I'm just an observer. But some of these pro-bush comments are hilarious! I've never heard so much ******** in my life. They keep denying everything! LOL
Its disgusting what this president has done to America. THE IRAQ WAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. And don't play all dumb now, like Bush wasn't aware of the intelligence. The CIA had a documented report before the Iraq War warning the Bush Administration that Iraq may not possess WMDs.
The only claims for justification of this war by these right wingers is that Saddam had a terrible human rights record. Yes I agree, Saddam had horrible human rights record. But what about China? What about North Korea? The list goes on and on!
So let me get this straight. Bush invaded Iraq to protect the UN. So in order to protect the UN, you defy the UN. YUP! MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME! Does every right wing strategy involve hypocrisy?
HAHAHAH its pathetic that still a small number of Americans still support this imbolsol of a president. He is a threat to America. He is a threat to the world, and he is threat to all of mankind.
Go to any country in the world, and you will see how people feel on this leader. He has lied, he has a horrible environmental record, he has a horrible record with the economy and jobs. HE IS A HORRIBLE PRESIDENT PERIOD!
IRAQ WAR WILL NOT GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS A SUCCESS. STOP THE IGNORANCE AND GET OUT OF YOUR DREAM
It wil go down with Vietnam, and the Russia / Afghan War.
A COMPLETE DISASTER.
It was all based on lies, they didn't have a strategy to leave Iraq, 9months + after George Bush declared Victory we find ourselves still fighting and the country is still in chaos and on the verge of a civil war.
But Dick Chaney and Halliburton got their contracts, so I guess its a victory for the Bush Administration.
Don't bother trying to convince these pro-bush members. They our stuck on their decision and NOTHING IN THE WORLD WILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS. If Bush came on national television tommarrow and apologized for lying, they still would not call him a liar.
If you want some proof about how dishonest some Bush supporters can be - just have a look to your own rating list. You started your posting career here with the lowest rating possible - given by 2 different persons apparently, who are Curley Joe and Americaaah. You are new on this board, so it requires a little explanation: Americaaah and Curley Joe are the same person - LOL. He used to employ double posting to support himself - now that this trick has become too obvious, he "only" uses double vote to better get opponents to his pro-war views all licked.
It speaks volumes about the room left to engage some real exchange and discussion with people like him. And you would wonder why this trickster enjoys the Bush administration's policy ? Quite simple - they play the same game: deceit, manipulation, disinformation.
Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off, and far more secure, without weapons of mass murder. Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible - and no one can now doubt the word of America.
And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible - and no one can now doubt the word of America. [/i] [/B]
No one can doubt the word of America? Are you talking about President Bush and his clear speaking honest joe tell it like it is administration? I think they've dribbled away most of any credibility they might have once had.
Then again in Curley world, who knows, WMD may turn up, or someone might find links to terrorism, maybe the CIA may take the blame for distorting the intelligence, or maybe British intelligence will take the blame.
9/11 was planned by Bush, remember? And this game of lies, deceit and misinformation is employed not only by Bush but also Curley and Americaaah (same person, cheap tricks to add more votes - unbelievable!). Terrorists, evil representatives of the right-wing neo-con agenda, the nazis of the 21st century, spread war, corruption, and mass slaughterings of children. They have the largest WMD arsenal in the world, which WILL be used to target freedom-loving countries like Iraq, and ultimately to destroy the whole world. US is going to obtain complete control over the world. Actually, US is a puppet of zionists, these killers of palestinian youngsters in Jenin camp. etc. etc.
Actually, JY, the person posting under Curley and Americaaah is me - i voted 'poor' for impala as well. Such a dishonest bastard i am!
" ....... in the twenty-first century the fate of working people, and ultimately mankind as a whole, depends upon the success of the socialist revolution. .......... "
First of all: Curley, what is your comment about double voting ? Am I wrong about you, yes or no ?
Second: guys, don't overreact. Mr JukoVette, your point about neo-cons is probably intended to decredibilize my comment with the help of grotesque caricature. All right - do as you want - I don't need to depict the Bush administration with this kind of excessivenesses to make my point. FACTS as they are are just enough.
I'm not surprised here by this. After all, anyone running for office will garner support from somewhere. Let's just hope the rest of America doesn't follow this pattern. There's no way I think this country can afford 4 more years like the last 3.
sayzak21 said this in post #10 : I'm not going to double vote. But Bush's chances of getting at least one vote by me are looking pretty good.
