what I was saying about toxin shells was in defense against Bush as rushing into Iraq was not a bad idea, nor only Bush's sole doing. So if krayzee can't come up with some valid statements that are on topic, rather than criticizing me and my grammar which are both totally irrelevant to the topic, he should stop "posting for minerals" :-_-:

Quote from KrayZee

Quote from Zell.

Quote from KrayZee

...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation.

Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot.

the argument is mccain vs obama. I personally don't wanna make a decsision until I find out who the vice president will be, because if obamas elected well im not sure he will be around very long

No, the argument between Silent and I were about Iraq and Osama... in which I find it odd why he'd change the topic.

But like I said, it depends whether or not if Obama takes a vacation to republican/McCain voted state...

I didnt change the subject lol. I said there were many ppl involved in the choice to go into Iraq. You said elaborate, then i elaborated. Then someone else said americans were hypocrites because when the towers fell we all wanted to move into iraq, and krayzee said, no, we wanted to assassinate Osama. I then said assassinating Osama is moving into Iraq because it would require a large military force to pursue him in Afghanistan, and any followers or helpers of the cause in Iraq.

This was all in defense to Bush, and none was off topic, or involved a major subject change. As about my grammar that doesn't have too much to do with Bush or Obama, so I don't think YOU, krayzee should change the topic.

Also what I was saying about toxin shells was in defense against Bush as rushing into Iraq was not a bad idea, nor only Bush's sole doing.

So if krayzee can't come up with some valid statements that are on topic, rather than criticizing me and my grammar which are both totally irrelevant to the topic, he should stop "posting for minerals"

[quote=name:O)Silent][quote=name:KrayZee][quote=name:Zell.][quote=name:KrayZee] ...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation. Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot. ;)[/quote] the argument is mccain vs obama. I personally don't wanna make a decsision until I find out who the vice president will be, because if obamas elected well im not sure he will be around very long[/quote] No, the argument between Silent and I were about Iraq and Osama... in which I find it odd why he'd change the topic. But like I said, it depends whether or not if Obama takes a vacation to republican/McCain voted state...[/quote] I didnt change the subject lol. I said there were many ppl involved in the choice to go into Iraq. You said elaborate, then i elaborated. Then someone else said americans were hypocrites because when the towers fell we all wanted to move into iraq, and krayzee said, no, we wanted to assassinate Osama. I then said assassinating Osama [i]is[/i] moving into Iraq because it would require a large military force to pursue him in Afghanistan, and any followers or helpers of the cause in Iraq. This was all in defense to Bush, and none was off topic, or involved a major subject change. As about my grammar that doesn't have too much to do with Bush or Obama, so I don't think YOU, krayzee should change the topic. Also what I was saying about toxin shells was in defense against Bush as rushing into Iraq was not a bad idea, nor only Bush's sole doing. So if krayzee can't come up with some valid statements that are on topic, rather than criticizing me and my grammar which are both totally irrelevant to the topic, he should stop "posting for minerals" :-_-:[/quote] As far as I know, he didn't went to Iraq? The point of the war on Iraq are the weapons of mass destruction, not Osama Bin Ladin. You need to get your facts straight and actually read the headlines of trusted news network rather than jumping to conclusions, calling me changing the topic, where in reality, I'm not. The reason that the United States of America declared war on Iraq were the weapons of mass destruction and oil. That's it. Where the fuck did you get your information about Osama Bin Ladin involved with any Iraqi activies? Be fucking serious, how the hell did you GET that information in the first place? Osama is hiding somewhere, but we did not declare war on Iraq to find him there. Fucking ridiculous, and you call my statement invalid. And I don't post for minerals, you're the one who has [i]negative[/i] minerals at the moment. And as far for grammar, it is hard to understand to whatever the hell you are saying. Jeez. :rip: Look, I am a former US Marine and how the hell can you tell me the reasons why we went to war on Iraq? Fucking ridiculous, since when was Osama involved? This topic is a discussion about an election between McCain and Obama. Keep that in mind. I did not start the off topic bullshit.

Quote from O)Silent

Quote from KrayZee

Quote from Zell.

