new System of a Down video "BOOM" about the war

Michael Moore's a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Just because he's right doesn't mean he knows why. I hope he chokes on one of his chins.

hisssssss!

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by kl0pper [/i]
[B]I hope he chokes on one of his chins. [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL!

i now REALLY hate system of a down

goddamn protestors act like they know what their talking about

I really liked the video

ASSASSINATE BUSH

I have just been red-flagged by Homeland Security. Yay me

Yeah! That's the idea! Asssassinate our President! Then we'll REALLY be better off!

I love you guys, but stop fucking complaining. Saddam gives money to terrorist organizations. And as far as I know... you guys didn't really enjoy what happened on 9/11.

And sure, Saddam isn't the BIGGEST threat to us blah blah blah, but he's a pretty decent contributor to what Osama did. And it's not like he's a good asset to the world's society. He gasses his own people for fuck's sake.

Saddam gives money to terrorist organinzations. If there is proof of this, I would like to see it because, as far as I'm aware, not too many people in the middle east really like Saddam and really wouldnt mind seeing him gone.

Oh, and, wasn't it US who gave Bin Ladden 2 billion dollars?

Don't get me wrong. I have no love for Saddam, but his country is not the only one out there commiting attrocities. They just happen to have oil...

But of course, who am I? I don't know what I'm talking about...

I feel the need to quote Howard Zinn here:
"Yes, regime change is needed in Iraq and wherever governments commit crimes against their own people.

And is it not a crime against the people of the United States to take the wealth of this country, which is needed for health care and housing and education and use it for war? We need a regime change, right here."

Amen.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by grade 5 dropout [/i]
[B]Saddam gives money to terrorist organizations.[/B][/QUOTE]

Please show me proofs, before jumping on the bushy bandwagon.

[QUOTE]I love you guys, but stop fucking complaining. Saddam gives money to terrorist organizations. And as far as I know... you guys didn't really enjoy what happened on 9/11.
[/QUOTE]

that's exactly why i'm against the war.

Click TomPaine.com's ad now. It appeared in today's NY Times: [url]http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/7434[/url]

When we attack other countries in a war, we don't attack civillians (and please don't give me shit about Vietnam or Hiroshima). What terrorists do is kill civilians. Don't compare us to terrorists.

And if you guys dislike the way the government is handling things, go live in one of your third world countries that you feel so sorry for, and tell me how you like it.

i agree with grade5, based soley on the fact that only with the threat of war did saddam even begin to comply with the treaty he agreed to at the end of the gulf war. he has no place in government if he cannot abide by what the rest of the world decided was best for the whole world at the time.
yea bush isn't the best, but just like everything else, this may be a necessary evil. i'm not for death, but i am for order.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by swavroc [/i]
[B]Oh, and, wasn't it US who gave Bin Ladden 2 billion dollars?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Not exactly. The United States gave 2 billion to Soviet resistance forces during the Cold War. Bin Laden led a group of people who fought for Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. It is said, "An enemey of my enemey is my friend", so at the time, Bin Laden was a US "friend". The Soviets were a much more dangerous threat than these rebels having weapons and training so it was a sacrifice we were willing to make. We might be in the same position giving out money to the Kurds. They might be an enemey later, but if they help us now, it's we can get to that later as well.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by swavroc [/i]
[B]I have no love for Saddam, but his country is not the only one out there commiting attrocities.
[/B][/QUOTE]

So what...? Are you sugguesting we go to war with North Korea, Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Cuba as well? You war monger!

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by swavroc [/i]
[B]They just happen to have oil... [/B][/QUOTE]

The old "Blood for Oil" cliché would only hold weight if the US was also going to war with Iran, Saudia Arabia, Venesuela, Russia, Mexico, Peru, Qatar, Kuwait, and dare I say it... Alaska!