I'm just kiddin' about my "double-voting," sayz. Although, my "better-half" will vote for Bush so there are TWO votes right there.
By the way, for sixty years NO incumbent president with an approval rating of 50% or better at this time in his presidency has been denied re-election. President Bush's approval rating is currently at 53% with little or no campaigning under his belt. (This is after the Dems have had months of unrelenting Bush-bashing from no less than 9 Presidential "prospects.")
Yeah, cuz you know, it's every 3 years a president inherrits a recession, and an attack on the world trade center -- and has to turn around and rebuild it all.
Don't bother trying to convince these pro-bush members. They our stuck on their decision and NOTHING IN THE WORLD WILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS. If Bush came on national television tommarrow and apologized for lying, they still would not call him a liar.
That's funny. Tell me. When Clinton was in office, and he was on the stand for lying in court, and he squeeked through on the technicality that the word "is" has multiple meanings, did you think Clinton was a liar? Did you care?
His confession was pretty funy. "I did, indeed, have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinski."
Some people thought that was quite charming. I called him a liar.
That's funny. Tell me. When Clinton was in office, and he was on the stand for lying in court, and he squeeked through on the technicality that the word "is" has multiple meanings, did you think Clinton was a liar? Did you care?
His confession was pretty funy. "I did, indeed, have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinski."
Some people thought that was quite charming. I called him a liar.
Of course he was lying his ass off. Thing is only you uptight conservatives can actually equate lying about infidelity with lying about going to war.
Bush is another Nixon and you guys don't even recognise it.
I don't know who did the Kerry photographs with him and Fonda, or who started the rumour that he had an affair but doesn't it sort of ring any bells that this is the way the Republican's operate.
Hmm not anymore dumb than the Clinton Administration.
Funny how things get twisted in election years....check out these quotes from those who are now speaking with forked tongues:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use n uclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the grea test
security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will th reaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
Dave, relax. First of all, I'm not an uptight conservative. I'm not even uptight.
My reason for bringing Clinton into the issue was hypocracy. Since you were unable to recognize that and felt the reason to retort the way you did, I'll explain it even further. What's-his-name said some people wouldn't believe Bush was lying if he admitted to doing so. What I think is even worse, is if Bush did admit to lying, some people would pretend he didn't even say that. Some people would ignore it. And in the future if a president they liked was in office, they'd pounce on a controversal subject as quick as possible and accuse them of lying. That's hypocracy. My particular point had nothing to do with the war.
Bush another Nixon? That's a stretch, but I'll bite. Draw a comparison.
About Kerry... Who cares, he won't be president anyway.
sayzak21 said this in post
My reason for bringing Clinton into the issue was hypocracy. Since you were unable to recognize that and felt the reason to retort the way you did, I'll explain it even further. What's-his-name said some people wouldn't believe Bush was lying if he admitted to doing so. What I think is even worse, is if Bush [i]did admit to lying, some people would pretend he didn't even say that. Some people would ignore it. And in the future if a president they liked was in office, they'd pounce on a controversal subject as quick as possible and accuse them of lying. That's hypocracy. My particular point had nothing to do with the war.
Yeah... sometimes I don't form sentances very well... I might as well be drunk, eh?
To make a long sentance short: Clinton lied, admitted to it, and some people simply didn't care. As far as we know (and by we I mean everyone) Bush has not lied, yet those same people who turned a blind eye to Clinton's lie are crying foul.
And like I said, my reason for saying that wasn't about WMD's or weather or not Bush actually lied, it's the hypocracy.
sayzak21 said this in post #26 : Yeah... sometimes I don't form sentances very well... I might as well be drunk, eh?
To make a long sentance short: Clinton lied, admitted to it, and some people simply didn't care. As far as we know (and by we I mean everyone) Bush has not lied, yet those same people who turned a blind eye to Clinton's lie are crying foul.
And like I said, my reason for saying that wasn't about WMD's or weather or not Bush actually lied, it's the hypocracy.
Your absolutely right to say it's hypocritical. Because despite Clinton "getting away" with it, he was obviously guilty of lying about his relations with Lewinski.
To me the Bush administration is equally guilty of lying by using 9/11 as a pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq because of its ties to Al Quida and the WMD terrorist threat.
Both governments obviously lied but there is a huge degree of difference between these lies.
sayzak21 said this in post #28 : THAT... is your opinion, aided by your friends on the left.