Quote from KrayZee

...I lost the argument? Rephrase that and elaborate why? And no need to get off topic because you weren't clear and obviously you need to fix up the grammar and punctuation.

Oh and to remind someone who I never spoke to, I multitask a lot.

the argument is mccain vs obama. I personally don't wanna make a decsision until I find out who the vice president will be, because if obamas elected well im not sure he will be around very long

No, the argument between Silent and I were about Iraq and Osama... in which I find it odd why he'd change the topic.

But like I said, it depends whether or not if Obama takes a vacation to republican/McCain voted state...

I didnt change the subject lol. I said there were many ppl involved in the choice to go into Iraq. You said elaborate, then i elaborated. Then someone else said americans were hypocrites because when the towers fell we all wanted to move into iraq, and krayzee said, no, we wanted to assassinate Osama. I then said assassinating Osama is moving into Iraq because it would require a large military force to pursue him in Afghanistan, and any followers or helpers of the cause in Iraq.

This was all in defense to Bush, and none was off topic, or involved a major subject change. As about my grammar that doesn't have too much to do with Bush or Obama, so I don't think YOU, krayzee should change the topic.

Also what I was saying about toxin shells was in defense against Bush as rushing into Iraq was not a bad idea, nor only Bush's sole doing.

So if krayzee can't come up with some valid statements that are on topic, rather than criticizing me and my grammar which are both totally irrelevant to the topic, he should stop "posting for minerals"

As far as I know, he didn't went to Iraq? The point of the war on Iraq are the weapons of mass destruction, not Osama Bin Ladin. You need to get your facts straight and actually read the headlines of trusted news network rather than jumping to conclusions, calling me changing the topic, where in reality, I'm not. The reason that the United States of America declared war on Iraq were the weapons of mass destruction and oil. That's it. Where the fuck did you get your information about Osama Bin Ladin involved with any Iraqi activies? Be fucking serious, how the hell did you GET that information in the first place? Osama is hiding somewhere, but we did not declare war on Iraq to find him there. Fucking ridiculous, and you call my statement invalid.

And I don't post for minerals, you're the one who has negative minerals at the moment. And as far for grammar, it is hard to understand to whatever the hell you are saying.

Jeez.

Look, I am a former US Marine and how the hell can you tell me the reasons why we went to war on Iraq? Fucking ridiculous, since when was Osama involved?



This topic is a discussion about an election between McCain and Obama. Keep that in mind. I did not start the off topic bullshit.

