Some Historical Facts:

Tal is pretty busy these days, jar, trying to track down a scientific evidence between pornography and serial killings. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting his return to that thread with his information.

No, no it doesn't. Unless you're trying to tell me there's actually more people in the first picture than in the second?No? I didn't think so. If you still believe that you've somehow refuted something I've said, then you need to go back to what Lizard was saying in the first place.Your post is irrelevant and responds to no point that I have made.

I refuted it quite clearly.

---

"Some say freedom is free...but I beg to disagree. Some say freedom is won, through the barrel of a gun..."
-Army Cadence"A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

We are not going to see this thread degeneratee into "Yes I did","No you didn't"Tal, your response was not clear to at least one other poster than Crash. So even if you believe you refuted his statement, you failed. It is up to you to try again and with more than a one liner or to simply fade away.

---

Refuted what? Let's look at your post, point by point: I made no claim that the Iraqis were not using their freedom to protest. In fact it's obvious from the pictures that they are doing so, and it would be stupid indeed to claim the opposite. So, this point refutes nothing. A reference to Muqtada al-Sadr did not appear in my post, and I would certainly describe him as both thug and politician, thus this point refutes nothing. A claim that the second rally was motivated purely by anti-american sentiment does not appear in my post. This point refutes nothing. No reference to Saddam's trial, or to a desire among the populace for his trial to move slower, appears in my post. This point refutes nothing. A claim that Iraq his no longer subject to the oppresive regime of Saddam Hussein does not appear in my post. This point refutes nothing.So, now, what exactly did you refute? I'll require that you post the actual statement or statements from my post that you were responding to, please.

quite. we're comparing apples and oranges here. and our descriptions aren't even accurate to start with.

---

אָרַח

So you had no point?

---

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrongDo you know what your DNC stands for?

Your signature is pretty incoherent what is it meant to say?

Sorry I am so slow to reply. Yes the administration did emphasize the WMD issue. They were mistaken. Iraq had those weapons, so they were either destroyed, used or sold. They couldn't come up with the paperwork to show what happened to them so the US government assumed the worst....they were hidden. I guess Iraq should have been more meticulous with their records. Our government being mistaken does not make them dishonest.Did the administration care about the people of Iraq? I'm sure they did to an extent. Would Congress have supported an invasion if it was to help the Iraqi people only? I think not. I am reasonably sure it would not have gained popular support. You don't see people clamoring to invade the Sudan to "save the people". There was no real support to help in Bosnia, either.

Yes, Bush should have given or should give a speech in which he admits they were wrong, and that the reason given for invading Iraq originally was a mistake. Iraq was no threat to us.But of course they will not do that. They are making out like the whole reason for invading Iraq in the first place was to save the Iraqi people from tyranny, establish a democracy in Iraq, which will help the Mideast generally. Nowadays they are mute on the question of the WMD's.

Yes, and Natalie Holloway was never on Aruba.

And if we had not invaded? Do you believe that Saddam would have been content with the status quo, sitting in his little box, as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright liked to put it?How long would he have remained the "quiet dictator", content with the situation? The answer is not very long at all. He would have patiently waited for appeasment to kick in and sanctions to be removed. Then he would have had free reign to pursue WMD's while privately laughing at the stupidity of the West.

ah ...the "escape to the future" - well back my old friend!

Natalie Holloway was on Aruba.WMD were in Iraq.People saw Natalie on Aruba.Saddam used his WMD on people in Iraq.We can't find Natalie Holloway in 193 square miles.We can't find WMD in Iraq in 169,235 square miles (not to mention we can't just walk into Syria and Iran and turn rocks over).

---

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrongDo you know what your DNC stands for?

That's right. It's called pre-emption. It happened in previous adminstrations, it happened in this one, and it will happen in future adminstrations.