Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yeah i literally said that with my first post in this discussion.
Looks like you quoted the wrong words because the item quoted doesn't say, even a tiny little bit what you're trying to claim.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Maybe reading what you reply to would be for your benefit:
The first I find you saying the thing is where you said you already admitted that we found WMDs in Iraq.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Looks like you quoted the wrong words because the item quoted doesn't say, even a tiny little bit what you're trying to claim.The first I find you saying the thing is where you said you already admitted that we found WMDs in Iraq.
Perhaps the narrative should be reworded for technicality
Originally posted by Stigma
So.... any updates on the situation? Admittedly I have not read through the thread carefully, but as far as I can tell this is not going to end up being WWIII.
-Trump ordered some nigh useless missile strikes again after giving Russia/Syria several days warning to prep and move their expensive shit. (If you don't recall, during the election Trump was vocal about not warning our enemies before we attack, so more clownshow there)
-Russia is saying it's considering supplying Syria/al-Assad with an advanced missile system (this supposedly makes Israel very angry, they're threatened to destroy it)
-Syria is still a bloody hellhole, civilians being chewed up and spit out in the conflict
Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for proving my point.Try not to lie next time. It's rather obvious how dishonest of a partisan piece you are.
My first post on the topic:Perhaps the narrative should be reworded for technicality
It takes something special to lie about something that is explicity shown in the post you're replying to.
I acknowledged the existence of wmd's saying that narrative should be "reworded for technicality" since technically speaking, there were WMD's. This doesn't change the narrative however as those wmd's were not what Bush used to justify the war. We weren't looking for remnants of long abandoned programs, we were looking for an active arsenal with the potential to threaten us.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It takes something special to lie about something that is explicity shown in the post you're replying to.I acknowledged the existence of wmd's saying that narrative should be "reworded for technicality" since technically speaking, there were WMD's. This doesn't change the narrative however as those wmd's were not what Bush used to justify the war. We weren't looking for remnants of long abandoned programs, we were looking for an active arsenal with the potential to threaten us.
Look at this backpeddling. It’s a work of art. I’ll call this piece, “Pathetic.”
Originally posted by dadudemon
Look at this backpeddling. It’s a work of art. I’ll call this piece, “Pathetic.”
"Pathetic" is the best work of art so far by famed artist Rocky The Weasel.
Though this work still needs a name:
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The professor's statement was potentially meaningful, even if disrespectful oer your beliefs.
What you said is both disrespectful and utterly pointless.Personally, I leave the dead be, but if people are of the mind that historic truth > reverence for the dead, I respect that.
Bush wasn't literally a war criminal but his greed for iraqi oil led to the death of 288,000 people.
We also know that people's behavior is a result of
A. Genes.
B. How you are raised.
A child's failure is a parent's failure.
I'll need to research if it's fair for bush to be called a racist, but alas, you didn't bother addressing or contesting the criticisms.
Main reason why this is controversial isn't because what she said, but because bush was famous. Personally, I don't think being related to powerful warrants people not holding you accountable, but hey, maybe that's just me.