heres the just of it. you loving president, ol' home grown texan family man dubya. is taking advantage of you all. bush is taking advantage of your emotions (middle eastern country flys plane into WTC...hmm lets bomb a middle eastern country the first chance we get), hes taking adantage of your pride (the so many "if your not pro war your not american) and hes taking advantage of your intelligence (just cause iraq has nuclear weapons they should be bombed? yes it is scary but hey, america has nuclear weapons...so arent you a considerable threat to them? and isnt it convenient how they couldnt find osama so they decided to make it public that they were going after a guy who can be found [and isnt it convenient how sadam once tried to kill bush's dad? family grudge, i think so]) so take the pride, the patriotism, and the all american "if your not like us than your evil" attitude and drop it. think for yourselves, and before you all rush to say that you do than make sure you looked at the from iraq's point of view. or any othe rcountry the U.S. has spit on

i am thinking for myself. yes, we have weapons of mass distruction. then again we weren't the ones who isgned the treaty saying we would disarm our country. yes bush's dad got into it with saddam the first time around. and clinton did nothing. coincidence that GWB has something against iraq? no, clinton just ignored any type of foreign relations to do with iraq. the war is justifiable. that doesn't make it a good war. there are no good wars. thus the term necessary evil.

how was the war justifyable? cause iraq broke a treaty to dis-arm all nuclear weapons? back in the day after WW1 Germany was forced to sign a treaty that made them reduce armies, weapons, and basically be the little bitch of the world. WW2 comes along and! oh my Germany's rightly pissed off and out to take over the fuckign world. forcing countries to sign shit doesnt bring out the best in them. and your right america didnt signa treaty to dis-arm all uclear weapons, but why didnt they?

I think linking Iraq to the war on terror, especially to Al Qaeda, is a mistake, but to say that Iraq does not support terrorism is naive.

And a slightly more comprehensive list [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html[/url] .

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by grade 5 dropout [/i]
[B]When we attack other countries in a war, we don't attack civillians (and please don't give me shit about Vietnam or Hiroshima). What terrorists do is kill civilians. Don't compare us to terrorists.

And if you guys dislike the way the government is handling things, go live in one of your third world countries that you feel so sorry for, and tell me how you like it. [/B][/QUOTE]

we may not aim at civilians, but it's almost certain some will be killed. if they don't die, why are so many of them leaving?

Actually...if people disagree with their government, trying to change it is a better idea than just running away. Just because we have advantages over other countries doesn't mean we have to put up with stupid bullshit.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by knoxville [/i]
[B]how was the war justifyable? cause iraq broke a treaty to dis-arm all nuclear weapons? back in the day after WW1 Germany was forced to sign a treaty that made them reduce armies, weapons, and basically be the little bitch of the world. WW2 comes along and! oh my Germany's rightly pissed off and out to take over the fuckign world. [/B][/QUOTE]
you just made the most perfect point to justify the war right there. we don't want another WW2, and god knows if we let saddam keep stocking his weapons that's just what we'd get. Saddam has proven that he's not going to change the ways he rules iraq. so he must go.
[QUOTE][B] and your right america didnt signa treaty to dis-arm all nuclear weapons, but why didnt they? [/B][/QUOTE]

because we have proven that we tend to be a little more responsible than iraq is when it come to hostile intent.

and knox, thanks for not making this personel. it's good to have discussion like this, and i respect your opinion. let's consider what has been said and what will be said as the perfect example of democracy, everyone gets their say.

Okay. I am against the war, only because so many horrible things have to come with it.

That doesn't mean I am for Saddam. (Bill Maher said this on his hbo show a few days ago) It's stupid how people lump that together.

Mostly what I want is a better solution, whether it exists or not (and it may not). that's the only reason I'm against the war. That doesn't mean I want to do nothing, it means I don't agree completely with the decision of war. Whether they've really gone through every single alternative, I'll never know.

no one can completely agree with war because it involves a lot of death and injury. and i'm with you keety, i don't want the war, i just feel it is something that cannot be avoided, and that overtly and actively opposing the war will, in the end, only end up working to this country's disadvantage.