Now who's being hypocritical. Despite the evidence that virtually all the statements the Bush administration put out before the war were false you still refuse to think they lied.
Now Iraq is in such a mess that the Bush administration has no choice but to come back to the "despised" UN for help because they realise that the country could well be sliding into civil war, just one of the things they were warned of but chose to ignore.
The US government gambled that if everything went well in Iraq then they could ride out any accussations that they didn't actually "tell it like it was" and that would probably have been true. But it hasn't worked out how they imagined and they are forced to hide the dead soldiers coming back to into America, and forced to manipulate the number of troops injured, and they don't even count the Iraqis that are dying every day.
It's ironic but before the war some in the US administration actually hoped the Iraq invasion would destroy the UN, leaving the US to be THE "global leader". Turns out it might actually have shown that we have no alternatives to the UN, so we'd better start getting it right.
Are you calling me hypocritical? I said that was your opinion. The only fact here is you do not know whether or not Bush lied. You obviousely believe you do, which is why I call it your opinion. None of the lefties will believe the reasons for going to war, so they're digging like mad to discredit the reason for going to war. Conspiritorial nuts are going out of bounds by attempting to blame Bush for creating 9/11. If ousting Saddam for the sake of winning the war on terror wasn't the main reason for going to war, what do YOU believe is? I'm just curious.
they are forced to hide the dead soldiers coming back to into America, and forced to manipulate the number of troops injured, and they don't even count the Iraqis that are dying every day.
Another piece of crap. Number of dead or injured coalition soldiers is reported exact, and number of iraqis hurt may be not because they are not under US jurisdiction and command - iraqi authorities should have the correct data regarding iraqi losses.
It's ironic but before the war some in the US administration actually hoped the Iraq invasion would destroy the UN,
This is coming from 'unknown', nonetheless reliable, sources in the White House.
Turns out it might actually have shown that we have no alternatives to the UN, so we'd better start getting it right.
Your absolutely right to say it's hypocritical. Because despite Clinton "getting away" with it, he was obviously guilty of lying about his relations with Lewinski.
To me the Bush administration is equally guilty of lying by using 9/11 as a pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq because of its ties to Al Quida and the WMD terrorist threat.
Both governments obviously lied but there is a huge degree of difference between these lies.
Umm actually there is documented proof of Saddam having ties to Al Qaida but the media moronic liberals are trying to keep that hush hush, because I guess that see that our countries safety isn't important just as long as they gain the White House back so they can engage in more scandals and immorality.
Brilliant statement hereabove. From it it is not difficult to guess the open-mindness of its author. "Liberals trying to keep Saddam's ties with Al Qaida hush hush so that they can engage in more scandals and immorality" - unbelievable. So at least half of the people in the US are or support immoral people, willing to destroy their own country ? I am staggered.
sayzak21
None of the lefties will believe the reasons for going to war, so they're digging like mad to discredit the reason for going to war. Conspiritorial nuts are going out of bounds by attempting to blame Bush for creating 9/11. If ousting Saddam for the sake of winning the war on terror wasn't the main reason for going to war, what do YOU believe is? I'm just curious.
The original reasons given by the US and UK administration for invading Iraq were crystal clear. So despite the protests and much of the world against it, the invasion and occupation took place. But it turns out that those reasons where wrong. Now we are supposed to accept that this is all okay - and why? Because no-one liked Saddam anyway.
This is the foreign policy of a thug government. If the truth doesn't fit they'll force it to fit. And even if no-one believes them - well who cares, you're either with us or against us.
quote:
MrJukoVette
h@ts Turns out it might actually have shown that we have no alternatives to the UN, so we'd better start getting it right.
Meaning???
Iraq was probably the weakest nation in the Middle East, and look at the trouble it is causing to the US, so much so they have asked for help from an organisation they despise. What more proof is needed to realise that although the UN is far from perfect, America is not a better alternative.
quote:
Crazie
Umm actually there is documented proof of Saddam having ties to Al Qaida but the media moronic liberals are trying to keep that hush hush, because I guess that see that our countries safety isn't important just as long as they gain the White House back so they can engage in more scandals and immorality.
I'm talking about documented proof that would have justified invading and occupying another country, not documents that show an Al Quida operative once took a dump in an Iraqi toilet when he was visiting a relative.