[quote]I regret saying this because I'm a proud American, but the American citizens are nothing but dumb fucking hypocrites. When 9/11 happened, everyone supported the war on terror, this involves the War in Iraq. Bush isn't the only one who is in the government. He proposed the idea, the American citizens supported it, and the congress agreed to go to war. Why is it that when America makes a mistake, which I wouldn't even call a mistake, they blame it on the president only?[/quote] Because at the time they were thinking 'Kill those damn muslims', not 'Incapacitate a major oil supplier and increase government spending drastically'. In my defense, I was too young to care when the war started :lol: . [quote]Ok first of all, there are other ppl in the government BESIDES Bush.. He wasn't the only deciding factor in the war in Iraq. Also, it isn't only a war on terrorism, its a war against terrorism equipped with weapons of destruction and mabye mass destruction. In I think Fox News online there was/is an article on toxin shells found in Iraq, which spread a lethal but non human-human transmittable poison. That means if they found 2, there will definately be more. If we hadn't entered Iraq, those who were in Afghanistan who escaped to Iraq may very well be threatening the US with these weapons! So when yorur saying you hate Bush, your saying you hate bush and half of the government, half that WILL BE THERE EVEN IF Obama is elected![/quote] The president wields heavy influence over who is inside his administration - hence, we call it the 'Bush Administration'. The president is also responsible for introducing ideas and convincing Congress to follow them, so even the same people would behave differently under a less retarded president. [quote]Ok first of all, there are other ppl in the government BESIDES Bush.. He wasn't the only deciding factor in the war in Iraq. Also, it isn't only a war on terrorism, its a war against terrorism equipped with weapons of destruction and mabye mass destruction. In I think Fox News online there was/is an article on toxin shells found in Iraq, which spread a lethal but non human-human transmittable poison. That means if they found 2, there will definately be more. If we hadn't entered Iraq, those who were in Afghanistan who escaped to Iraq may very well be threatening the US with these weapons![/quote] Fox News? Kill yourself now. Not only is that the most conservative bullshit around, but it flat-out [b]lies[/b]. We shall repeat: There have been [b]0[/b] weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Just as there are currently no such weapons in Iran. Silent, you're arguing like a twelve year old. Your arguments are horrid and randomly topic-changing. Krayzee wins, 'kay? His source is being there, your source is Fox News. He wins. [quote]Yea i realize that but you were ignorant to realize that's not what this topic is about kk? @George Bush haters. Our agencies like the FBI said that there was reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction, all of our friends and allies were behind us before we made the decisions to go in. Kind of like at school when your buddies say "go fight that kid i got your back" and as soon as you go get in his face they go get the video camera and start giggling. When the other countries figured out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction they backed out on us immediately and we looked bad. Another fact is that when president Lincoln was in office almost nobody liked him, it was bad, worse than it is now with president bush (75% dislike) and furthermore I'd rather have a president who did what he thought was right and stayed strong to his thoughts than who changed according to the easily influenced majority of Americans.[/quote] Not only is the FBI called 'Federal Bureau of Investigation' for a reason (which is, it deals in things [b]inside[/b] the states.. You're thinking of the CIA. They're [b]different[/b])... well, other then that those reports were [b]obviously[/b] false, either from lack of investigation, or as most people think of it, lying in order to remove the regime in Iraq. I'm sorry, but I can't even really imagine from where Iraq would've gotten nuclear technology. I'm stumped there. Pakistan? Or maybe France! As for chemical weapons, those were present in the Iraq-Iran War but seem not to be powerful enough to be considered weapons of mass destruction. When we went in and found no weapons of mass destruction, why would you expect other countries to waste time and money on something like Iraq? Plus, many other countries stayed for a long time - I'm pretty sure Britain and Australia only pulled out recently. Continuing on, Bush has a lower then 25% approval rating, and just because another president is considered good even while he had low approval ratings, I'm sure we could think of a few more who we consider bad while they had low approval ratings. A horrid argument. By 'staying strong', I think you're meaning 'staying stubborn'. 'Easy influenced by majority of Americans'? You mean the concept of Democracy? Yeah, you seem to be going for dictatorship :lol: . Gogo Castro! Franco! Oh, and as to how this is relevant, you know the whole 'I'm going to be out of Iraq in 16 months' by Obama and 'WE CAN STAY THERE FOR A CENTURY' by McCain :P.

Quote

I regret saying this because I'm a proud American, but the American citizens are nothing but dumb fucking hypocrites. When 9/11 happened, everyone supported the war on terror, this involves the War in Iraq. Bush isn't the only one who is in the government. He proposed the idea, the American citizens supported it, and the congress agreed to go to war. Why is it that when America makes a mistake, which I wouldn't even call a mistake, they blame it on the president only?

Because at the time they were thinking 'Kill those damn muslims', not 'Incapacitate a major oil supplier and increase government spending drastically'. In my defense, I was too young to care when the war started .

Quote

Ok first of all, there are other ppl in the government BESIDES Bush.. He wasn't the only deciding factor in the war in Iraq. Also, it isn't only a war on terrorism, its a war against terrorism equipped with weapons of destruction and mabye mass destruction. In I think Fox News online there was/is an article on toxin shells found in Iraq, which spread a lethal but non human-human transmittable poison. That means if they found 2, there will definately be more. If we hadn't entered Iraq, those who were in Afghanistan who escaped to Iraq may very well be threatening the US with these weapons!

So when yorur saying you hate Bush, your saying you hate bush and half of the government, half that WILL BE THERE EVEN IF Obama is elected!

The president wields heavy influence over who is inside his administration - hence, we call it the 'Bush Administration'. The president is also responsible for introducing ideas and convincing Congress to follow them, so even the same people would behave differently under a less retarded president.