do you know that we were once GREAT allies with iraq
thrers a picture of rumsfeld shaking hands with saddam and we told him that pretty much we wouldnt interviene if he invaded kuwait and that is why he hates us
oh and grade5 buys bullshit a blind llama could unify the country after 9/11

oh and fuck protestors

It seems a bit strange that all of a sudden Iraq is the big issue and we have to go to war with them. We couldnt find Bin Ladin so lets go after someone else. I think Saddam should be taken out of power but I dont think that this war is the answer.
Have you guys seen the budget for this war? It is unbelieveably insane and again we end up cutting education to pay for this war. Bush is not making the right decision.
He should give the inspectors more time and bring in more man power to keep Saddam in check. This war will just add fuel to the fire when it comes to terrorism. Terrorists who already hate us will look at this war and this will give them more justification in their minds to attack us.
As for the "oil for blood" cliche that i think is true. The reasons we dont go after other countires for their oil is because we dont have any problems with them and starting something with them would mean a huge world war. If we go after Iraq we have an excuse to go in there because Saddam is a bad guy and we justify attacking becuase we want to "disarm" him, while we take all the oil for ourselves.

I'm so glad they didnt start attacking during American Idol. I would have been so pissed if I had to miss a minute of it. I am kidding of course. Back to the real discussion. Somehow I just find it hard to believe that Saddam really has this strong military force left, enough to be a threat now, or even later if such things as inspections were allowed to continue. Can't get the Bin Ladden like you promise? Oh, the polls won't like that. Well, we'll go after Saddam in the name of terrorism...

someone mentioned something about Saddam giving money to bombers... I'm assuming these are Palastinian bombers. As their attacks are brutal, killing many innocent lives, etc... somehow I can't feel it's too different from a cornered dog snapping at the first hand that comes near it. Look at the loss of lives between Isreali people and Palastinian. It's disturbingly lopsided with more loss on the Palastinian side. I'm still torn on that whole thing, but I bet there's more than than we get to see or hear.

Seriously though, let's hope the Simpson's don't get bumped for coverage...

Wow Bane, you actually said something good. I take back what I said about you previously, ha.

"When we attack other countries in a war, we don't attack civillians (and please don't give me shit about Vietnam or Hiroshima). What terrorists do is kill civilians. Don't compare us to terrorists."

Right. You've heard about "Shock and Awe" right? Something tells me this 1-bomb-per-less-than-a-minute for 48 hours straight plan, that targets Baghdad is going to hit a few civilians. You think? Just maybe? Hell, we lost just as many troops in Afghanistan and the first Gulf War from friendly fire as we did from Iraqi fire, if not more, and we think we're not going to screw up and hit some civilians this time? And with the insane amount of explosives we're dropping on them this time, it's going to be quite a fair number of them. Don't worry, though, I'm sure we'll find some way to cover it up. We'll just blame it on Saddam, say he did it to make us look bad. Righto.

"Saddam has proven that he's not going to change the ways he rules iraq. so he must go."

Of course he's not going to change, but that's a good thing. His number one priority is holding onto his power. Threatening the US with WMDs to gain leverage so that he can go invading his neighbors, or actually using them against us or our allies is the quickest possible path towards the loss of the power he so cherishes. Iraq uses WMDs then Iraq becomes a parking lot. That's how that will work, and Saddam knows it. Pushing him into a corner like this is putting him into the only possible position where he would actually consider using such weapons. He knows he's screwed, so might as well go out with a bang. Leave him alone, and he won't use them.

Don't bring up Iran or Kuwait as examples of his aggression, because they don't work. If we would just openly come out and say, "Look, if you attack ANY of your neighbors, you are toast, guy." then Saddam would not do a damn thing. However, in the Iran war we backed him totally and in Kuwait, as Bane said, we basically said we weren't concerned with Arab-Arab conflicts. So of course, if he thinks we don't care, he's going to take the chance to expand his power, but if we make it clear we won't tolerate that, he'll stay put.

"I think linking Iraq to the war on terror, especially to Al Qaeda, is a mistake, but to say that Iraq does not support terrorism is naive."

So what? We support Israeli terrorism, and we give a hell of a lot more money to them than Saddam gives to the Palestinians. That's why they use suicide bombers and Israel uses tanks, helicopters and jets.