Do any of you Bush supporters even know what would support a war on the pretext of pre-emtion? In fact we have a law in the US that states that there must be a "clear and present" danger and an imminent threat. This is exactly what Bush said 48 hrs before we bombarded Iraq and invaded.
So let's say Saddam had documents on "How to build a nuke in 5 easy lessons" or a manual that said "Building nukes for dummies". That is NOT enough to invade a country. Gassing a people almost 2 decades ago certainly isn't just reason, and alleging ties to Al Qaeda isn't either.
However, stating that Saddam possessed WMD by the tons and would use them or give them to terrorist because he had them is justifiable. Everything else is supportive of this fact. If this element is missing, there is no case. If there's no foundation gentlemen, there is no house.
How do you tell a liar is lying? Do you take his word for it, or the actions of such a person? How is it that Saddam have ties to 9/11 and every hijacker was from Saudi Arabia? The Royal Family denied Al Qaeda existed there for years. We have plenty proof they existed there, and now even the Royal family cannot deny it. Not one hijacker was from Iraq nor the monies used to finance it. It all was from Saudi Arabia, every dime. Yet we point to a visit from an Al Qaeda member in 98 to justify invasion?
Sayzak and his "moral justifications", how do you do that when you know the US is in bed with China? We know for a fact they are brutal. How about Uzbekistan? President there boiled a man alive for practicing his own religion and we don't even mention it here because we have bases in their country. This man committed thousands of killings of his own people in the last year alone and nothing about it has hit the air.
There's nothing justifiable about this war. Iraq definately has ties to Al Qaeda now, and since our incursion, 10,000 civilians have died, and almost 600 Americans. Every day there's bombings and carnage with no end in sight and Iraq is better off?
So if UN refused to authorize the use of force, who's fault is it? US came to SC and presented whatever evidence it possessed, arguments justifying this invasion 100%, and so on. US which is often accused of not respecting the UN has actually asked for help, and it's the UN who refused. Why? If the toppling of Saddam and democracy in Iraq could be achieved easier with the help of world-wide coalition including France, China, Germany, and other nations, why didn't they join?
MrJukoVette said this in post #37 : So if UN refused to authorize the use of force, who's fault is it? US came to SC and presented whatever evidence it possessed, arguments justifying this invasion 100%, and so on. US which is often accused of not respecting the UN has actually asked for help, and it's the UN who refused. Why? If the toppling of Saddam and democracy in Iraq could be achieved easier with the help of world-wide coalition including France, China, Germany, and other nations, why didn't they join?
It was actually Blair not Bush that wanted to legitamise the invasion of Iraq throught the UN, because unlike America, he could be (and still can be) in trouble legally for invading a country without UN authorisation - which they didn't get.
Why didn't the UN join? I seriously think many nations did not believe the evidence that America presented, and in hindsight they were correct. On top of that the French wanted to allow what Hans Blix had asked for - another few months to conclude his search for WMD, which funnily enough is exactly what America has been asking for for the last 10 months.
sayzak21 said this in post #39 : That is pretty funnily
Do you or don't you understand the irony of the Bush administration asking for the very thing that Hans Blix and the French were asking for before the invasion - namely, more time to find the WMD?
And that search has turned up what Sayzak? Nothing!!! Bush didn't allow Blix time. He should have. There is nothing that pointed to Saddam being an imminent threat, and Saddam definately couldn't use any illegal weapons had they been there with inspectors in his land now could he?
The Bush administration made quite a few accusations. Merely the mention of Saddam up to no good seems to be good enough for some to believe he was, despite nothing coming of Bush's assertions.....and this was before we invaded.
Another thing Sayzak, that sarcasm demon is sticking his head up again. ("funnily"). That's not necessary and adds to strife. People will close their minds to you when you do things of that nature and won't hear you because you appear cynical. Just a word of advise. You can take it or leave it.
sayzak21 said this in post #41 : The difference is, Hans couldn't look anywhere he wanted. With Saddam gone, there's absolutely no where that can't be examined.
Seeing as the Bush administration said they knew where Saddam was hiding the WMD they shouldn't have needed to ask for more time to find the stuff once Saddam was out of the way (but I guess you don't see the irony).
Or was the statement that they knew where the WMD was yet another false statement - and such and obvioulsy false statment because people did ask why Bush declined to pass on this very useful info to Blix while he was there. But then, so much about this present US administration doesn't quite add up
In the middle of a war — or is it a war? — almost an entire Presidential briefing is taken up with the question of how many times a 26-year-old George W. Bush showed up in Alabama for National Guard duty more than 30 years ago.
