Actually, your post was so convoluted and nonsensical I'm guessing that your answer was they went to the UN, and that was my response.lowing wrote:
yeah ok whatever, now that you see that your question has BEEN answered, you wanna respond to it or just keep trying to be shitty?Bubbalo wrote:
Well you can't have been pushing it very hard because no-one noticed. What, did you just sit in the corner mumbling about Saddam?
"The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN."Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, your post was so convoluted and nonsensical I'm guessing that your answer was they went to the UN, and that was my response.lowing wrote:
yeah ok whatever, now that you see that your question has BEEN answered, you wanna respond to it or just keep trying to be shitty?Bubbalo wrote:
Well you can't have been pushing it very hard because no-one noticed. What, did you just sit in the corner mumbling about Saddam?
this is what I wrote, if you can't make sense out of it ( even if you don't agree) then you are the one with the problem.
That is the full, convoluted, unclear statement you made. Proper grammar and greater attention to structure would have made it clearer and more comprehensible. Regardless, you have my answer now.lowing wrote:
What are you bitching about, all you are complaining about is Iraq actually had MORE TIME to comply, yet still chose not to. The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN.
Whatever bubbalo, I learned long ago your tactics of debate, and I have no intention of entertaining you when you start up with it. So whatever you say.Bubbalo wrote:
That is the full, convoluted, unclear statement you made. Proper grammar and greater attention to structure would have made it clearer and more comprehensible. Regardless, you have my answer now.lowing wrote:
What are you bitching about, all you are complaining about is Iraq actually had MORE TIME to comply, yet still chose not to. The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN.
Fine, I'll make this easy for you:
Bubbalo wrote:
Well you can't have been pushing it very hard because no-one noticed. What, did you just sit in the corner mumbling about Saddam?
yeah whatever,Bubbalo wrote:
Fine, I'll make this easy for you:Bubbalo wrote:
Well you can't have been pushing it very hard because no-one noticed. What, did you just sit in the corner mumbling about Saddam?
Exactly. The US had all the political power it needed to push Iraq, and it didn't. And there is no valid excuse.
Did you even bother to look to see if it was disputed?IRONCHEF wrote:
"Botched survey?" I"m sorry, I never once saw it disputed on a MSM or here. I also didn't see it proven and that's because it's an scientific estimate.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
the 655k number came from a botched survey, it has already been discussed and debunked to death both no this forum and on news services including CNN, MSNBC, and CBS. So much for that.....
The last page basically discussed the report was flawed...I would think that would have at least warranted a quick search on the interweb...
Source: Iraqi Health Minister
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … 1109192425
Interestingly, the Iraqi Health Minister debunks the Lancet survey directly, he even has a quote about it in the article. By all means, keep on quoting 655k.
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/relief … 724942.htm
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php
Dude the Iraqi Government is supported by US, it is not a reliable source is BS, quoting you.Pug wrote:
Did you even bother to look to see if it was disputed?IRONCHEF wrote:
"Botched survey?" I"m sorry, I never once saw it disputed on a MSM or here. I also didn't see it proven and that's because it's an scientific estimate.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
the 655k number came from a botched survey, it has already been discussed and debunked to death both no this forum and on news services including CNN, MSNBC, and CBS. So much for that.....
The last page basically discussed the report was flawed...I would think that would have at least warranted a quick search on the interweb...
Source: Iraqi Health Minister
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … 1109192425
Interestingly, the Iraqi Health Minister debunks the Lancet survey directly, he even has a quote about it in the article. By all means, keep on quoting 655k.
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/relief … 724942.htm
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php
The oil isn't going to USA...Guess who's the US largest supplier of oil? Good old CANADA (Waves Canadian flag)
You are right Canada is the top provider, but Iraqi oil is going to US.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
The oil isn't going to USA...Guess who's the US largest supplier of oil? Good old CANADA (Waves Canadian flag)
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-11 03:39:27)
Iraqi oil is going to China, so the US can keep China in check if there is a war... Very efficient.sergeriver wrote:
You are right Canada is the top provider, but Iraqi oil is going to US.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
The oil isn't going to USA...Guess who's the US largest supplier of oil? Good old CANADA (Waves Canadian flag)
Iraq is the 6th provider of US oil.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Iraqi oil is going to China, so the US can keep China in check if there is a war... Very efficient.sergeriver wrote:
You are right Canada is the top provider, but Iraqi oil is going to US.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
The oil isn't going to USA...Guess who's the US largest supplier of oil? Good old CANADA (Waves Canadian flag)