[URL=http://disx.netfirms.com/justincase.htm]"Just in case..."[/URL]

Becks is right about the oil, too. Oil's not the only reason we're going in, but it's definitely one of the reasons. Why don't we go after all the others? Well, ghee, I wonder, look how hard it is to make this war against Iraq look legitimate, so how much trouble would it be to go after one of the others? Plus, most of them are on more friendly terms with us than Iraq and have less oil. Plus it's a great strategical point for us to have control over and thus have a much greater influence in the Middle East. This, imo, is the most important point. We need a stronger presence there, and Iraq is going to be the staging point for that and this war is going to set the precedent for 'preemptive strikes'. We just may end up going into a few of those countries you listed in the years to come. We've already started the smear campaigns on Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran.

"because we have proven that we tend to be a little more responsible than iraq is when it come to hostile intent."

Somehow I think the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt a bit differently when they were incinerated.

"And if you guys dislike the way the government is handling things, go live in one of your third world countries that you feel so sorry for, and tell me how you like it."

Most people that are opposed to the Bush administration, such as myself, are against it and/or the war because they like their country and want to make it better. Fuck the third world countries, they are not my concern. My concern is making this country a country I'm glad to live in. Give me a reason to be patriotic and maybe I'll stop looking at all the little flag-wavers as if they are idiots.

Right on disx! And that was a great post.

And just to add more, because I feel like it.
(Note: This is not really aimed at most people here, just an observation.)

People seem to get this notion in their head that just because we're not out colonizing everyone and actually publicly announcing that we own this country and that country, that we're not an empire. This is the thing, though - our government isn't stupid. As hard as it may be to imagine this, they've learned from the mistakes of history's fallen empires. Actually owning the land of colonies leads to over-extension, leads to collapse. It's easier and safer to simply economically control countries. While they're not really colonies, they might as well be, and if they try to assert themselves, we'll take measures to stop that. Whether it be subverting their elections, supporting dictators or actually sending in our own troops, we'll get the job done.

What's amazing is that some people actually dismiss my claims of US propaganda. They think everything on the news is 100% fact and that the only propaganda around is the obvious kind you see in commercials and such. Come on now, how naive is that? Think about it for a second. Hitler copied the Allied propaganda of WWI and was able to subdue the German population into allowing him to carry out the Holocaust. That's an absolutely amazing feat. That wasn't a freak accident, that wasn't just by chance, that wasn't a one-time-thing or a it-can't-happen-again-because-we-read-about-it-in-school type thing either.

German propaganda of WWII, that was inspired by Allied propaganda of WWI allowed the Holocaust to happen.

And we've had 50 years to perfect that.

And you think our government doesn't make full use of it?

We're not going to come out into the open and let everyone see us for what we are. What's going on now is nothing new, it's just that Bush and Co got greedy and over-confident. They thought the 9/11 excuse would hold out for longer than it did, and so they slipped up and more and more people are beginning to see the US for what it is - a veiled Empire.

"We need a common enemy to unite us."
- Condoleeza Rice, March 2000

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
- Michael Rivero

"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
- William Blum

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air however slight lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
- William O. Douglas, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Damn. I elect disx as the Cult's gov. representitive. And Will is our congressman!

what about me can i take care of the protestors

I WILL HANG THEM BY THEIR BALLS!

Hey, calm down. I'm a protestor too, you know. I'm open to other people's ideas, maybe you should be too.

yes i'm quoting myself, i'll explain...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B]i don't want the war, i just feel it is something that cannot be avoided, and that overtly and actively opposing the war will, in the end, only end up working to this country's disadvantage. [/B][/QUOTE]

the fact is the war cannot be stopped at this point. talking about if it should or should not happen is futile. i'm not saying you should be all for the war now, i'm saying you should be all for the troops we've sent, and all for the best possible outcome to this time of disagreement.

I also think that war is unstoppable. I just think we should do it differently. And we MUST have U.N. support for any plan we use.

THEIR BALLS WILL BE MINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEE!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAASAAAHHAHAAHAAHAHAAAHAAHAGAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAJHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAH

THATS HARD!

I'm serious Bane. You should be more acceptable to other people's opinions.

"the fact is the war cannot be stopped at this point. talking about if it should or should not happen is futile."

Obviously. However, I can still denounce it as a crock of shit and/or act of imperialism.