Crazy. There is not the slightest doubt that if, say, John Edwards were the Democratic front runner, the issue would be considered an irrelevance. Indeed, during the months when Howard Dean was the front runner, it never came up. It comes up now only because the Democrats have providentially made John Kerry, war hero, their presumptive nominee.
For 2 1/2 years since 9/11, the Democrats have been adrift on national security. With Kerry, they have finally stumbled their way onto an answer: "We still have no answer, but we have a man with an unimpeachable military record. What have you got?"
The Democrats want to make the issue one of biography. It is, after all, no contest. Kerry has his Vietnam medals; Bush can barely produce his National Guard pay stubs.
Two years ago, biography was not enough. The Democrats got slaughtered in that election campaign because the President had a plan for the post-Sept. 11 world — a forward strategy of war abroad and homeland-security reorganization at home — and the Democrats had nothing.
Democratic Senator Max Cleland, another genuine war hero, was defeated in Georgia after he and other Senate Democrats had held up the establishment of the Homeland Security Department because of union rules. Democrats bitterly complained that Cleland's patriotism had been questioned. But it was not a matter of patriotism; it was a matter of seriousness: when crazed jihadists are flying airplanes into American buildings, the usual rules — including union rules — are suspended.
The Democrats simply did not understand that. They lost big. In 2002, past heroism was not enough. In 2004, it might just be. Why? Because Sept. 11 is fading.
The memory is still present enough in the national consciousness that the country demands someone minimally serious about national security. Dean collapsed because when people took a close look at him, he failed the midnight, red-phone, finger-on-the-button test. But the memory of Sept. 11 is now distant enough that, unlike in 2002, biography alone might be enough to meet the "seriousness" test.
Lucky for the Democrats. It is hard to see what Kerry has to offer beyond biography. The issue of our time is the war on terrorism. Bush's strategy throws out the old playbook on terrorism — the cops-and-robbers, law-and-order strategy of arrest and trial followed by complacency — and takes the war to the enemy. Kerry says terrorism is "primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation" — precisely the misconception that had us waking up on Sept. 12 realizing that while the enemy was preparing for war, we were preparing legal briefs for grand juries.
And where did Kerry stand on the most critical national-security questions of the past two decades? In 1991 he voted against the Gulf War, which he now says he was in favor of. Twelve years later, he voted in favor of the Iraq war, which he now tells us he was against. Then he voted against the $87 billion for reconstruction and troop support while telling us that of course he supports both the reconstruction and the troops.
War hero he is. But a man of so many pirouettes hardly inspires confidence as a resolute President. That should not surprise us. The very idea that national service, even heroic service, necessarily correlates with great presidential leadership is simply irrational. By that logic, Douglas MacArthur would have made a great President. By that logic, Ulysses S. Grant was a great President. (It's not just an American phenomenon: the most decorated veteran in Israel's history, Ehud Barak, was a disastrous Prime Minister.) Even more impressive is the fact that two of the greatest war Presidents in American history — Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — had military backgrounds that make Bush's look distinguished: Lincoln, minimal (less than half a year of militia duty); Roosevelt, none.
Kerry tells his campaign audiences how, as a returning Vietnam vet, he stood up to the waste and carnage and injustice of what he calls "Nixon's war." All true, except for one inconvenient fact. The man who got us into Vietnam — committing what is arguably the most egregious presidential misjudgment of the 20th century — was not Nixon. It was Kerry's political hero, John F. Kennedy: Ivy League, U.S. Navy, decorated officer whose wartime valor propelled him to Massachusetts Senator and then Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Sound familiar? So much for biography.
Oh come on I was just having fun. I'm not a cynical person. But I'm not going to waste my time trying to defend my character to you oneofpeace. You know why? Because you could think I was satan, and I wouldn't lose any sleep tonight. I'm just a person. oh, and when I said "that is pretty funnily" I was seriousely laughing at the word 'funnily' because I'd never seen it before. Can't we laugh at ourselves? h@t, did that bother you? If it did I am really sorry. I guess I jsut assumed that you guys could eat everything you dish out.