Quote

Ok first of all, there are other ppl in the government BESIDES Bush.. He wasn't the only deciding factor in the war in Iraq. Also, it isn't only a war on terrorism, its a war against terrorism equipped with weapons of destruction and mabye mass destruction. In I think Fox News online there was/is an article on toxin shells found in Iraq, which spread a lethal but non human-human transmittable poison. That means if they found 2, there will definately be more. If we hadn't entered Iraq, those who were in Afghanistan who escaped to Iraq may very well be threatening the US with these weapons!

Fox News? Kill yourself now. Not only is that the most conservative bullshit around, but it flat-out lies. We shall repeat: There have been 0 weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Just as there are currently no such weapons in Iran.



Silent, you're arguing like a twelve year old. Your arguments are horrid and randomly topic-changing. Krayzee wins, 'kay? His source is being there, your source is Fox News. He wins.

Quote

Yea i realize that but you were ignorant to realize that's not what this topic is about kk? @George Bush haters. Our agencies like the FBI said that there was reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction, all of our friends and allies were behind us before we made the decisions to go in. Kind of like at school when your buddies say "go fight that kid i got your back" and as soon as you go get in his face they go get the video camera and start giggling. When the other countries figured out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction they backed out on us immediately and we looked bad. Another fact is that when president Lincoln was in office almost nobody liked him, it was bad, worse than it is now with president bush (75% dislike) and furthermore I'd rather have a president who did what he thought was right and stayed strong to his thoughts than who changed according to the easily influenced majority of Americans.

Not only is the FBI called 'Federal Bureau of Investigation' for a reason (which is, it deals in things inside the states.. You're thinking of the CIA. They're different)... well, other then that those reports were obviously false, either from lack of investigation, or as most people think of it, lying in order to remove the regime in Iraq. I'm sorry, but I can't even really imagine from where Iraq would've gotten nuclear technology. I'm stumped there. Pakistan? Or maybe France! As for chemical weapons, those were present in the Iraq-Iran War but seem not to be powerful enough to be considered weapons of mass destruction. When we went in and found no weapons of mass destruction, why would you expect other countries to waste time and money on something like Iraq? Plus, many other countries stayed for a long time - I'm pretty sure Britain and Australia only pulled out recently. Continuing on, Bush has a lower then 25% approval rating, and just because another president is considered good even while he had low approval ratings, I'm sure we could think of a few more who we consider bad while they had low approval ratings. A horrid argument. By 'staying strong', I think you're meaning 'staying stubborn'. 'Easy influenced by majority of Americans'? You mean the concept of Democracy? Yeah, you seem to be going for dictatorship . Gogo Castro! Franco!

Oh, and as to how this is relevant, you know the whole 'I'm going to be out of Iraq in 16 months' by Obama and 'WE CAN STAY THERE FOR A CENTURY' by McCain .

Thank you Centreri. This argument is done for. Now off with this discussion and return to the discussion of the election between Obama and McCain.

Thank you Centreri. This argument is done for.

Now off with this discussion and return to the discussion of the election between Obama and McCain.

I already put many of my reasons along to a request for McCain's supporters, neither of which have been challenged/answered. Disappointing :(.

I already put many of my reasons along to a request for McCain's supporters, neither of which have been challenged/answered. Disappointing .

[quote=name:Centreri] [quote]Ok first of all, there are other ppl in the government BESIDES Bush.. He wasn't the only deciding factor in the war in Iraq. Also, it isn't only a war on terrorism, its a war against terrorism equipped with weapons of destruction and mabye mass destruction. In I think Fox News online there was/is an article on toxin shells found in Iraq, which spread a lethal but non human-human transmittable poison. That means if they found 2, there will definately be more. If we hadn't entered Iraq, those who were in Afghanistan who escaped to Iraq may very well be threatening the US with these weapons![/quote] Fox News? Kill yourself now. Not only is that the most conservative bullshit around, but it flat-out [b]lies[/b]. We shall repeat: There have been [b]0[/b] weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Just as there are currently no such weapons in Iran. [/quote] Yea for real, Fox News makes me want to throw up. Seriously, O)Silent, you should watch this video and enlighten yourself. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=out+foxed&sitesearch=#sitesearch=&q=outfoxed

Quote from Centreri

Quote

Ok first of all, there are other ppl in the government BESIDES Bush.. He wasn't the only deciding factor in the war in Iraq. Also, it isn't only a war on terrorism, its a war against terrorism equipped with weapons of destruction and mabye mass destruction. In I think Fox News online there was/is an article on toxin shells found in Iraq, which spread a lethal but non human-human transmittable poison. That means if they found 2, there will definately be more. If we hadn't entered Iraq, those who were in Afghanistan who escaped to Iraq may very well be threatening the US with these weapons!