"i'm saying you should be all for the troops we've sent"

I am. I'm the one that wants them to come back home. That's as supportive as you can be. You know... Wanting them to live, be with their families and all, as opposed to getting killed in some war that will only worsen the situation of the world. (Unless of course you're one of the 'elite'. Hyuk.)

"and all for the best possible outcome to this time of disagreement."

Well I don't see how being against the war is not being for the best possible outcome. I'm torn between two hopes. Either everything goes smoothe and we pull it off no problem. Or, it's a total disaster. Either one has big ups and downs.

In Scenario A, well, hooray for our troops, little loss of life on our side, that's good. However, it will probably mean signficiant loss of life on the side of the Iraqi civilians. It will also set the precedent for continuing on into other countries and who knows what else.

In Scenario B, well, sucks for our troops, but it will probably be better for the Iraqi civilians. Also, it just might bring the current administration's little dream of imperialism crashing down. Maybe even pave the way for a positive change in the way America deals with foreign issues.

It's hard to say, and I know there's little I can do about it at this point. That's why I'm not out protesting, I know it won't change a thing. Doesn't mean I can't denounce Bush and the war, though.

ARG! DISX IS A GENIUS!

BTW, I just watched the video. Very nice.

I like how it pointed out that the oil is worth $4T and the war could cost $200B. That's a good point. That's a huge profit, there, PLUS... This is another thing lots of people like to look past or just don't see...

Often I hear "Why would we spend so much money when we could just buy the oil?" or something along those lines. Well, the money we spend on this war, the money we give to countries like Israel is NOT the politicians' personal money. Sure, they pay taxes, too, but the amount they pay in taxes is most certainly dwarfed by the campaign contributions and bribes they take in.

You spend $200B of the US taxpayers' money, and get $4T in return, what a sweet fucking deal, eh? As they say in the video, Haliburton has gotten contracts for the oil there. (You know, Cheney's company.)

Or, Israel gives politicians a few hundred grand and in return we give them $12B, another good deal. A lot of people don't seem to see that the money we spend bribing and on war and such isn't the politicians' personal money and they get so much money, themselves, not 'the government', in return, that of course they can be bought. Easily, too.

I don't know, I guess most people here can see that, but I just thought I'd mention it...

I don't want war. I just want Saddam to die.

And his sons.

disx, you're little plan there is great excepting one thing. Saddam would still be in power. and i think we've all come to terms with the thought that that's not so appealing. sure, he [B]might[B/] not do anything unless cornered, but he's already proven otherwise. and i can use kuwait as an example because it did happen. saddam had intent, and followed through with it. why else would he keep stocking and creating weapons of mass destruction? i'll leave you to draw you're own conclusions...

Where is the proof that he is still making weapons of badness?

Murderkitchen:

That would be nice, but there are some downsides to that, as well.

If he died/lost power/whatever, without US intervention, sure that would be good, but it's also bad. The nice thing about Saddam is he's paranoid and power-hungry. That makes him predictable and easy to control.

We -wanted- him to fight Iran.
We gave the impression that we didn't care if he invaded Kuwait. Whether this was intentional or not, I'm not certain, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is he thought he was clear to invade and so he went for it.
The terrible stories about gassing the kurds, well, shit, they were rebelling, what did you expect him to do? Step aside and hand them the throne? Hell, after Desert Storm we said we'd support the populace if it tried to overthrow Saddam. Did we? Fuck no. We sat back and watched the massacre. Go USA.

Anyhow, he's predictable. He's not going to give WMDs to terrorists because, well, ghee, they hate him just as much as they hate us, and it'd be a lot easier to use them against him than it would the US. Not that they necessarily would, but Saddam is the guy that allegedly has multiple body doubles and never sleeps in the same room two nights in a row. You think someone that paranoid is going to give WMDs to a possible enemy? No way in hell.. Not to mention, we'd link it back to him even if he wasn't involved, just look at 9/11. No connection whatsoever, the intelligence agencies repeatedly say there is none, yet the politicians keep saying there is. What the hell is that all about? Propaganda, sir, and it's working, too. That's why a good number of Americans believe there were actually Iraqi's on the planes of 9/11, which is absolutely false.

