Originally Posted by srl119

Are we in Iran? nope. Until we go to war with Iran lets not speculate we will.

Originally Posted by srl119

I understand you really want there to be a link between the war and US making money off Iraqi oil but that pdf doesn’t mean anything to me. It is not written by anybody credible that I can tell. Please give either AP or Reuters as valid sources. If it says .com .uk or .org it means nothing. Also, Halliburton has been a contractor with the military since the 50's. Its nothing new and when they worked with the military in the 90's nobody had any problem. But I very much want to know for sure so please send valid sources, thanks!

Originally Posted by tyreay

Here are some more links for you guys. I hope you find these more conservative friendly. I know the last one is .org, but I couldn't resist.


http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,81987,00.html
http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?potio...;Itemid=35
(scroll down to top secret, Key Bush Intelligence Briefing)


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834o79/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd03052004.html

Originally Posted by tyreay

Just for the record sgt, your "facts" were not back up by ANY links.

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

No my facts were not backed up by any links, instead they were backed up by the name of the publication and the date of the article. What's your point????? Or is it that you are not inclined to look up the information yourself??

dmk

Originally Posted by tyreay

I think that I have provided plenty of proof of what I am saying by giving you links to my points. You decide if looking up your own info and providing me links is worth it. These are your points you are trying to make. Do you think I should have to back up what I am saying with links and then have to look up your sources too?
I notice you didn't comment on the links I provided in my last post. Was this an attempt to change the subject again or do you suddenly have no comment? Maybe you just posted without looking at them first so I will be waiting for your reply. Have a great day.

Originally Posted by tyreay

Here another one you should check out but it is tricky. It won't come up with the page on the address so you have to go to the site then enter the details in the site search.
http://www.msnbc.com
Then enter this in the search on the site.
/id/7634313/

Originally Posted by tyreay

And here's one for you srl, But quite frankly, I really thought this part of the argument was old news.
Its another one where you have to go to the site then search for the info.
http://www.foxnews.com

Then enter, in the site search: story/0,2933,88122,00.html

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Links, Links and more links. Okay you wanted my links here goes.

BBC News July 2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm

BBC News July 7 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

Washington Post August 14 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...00530.html

Fox News May 17 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html[url]

All of these links are to news stories, they report the who, what, where, when and how. They provide information. Let us talk about some of your links.

I am sure that you meant this statement in jest regarding conservative friendly. The first link from military.com is an opinion piece. Trying to argue that this fact for you opinion is assinine. Two opinions do not make a fact.

Your second link, from wny media network (Buffalo's Progressive Voice) is far from conservative friendly. You clikc to the link and not even one-third down the page you see CHECK OUT THE LATEST REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA and immediately bells and whistles start going off.

The msnbc piece, just reports on the earlier CIA link you provided, announcing the release of the report and summarizing its findings. Been there, done that.


Your CNN post was kind of suprising from the CLinton News Network. It stated that no WMDs were in Iraq, however, it makes note to mention that Saddam Hussein was prepared to begin anew with the programs once sanctions were lifted.

Finally, counterpunch.org????? Come now, this seems more suited for hev and his conspiracy theories. Because a company is profiting it must be the reason we went to war. That is like saying because cartoons are on it must be Saturday.

Once again you have accused me of getting off subject. I responded to a post of yours regarding Halliburton. Even one of your most recent links from Fox news is about Halliburton, so which is it, am I changing the subject or am I just following your lead???

I have not forgotten about the WMDs. However, once again, what facts have you provided. Like it or not, opinions of other writers in opinions pieces do not make facts, just like two wrongs do not make a right. Your most damning fact was the CIA report from 2003, however, once again, it was the so-called CIA intelligence that was mistaken that led to the War in the first place, so now they are to be believed, and secondly, the report is from 2003, all of my links are from 2004 and later.

I went out of my way to find links from sources that would not even be considered conservative on their worst day. (BBC and Washington Post) other than news reports from Fox News, all your links would be considered liberal and very liberal on their worst day. Its easy to find support among like minded individuals, however, when you find that support from your opponent, it is even stronger.

dmk

Originally Posted by tyreay

Srg, as always your points are well put. I was only writing in jest and was just trying to lighten our debate up. I respect your point of view even if I disagree.
As for your links, Basically they prove bits and pieces of WMD, a point which I do not argue. I am sure that Saddam would have loved to put together his little toys. Of this I have no doubt. I am also of the opinion that he should have been stopped. This I have written in these past posts. I am arguing the point that he had no WMD assembled and was stalled in his WMD program. I Certainly do not back his decisions but are we not talking about what the truth is and what the truth was when we went in? I just think we, as a nation, are obligated to be honest with the rest of the world and we have not been. How hard is it to say: We were wrong.
I know some think this is a sign of weakness, but really, isn't standing up for your way of reasoning on a given decision, that has been proven to be made by the wrong information provided, truely a sign of weakness?
I think that the American public is much more honest that it's leaders.
We see our leader making mistakes in his policy making. So does the rest of the world. This is not helping him, his political career, or our position in the world we have to live in. The American public wants him to admit his mistakes. At the least, Bush should admit his wrong intel. I think anything that was found was just stuff the U.N. inspectors missed and that Saddam had no weapons program going at the onset of this war. Bush has only defended his decisions and intel. This is making him and our country look like uncaring bullies. I know we 'accomplished our mission' (how long has it been now?), but have we really? Lets be honest. We have provided the means for another dictator to take the reins. What is the difference? Bush tooting his own horn at this point is not helping anyone.
We still have to justify our presence in Iraq. Bush saying our intelligence was wrong and that we made the right decision by going in there anyway is really the stance that needs to be taken. At least make a stand for this country and not let us look like the bunch of liars that we are turning out to be. Honesty really is the best policy, political or other wise.