O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq"

Most of you who post on this thread are a bunch of whiners. I listen to alot of am talk radio, rush, larry elder and many others. If the left in this country has all the facts like you folks seem to think where are the news outlets and radio stations backing you up. Right...I diddnt think so. The democratic fring left in the us is allways the ones who nitpick at the truth and cant come up with anything credible...ever. Kinda makes me chuckle.

reply to post by jasonhb


Go to your AARP meeting, old man.

Honestly though, if you actually read the thread, you'd see we discussed the media's lack of involvement. But sure, do what everyone else does and make this thread partisan.

reply to post by jasonhb


So I take it that you think Bill O'Really is credible saying that we didn't invade Iraq.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by _Del_

 

Really? Substantial?

We were 93% of it! Yea, the only thing "substantial" were the US and UK forces.

Anytime you get thirty some odd nation states to agree on something it is substantial. You're saying that because smaller countries sent less troops they didn't believe there was a threat. That's nonsense...

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by jasonhb

 

Go to your AARP meeting, old man.

Honestly though, if you actually read the thread, you'd see we discussed the media's lack of involvement. But sure, do what everyone else does and make this thread partisan.

I'm sure Bush met with the aliens they told him to invade iraq so the zeta's could land there. And the skull and bones society is running a secret world order and their going to put us all in prison camps. blah blah blah........i had a hang nail the other day, musta been bushes fault too.

Originally posted by jasonhb
Most of you who post on this thread are a bunch of whiners. I listen to alot of am talk radio, rush, larry elder and many others. If the left in this country has all the facts like you folks seem to think where are the news outlets and radio stations backing you up. Right...I diddnt think so. The democratic fring left in the us is allways the ones who nitpick at the truth and cant come up with anything credible...ever. Kinda makes me chuckle.

Again someone who assumes that suddenly people's opinions are because of their political affiliation? (just as you assume that everyone 'else' here is somehow, in your mind, part of the fringe left?) You are mistaken. I also listen to alot of talk radio like (occasionally) rush, laura ingraham, and Michael Savage (who I love). I don't always agree but who cares, that's why this is America. At least the people who care even have an opinion.

reply to post by _Del_


How can you miss the big picture any more than you are?

This is a big world, my friend.

Armed forces of the world

• People's Republic of China ** 2,255[1]
  
  Okay, so we couldn't get China... no big surprise there.
  
  
• European Union ** 2,155* 2,309*
  
  The EU consists of many countries - some small some big- with a combined troop total larger than ours. That would have been nice.
  
  
• United States of America ** 1,426[5] 1,458
  
  Hey, there's that Red, White, and Blue. Coming in 2nd place as a country, and 3rd if you count the EU as a whole. Pretty good.
  
  
• India ** 1,325[3] 1,155
  
  India is kind of a pseudo-ally of ours... why couldn't we get their help?
  
  
• North Korea ** 1,106 4,700
  
  Don't think we could expect ole Kim Jung Il to help out. Oh well. Crazy son of a gun.
  
  
• Russia ** 1,037[2] 20,000
  
  So small...
  
  
• South Korea 687 4,500 [13]
  
  ... I think they could have done better than 900 (or whatever). But then again, they do have crazy Kim to worry about.

The list goes on. The world is a big place. Quit pretending like we are the only ones in it.

reply to post by jasonhb


What are you even talking about?

You're crazy dude.

reply to post by jasonhb


So I take it you don't hold Bush accountable for anything that he does. He took us to war based on poor intelligence that he knew full well was bull#. And that's just the start of it. Now what the hell does that have to do with your hangnail? Or did he give that order too?



[edit on 5/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by Sublime620


As soon as I figure out how that relates to the fact that those countries that did line up, all had intel agencies that decided the same thing the US did I'll reply.

reply to post by Sublime620

So by your own admission the National Inquirer has a duty to be truthful? Semantics are floating all around. The fact is that the politics of the area have been going on for ages. Truman, Nixon, Carter, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr....O wait AND Clinton have all been guilty of being in league with Middle Eastern enterprises and countries. From Saudi Arabia to Iran to Iraq to Syria, this area has invited those who want to get rich on the backs of the oppressed. NOT A SINGLE PARTY in the U.S. Gov't has it's hands clean. Obama, CLinton, MCcain and whomever else is running, will do the exact same thing but with a different twist. Face it, NOBODY that runs for a public office EVER has the people in mind. They have thier own self interests. As so it shall be. That is the truth that is out there.

reply to post by _Del_

As soon as I figure out how that relates to the fact that those countries that did line up, all had intel agencies that decided the same thing the US did I'll reply.

Are you trying to argue that other nations had some secret intel that we were not privy to? Because the US had donut for intel, and tried to pawn it off as yellow cake.

[edit on 5/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by djvexd


I think they should be. However, the national enquirer is known for being completely phony.

That doesn't make them above the law:

National Enquirer Sued

I'm sure there would be some discrepancy between giant media conglomerates and entertainment magazines, though. I don't think E! is (or should be) held to the same standards as CNN or Fox News.

reply to post by djvexd


I for one hate politicians, and don't trust any of them. But the fact remains that Bush has commited these crimes, regardless of his political affiliations and labels. If Clinton had led us into this war in this manner, I would be of the same position.

reply to post by _Del_


It was merely to show you how many troops exist in the world besides the US.

50% US forces would be acceptable. 60% is pushing it. 70% is lame. 93% is pathetic.

I have yet to see a single news entity that isn't biased either to the left or right. Paper or electronic. I dunno I maybe ranting but this seems to be a mute arguement. I am just at the end of hearing everyone blaming the end of the world on one president especially when it's been going on for decades. (Not accusing you at all) It just seems like people jump on the Bush is the antichrist bandwagon because it is popular, rather than because they know the facts. BTW I AM NOT A BUSH SUPPORTER...lol

edit for spelling

[edit on 3-5-2008 by djvexd]

reply to post by djvexd


I agree. They all suck.

Someone needs to hold them accountable. That's what I was trying to discuss.

So far, the only ideas have been:

1) Set up a government agency to force conglomerate news agencies to report honest news.

2) Quit watching it until they do.

reply to post by jackinthebox


You specifically said noone thought there was cause for the war. I said several countries with more information than you personally were privy to thought otherwise. Then you said we didn't get a "real" coalition. When I showed a list of countries that did send troops then the debate turned into, "well, we sent more troops." Whether the information ultimately was correct or not, thirty odd countries with intelligence agencies of their own thought there was enough cause to go to war.
You can obfuscate that with troop numbers, but it doesn't really mean anything in my opinion. You can say, "there's more people in the world than just the US" and it doesn't really mean anything in the context of the statement.
Instead of accepting the statement of fact (unless someone thinks there was a conspiracy where none of those countries really sent troops), some people have decided to throw pot shot talking points into the conversation. It has nothing to do with what it is supposedly "countering" and it's annoying.

reply to post by _Del_


Can you source that?

That 31 countries wanted to go to war and had intelligence that stated they should.

What countries had this intelligence? I know the US had some, and I think France (did?). But France's turned out to be wrong, and was correct before we went.

I think it was France. It was whoever had the intel about supposed purchasing of tubes in Africa.

To adress #1 That would defeat the purpose of free press. #2 I would definatley be able to get more sleep but then where would we get at least an inkling of what's going on worldwide? I never beleive 100% what the media says , but behind every lie is a kernel of truth.