<p>Wow, the UN confirmed that Iraq had no WMD. If the UN says so then it MUST be true! </p>
<p>The UN sent in realllly slooooow weapons inspctors, and even before it decided to do so, Saddam had plenty of time to hide all the WMD he had.</p>
<p>"If the UN says so then it MUST be true!" </p>
<p>So Bush has more credibility? Blahhh. History has shown that most presidents that go to war usually win second term.</p>
<p>"Saddam had plenty of time to hide all the WMD he had"</p>
<p>Oh really? Well, we found Saddam but not any of his weapons. So your point doesnt prove anything.</p>
<p>alukaszewicz--
[quote]
Wow, the UN confirmed that Iraq had no WMD. If the UN says so then it MUST be true!
[/quote]
who's word would you take to be true? bush's? ha.</p>
<p>by the way, you never responded to the fact that you were debating no one over the "kid suspended for praying issue"...</p>
<p>I wasn't debating no one, I was just arguing how far liberals in America are going over the whole separation of church and state issue. And you agreed that a kid shouldn't be suspended for praying in school, just as school shouldn't impose kids to pray. So we're finished with that issue, right?</p>
<p>hilary, did you notice that uc_benz chickened out of primitive's challenge and went to Debate 2?</p>
<p>but you didnt defend the reason for Iraq's invasion.</p>
<p>Listen, I am really starting to see that there is no point to this debate. I am 100% convinced that Bush was right to invade Iraq, the World, is safer, etc., etc. On the other hand, you are also 100% convinced that he was wrong, there were no WMD, etc., etc. And there is no way that either one is going to change the other's mind. So let's agree to disagree.</p>
<p>Well, why dont we debate about Bush's economic policy as primitive proposed?</p>
<p>Sure. What in particular about his economic policy do you want to debate?</p>
<p>I think my IQ has dropped at least 50 points just reading what Democrats have said in this thread. This has to be the worst 'debate' I have ever participated in along with the Dartmouth one. It starts out as a debate then the Democrats get all defensive and start using personal attacks. Grow up.</p>
<p>well, I do believe that Bush is spending about 10/100 the cost behind the military on welfare and other costs. </p>
<p>Hitler spent the government's money in a similar way.lol</p>
<p>I think my IQ has dropped at least 50 points just reading what Democrats have said in this thread. This has to be the worst 'debate' I have ever participated in along with the Dartmouth one. It starts out as a debate then the Democrats get all defensive and start using personal attacks. Grow up.</p>
<p>Well, if you dont take prmitive's challenge to debate him than that's your problem.</p>
<p>Because I think that the military needs to be strong, especially if America has so many enemies (namely terrorists). Also, this is a time of war, so military costs skyrocket.</p>
<p>BTW, "concealed<em>agony", why do you keep refering to yourself in the third person. Everyone knows that you're really primitivefuture, just registered under a different username. Concealed</em>agony joined today, and has only been posting in the debate threads. Oh, and you responded to the questions in your cultural magainze thread just as if you were primitivefuture. Hmm.</p>
<p>Well, i believe that if you are gonna spend so much on military, then YOU SHOULD SPEND IT WISELY.</p>
<p>Our intelligence is horrible. Soldiers are fighting without much protection or weapons, and that is why so many are dying.</p>
<p>Also, I dont think there was any use spending so much behind terrorism since they stll havent caught BIN LADEN, who triggered the war on terror anyways.</p>
<p>alukaszewicz, I am not primitive. I am his brother. why would I sign in with a different cc name? lol</p>
<p>i joined because i wanted to help primitive in this debate. Any problems?</p>
<p>And yes, primitive did make that post on that cultural magazine because he was too lazy to switch cc names. </p>
<p>Hope that explains it.</p>
<p>Well, has bin laden been heard from since 9/11? Has he planned/executed any terrorist attacks since then? I think that he's a low priority (though it would be great if we did find him).</p>
<p>I think that intelligence would be a whole lot better if there was more cooperation btw agencies (which is more better due to the patriot act and the establishment of homeland security, etc).</p>
<p>I think that he's a low priority</p>
<p>wow. i am shocked. He made that horrible attack on thw WTC, and he is still sending videos threstening another attack. He alive and healthy and is threating to attack again. And you say he's low priority. hah</p>
<p>Also, I dont think it is wise to make conclusions when would Laden will make his next attack. It is because of his timing that made his attack so successful.</p>
<p>"I think that intelligence would be a whole lot better if there was more cooperation btw agencies (which is more better due to the patriot act and the establishment of homeland security, etc)."</p>
<p>You made an important point here. Another reason why Bush is dumb is because he hired corrupt peoplr like Kerik to be in charge of it. Luckily Kerrik resigned and we have another person to replace him.</p>
<p>This is the first post of the thread by primitive:
[quote]
Please dont make personal attacks, make this thead mature.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then subsequent posts:
</p>
<p>Those are some really mature posts.
What's even more sad is that he creates another user name. Or is it just a coincidence that you have the same AIM screen name? Haha.</p>
<p>Well uc_benz, I am sorry for making personal attacks. These were in response to the personal attacks made by the conservatives. I will not quote them all as it will take me an hour to do so.</p>
<p>"What's even more sad is that he creates another user name. Or is it just a coincidence that you have the same AIM screen name? Haha."</p>
<p>READ MY POST ABOVE.</p>