Fox News? Kill yourself now. Not only is that the most conservative bullshit around, but it flat-out lies. We shall repeat: There have been 0 weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Just as there are currently no such weapons in Iran.

Yea for real, Fox News makes me want to throw up. Seriously, O)Silent, you should watch this video and enlighten yourself.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=out+foxed&sitesearch=#sitesearch=&q=outfoxed

Fox News is biased, but that doesn't mean it's "bullshit." If you want bullshit, then you should watch specific programs like O'reiley factor or Sean Hannity (omfg I can't stand that guy) who use their bias to become assholes. Sometimes I watch fox news when only certain news anchors are on or if they're just doing plain news just so that I can sometimes get a conservative view on a certain issue (of course if I want a liberal one, I can look [i]anywhere [/i]on the internet)

Fox News is biased, but that doesn't mean it's "bullshit." If you want bullshit, then you should watch specific programs like O'reiley factor or Sean Hannity (omfg I can't stand that guy) who use their bias to become assholes. Sometimes I watch fox news when only certain news anchors are on or if they're just doing plain news just so that I can sometimes get a conservative view on a certain issue (of course if I want a liberal one, I can look anywhere on the internet)

[quote]Not only is the FBI called 'Federal Bureau of Investigation' for a reason (which is, it deals in things inside the states.. You're thinking of the CIA. They're different)... well, other then that those reports were obviously false, either from lack of investigation, or as most people think of it, lying in order to remove the regime in Iraq. I'm sorry, but I can't even really imagine from where Iraq would've gotten nuclear technology. I'm stumped there. Pakistan? Or maybe France! As for chemical weapons, those were present in the Iraq-Iran War but seem not to be powerful enough to be considered weapons of mass destruction. When we went in and found no weapons of mass destruction, why would you expect other countries to waste time and money on something like Iraq? Plus, many other countries stayed for a long time - I'm pretty sure Britain and Australia only pulled out recently. Continuing on, Bush has a lower then 25% approval rating, and just because another president is considered good even while he had low approval ratings, I'm sure we could think of a few more who we consider bad while they had low approval ratings. A horrid argument. By 'staying strong', I think you're meaning 'staying stubborn'. 'Easy influenced by majority of Americans'? You mean the concept of Democracy? Yeah, you seem to be going for dictatorship :lol: . Gogo Castro! Franco! [/quote] yea I meant CIA, [quote] but I can't even really imagine from where Iraq would've gotten nuclear technology[/quote] That doesn't mean they couldn't get some? I trust the fucking CIA over you anyday. [quote]why would you expect other countries to waste time and money on something like Iraq?[/quote] I didn't say that I said it would make us look bad?? cuz it does? [quote] easily influenced majority of Americans.[/quote] [quote]'Easy influenced by majority of Americans'?[/quote] You quoted me wrong GJ. [quote]Continuing on, Bush has a lower then 25% approval rating, and just because another president is considered good even while he had low approval ratings, I'm sure we could think of a few more who we consider bad while they had low approval ratings. A horrid argument[/quote] You didn't finish that, and I didn't say that low approval ratings make a good ratings, I'm just saying it doesn't makes him bad. Its not a horrid argument because its not an argument. Its a statement showing even one of the greatest presidents had low approval ratings which was implied not argued. [quote]By 'staying strong', I think you're meaning 'staying stubborn'. 'Easy influenced by majority of Americans'? You mean the concept of Democracy? Yeah, you seem to be going for dictatorship :lol: . Gogo Castro! Franco![/quote] Ya thats partially the concept of democracy, but I think it was Ben Franklin who said that common people shouldn't even be allowed to vote. The smart people should run the country, but way to twist my words and mock me anyway. I seem to disagree with a pure democracy i believe it is. If 100000000 million people voted for