I suppose I've been stepping slightly outside my character slightly in some of my latest posts because even though I'm still interested in this subject, the discussions have no substance to them anymore. Even the most heated arguments that I used to find inspiring in a way have turned puke green. Haven't you noticed?
sayzak21 said this in post #48 : oh, and when I said "that is pretty funnily" I was seriousely laughing at the word 'funnily' because I'd never seen it before. Can't we laugh at ourselves? h@t, did that bother you? If it did I am really sorry. I guess I jsut assumed that you guys could eat everything you dish out.
I suppose I've been stepping slightly outside my character slightly in some of my latest posts because even though I'm still interested in this subject, the discussions have no substance to them anymore. Even the most heated arguments that I used to find inspiring in a way have turned puke green. Haven't you noticed?
...Dead horse.
I had no idea what you meant when you said "That is pretty funnily" and presumed you were being sarcastic or didn't understand what I'd put in my post, so I missed the opportunity to be insulted
What does "the discussions have no substance to them anymore" mean? Bush has called an enquiry into what went wrong with the intelligence, nothing of substance has been found, no substancial links to Al Quida have been found. Terrorism is now rife in a coutnry it wasn't just a year ago. The discussion can hardly move on and have "substance" when half those partisipating refuse to accept what is plainly obvious.
Yep, I've noticed Sayzak. In my perception (not including you) it's the pro Bush supporters that usually resort to the insults and disrespectful actions. Curley J is a prime example. His posts doesn't even make sense half the time and he only reposts the same thing over and over right behind those that disagree with the war. He doesn't even try to present his point.
However, in many cases I think it's pointless. I have noticed how a few people that were staunch supporters of this war doesn't show up often anymore. I guess they would simply disappear than actually swallow crow.
Sayzak, this is one thing I really really wish I was wrong about. I wish very much that Bush & company had found those WMD because going into this war he was not to be persuaded otherwise. However, I am not surprised we didn't find them given all the accusations and unproven facts presented before invading. Now we stand before the world with credibility issues.
Sometimes discussions can get heated, especially politics and religion. But when people simply insult and disrespect for the hell of it (Curley) I have no respect for that. It shows much about a person's character how they conduct themselves under pressure.
I think Saddam needed to go myself, but not just him alone. That entire region is a menace to world societies. However, as you know I don't agree with the manner in which we did it and the so called "bad intelligence" we had on this project.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a situation when so many fault tolerances fail such as what is alledged by Bush. One other country maybe, but all countries simply got his wrong? This reaks of manipulation and besides, you really argue a different case than that presented for war. So on moral grounds I can agree that Saddam needed to go, but on justifiable grounds, I believe we were lied to to accomplish a certain agenda.
Oh..and PS.....
I don't think you're Satan (just his son) Just kidding!!!
oneofpeace said this in post #46 : No touché (too shay) I thought this was a French word JY? You know when two are dueling with swords and the other wins.
That's exactly it, Peace, I got it and answered with a humorous tone. "Coulé" means sunk. When one plays to naval fight game, there are subsequent stages with the first one being "touché" ("hit" - but the boat still floats) and the next one "coulé" (sunk). When the boat is out of the game you win ("touché - coulé").
I suppose H@ts won it with his brilliant argumentation - it was not only "touché" ...
h@ts said this in post #49 :
Bush has called an enquiry into what went wrong with the intelligence, nothing of substance has been found, no substancial links to Al Quida have been found. Terrorism is now rife in a coutnry it wasn't just a year ago. The discussion can hardly move on and have "substance" when half those partisipating refuse to accept what is plainly obvious.
Clearly the horse ain't dead yet—and never will be.
Heres my position. Even though we haven't found WMD's, no 'substantial' link (even though there are a LOT of "unsubstantial" links) to Al Quaida, there's been an intelligence failure inquiry, and over 500 soldiers have died in Iraq...
This war was the right thing to do.
To be critical of Bush:
Selling the war to the impressionable was a mistake. Like campaigning for war, he got the "swing" votes by exaggerating the danger. Yes, he took advantage of his 90% approval rating at the time to do something dangerous and controversal. He knew the world, which already hated America, would loath us even more. He knew he'd be accused immediately of doing this for "oil". If he was willing to rush into war, he would be stupid to assume people wouldn't rush into accusations.
If everyone in America were like me, Bush wouldn't have needed to mention WMD's at all. If he said "We're taking out Hussien" I would have said "amen brother!" It's the impressionable people in America he was talking to. It's those same people who are listening to the Dem's critisize Bush for political gain. It's those people who are going to decide the election, unfortunately.
