Freeps are funny peeps.

[d_b]

A little discussion I was having on a different forum.


Thread starter:

"Dem Biden

said on behalf of the democrats that WE helped iraqi's by capturing saddam, and convicting him on charges in their courts. Basically admitting our help for a needy iraq, and that he'll take credit for.

But previously, Other democrats, like kenedy, and the infamous sheehan, say that we went to war based on lies. So what will it be? Did we do good in iraq, or did we lie our ways to get their oil?"

My reply:

"So what will it be? We went to war based on lies, for oil, and incidentally caught a 'bad guy' (our bad guy) in that process, doing peripheral 'good'. It still won't change the fact that he was our stooge. It's like me purposely setting fire to my kitchen and then putting out, saying "Look at the good i've done".

Bushflash has an animation http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html you can watch, where you can learn about our relationship with Saddam. And it's fun, too!"


Then some crank comes along, all bent out of shape:

"Jesus Christ, not another ignorant wannabe spouting off the same old liberal rhetoric with NO basis in fact. Please feel free to back up your dumbass claim about the war being for oil.
Since you apparently lack ANY knowledge of the topic why do you insist on posting and showing your ignorance???????????
Iraqi oil is a comodity of Europe and Asia and historically has been. We do not rely on Iraq oil any more now than we ever have. The small % supplied by Iraq to the US could be easily replaced elsewhere.
If your going to make up dumbass crap at least try to make up something remotely believeable."

So I said:

"The war has nothing to do with U.S. use of oil, our country gets the oil regardless. The issue is control of oil. And it doesn't take a genious to figure out that if Iraq's major export was rubber we wouldn't be there. If you want to pretend that foreign policy objectives are made by indifferent leaders with benign intentions then that's your prerogative--just don't expect to be taken seriously.

We do know why we are not there:

1.WMD (debunked)
2.Links to Al-Qaida (Bush says there never was one)
3.Democracy in Iraq (the reason given after the others had failed)

There might be a 'Democracy' in Iraq someday, namely one that follows U.S. orders."


Then he comes back:


"Trying to deflect to other topics ruins your credability. This thread started out as about Bush lied. That is incorrect, he used the best available data. Babbling incoherently doesn't further your "point". Try to keep on track."

And from me:

Let's discuss the pretext for war. Bush did not use the 'best available data'; he CHERRY-PICKED the data, ignoring 2/3 of the CIA data which ran contrary to his claims, goals.




Who are the creeps?

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. An internet connection brings out the expert in everyone.

And it most especially brings out those who will go to great lengths to not consider information that would make them wrong.

[BOSSHOG]

2. "Babbling incoherently?"

I have to chuckle. Not only did bush lie, he lied intentionally and did so after he let 9-11 happen so he could convince the lemmings that he needed to be annointed the great war president of the universe. Alas poor freeper, I babble incoherently.

[d_b]

4. I'm waiting for Fox news line

of every country in the world thought Saddam had wmds. That's my favorite.

[unpossibles]

3. I like how in their world, trying to explain what you are saying becomes

"babbling" - I guess the only thing that works is shouting.

[CJCRANE]

5. It seems like * apologists

are unable to hold more than one concept in their head at the same time.

[hobbit709]

6. They only had one original thought in their life

And it got lonely and left.