You really think if a nuke went off in a US city tomorrow we wouldn't slag Iraq into oblivion without hesitation? We wouldn't even bother 'investigating' it, (Hell, we never even had a REAL investigation into 9/11.) we'd just send 'em to hell. Saddam knows this, he's no idiot.

All we have to do is keep the pressure on him, keep the inspectors in, and make it absolutely clear we're not fucking around, and we will not tolerate any aggression towards ANYONE. None of this "we're not concerned about Arab-Arab conflicts" nonsense.

For a while, it crossed my mind that maybe we were doing just that. Maybe this was just an extravagant good cop/bad cop scenario, of course, it certainly seemed like Bush was serious about it and now it's proven. It would have been pretty cool, though, and exactly what was needed. Too bad it was for real.

"but he's already proven otherwise. and i can use kuwait as an example because it did happen. saddam had intent, and followed through with it."

Proven otherwise? How so? You CAN'T use Kuwait. Why? Because we fucking told him we weren't concerned with Arab-Arab conflicts. He thought he was in the clear. What do you expect him to do, go "well shit, they don't care, I bet not do it, just in case." Not to mention the reason he invaded Kuwait was because they were cross-drilling, or whatever the term is, into Iraqi oil fields. Ghee, what the hell do you expect him to do?

"why else would he keep stocking and creating weapons of mass destruction? i'll leave you to draw you're own conclusions..."

Maybe because that's the only way to keep the US out of Iraq? Look at North Korea, we know they have nuclear capabilities, that's why we're staying the fuck out of there. He's making them for the same reason we have them - deterrence.

[QUOTE]And if you guys dislike the way the government is handling things, go live in one of your third world countries that you feel so sorry for, and tell me how you like it.[/QUOTE]

um...unfortunately grade 5 you're proving our point here. we KNOW things are miserable in third world countries, but that's partly because of US foreign policy.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by grade 5 dropout [/i]
[B]When we attack other countries in a war, we don't attack civillians (and please don't give me shit about Vietnam or Hiroshima). What terrorists do is kill civilians. Don't compare us to terrorists.

And if you guys dislike the way the government is handling things, go live in one of your third world countries that you feel so sorry for, and tell me how you like it. [/B][/QUOTE]

By far one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

First of all, we kill civilians. There is no arguing that, so don't try.

Second of all, I hate to remind you that this is still the United States of America no matter what that fuckhole George Bush tries to do. It is the DUTY of a citizen of this country to make sure that it is operating correctly. That means questioning questionable activities. So if you don't like speaking out against the government then YOU go live in a country under a dictator. This is America.

Two people have made allusions to my brief post about Iraqi terrorism. Sorry, that was all the information I could come up with in five minutes on a google search when somebody demanded proof. Perhaps I should've thrown in a "Down with Shrub!" or "Kill Saddam" so I could make it known just how informed I am.

Jesus Christ, I go to plastic.com for these types of conversations. At least people there make a pretense of going off fact (and everyone once in a while sombody throws in a link or reference).

"An argument consists of more than naysayings and contradicitons."

No offense meant to anybody here, but can we get back to what's really not important here?

I could come up with 'proof' if I wanted, too. You can get a source to back up pretty much any claim, really. And who's to say which source is right? Just because CNN & the Guardian are reputable sources, doesn't mean they're right. Just because other sources aren't well known doesn't mean they're wrong.

I just don't feel like bothering with it. The last 3 message boards I called 'home' were political message boards and that's all I did was debate this crap. It's been a while, so I went on a little rant, but I really don't feel like digging through all my stuff to find links for everything, just so someone can feel secure that I'm not making shit up. Look it up yourself, if you're so concerned.

Not that you are... Blah... I'm tired and bitchy.

Too bad the little thing last night didn't work (or maybe it did?).
=( Would've been way too easy though. And Bush's cocky ass would be all over TV taking the credit.

The fact that most of what I hear on the news is propaganda is why I'm so distrustful of it. I never know what to believe because you *know* you're only getting one side of the story, with the occasional argument from the other side immediately being shot down. It's why I'm so distrustful of politicians...it seems they're only saying what people want to hear and not what they actually believe or plan to do. It's so frustrating.