I have faith in the war on terrorism. He's staying the course in Iraq. He's establishing a trustful relationship with that part of the region. Saddam, not in power, is helpful in the war on terror. BUT (to be critical of America) ONLY if we stay the course and make sure Iraq's democracy is actually established. If in the next four years we don't put a LOT MORE pressure on other countries in the region, other dictators, then I will lose faith in the president. If he's never given that chance, he'll go down in history as a broken promise president.
If the war on terror is the big picture... (this thread started in the iraq section, which spawned because of the actions in the war on terror) then the recent turn of events, probes into the Bush administration, all smell like politics to me.
If the war on Terror is going to be a success, is has to continue for the next 20 years. But the next 4 are especially important. Bush needs the next four years to prove he meant what he said on September 12th.
sayzak21 said this in post #53 : Heres my position. Even though we haven't found WMD's, no 'substantial' link (even though there are a LOT of "unsubstantial" links) to Al Quaida, there's been an intelligence failure inquiry, and over 500 soldiers have died in Iraq...
This war was the right thing to do.
To be critical of Bush:
Selling the war to the impressionable was a mistake. Like campaigning for war, he got the "swing" votes by exaggerating the danger. Yes, he took advantage of his 90% approval rating at the time to do something dangerous and controversal. He knew the world, which already hated America, would loath us even more. He knew he'd be accused immediately of doing this for "oil". If he was willing to rush into war, he would be stupid to assume people wouldn't rush into accusations.
If everyone in America were like me, Bush wouldn't have needed to mention WMD's at all. If he said "We're taking out Hussien" I would have said "amen brother!" It's the impressionable people in America he was talking to. It's those same people who are listening to the Dem's critisize Bush for political gain. It's those people who are going to decide the election, unfortunately.
I have faith in the war on terrorism. He's staying the course in Iraq. He's establishing a trustful relationship with that part of the region. Saddam, not in power, is helpful in the war on terror. BUT (to be critical of America) ONLY if we stay the course and make sure Iraq's democracy is actually established. If in the next four years we don't put a LOT MORE pressure on other countries in the region, other dictators, then I will lose faith in the president. If he's never given that chance, he'll go down in history as a broken promise president.
If the war on terror is the big picture... (this thread started in the iraq section, which spawned because of the actions in the war on terror) then the recent turn of events, probes into the Bush administration, all smell like politics to me.
If the war on Terror is going to be a success, is has to continue for the next 20 years. But the next 4 are especially important. Bush needs the next four years to prove he meant what he said on September 12th.
Iraq is just one significant part of a whole.
Could not of said that better than myself. How about twins?
I agree if we're going to war against terror, then we have to keep up the pressures. However Sayzak, this is a delicate issue when talking of invading another's country. One cannot have a hope of succeeding in such a venture if they appear before the world to be unjust and to be a bully.
US credibility was on the line with Iraq. When we didn't find what was promised, then it becomes more than merely accusation, but in the minds of extremist seeking to recruit, things like this only solidifies their views and furthers recruitment for events such as 9/11.
Bush blew it. Iraq was not neccessary in the war on terror and I know you don't want to hear this, but the only reason Iraq was on radar is because of the US. He's not much different from 100's of other brutal dictators around the world when speaking of atrocities.
Ask yourself a question Sayzak. Do you believe we can go before the UN and world to invade a country tomorrow if we had rock solid evidence and not appear to be imperialist? I don't think so because Iraq has weakened our position so much that we can't justify the justifiable.
There are serious issues here Sayzak. Although it makes no difference to you, not having those WMD when you said you did poses serious future issues for the US. I for one don't believe we'll invade another country unless it's Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or some other resourced rich land in that region.
If you think people are making nothing but mere accusations, then not finding those WMD has only strengthened their position. We cannot afford another blunder of this magnitude and the problem now posed is that the real threat wasn't in Iraq, but with these other nations that developed the weapons we gave Saddam then deposed him for.
I have no confidence in our securities. Iraq is just a mirror of what America could be because of rash decision and hidden agendas. They are not stable today because of this and guess what, neither is America.
sayzak21 said this in post #53 : Heres my position. Even though we haven't found WMD's, no 'substantial' link (even though there are a LOT of "unsubstantial" links) to Al Quaida, there's been an intelligence failure inquiry, and over 500 soldiers have died in Iraq...
This war was the right thing to do.
To be critical of Bush:
Selling the war to the impressionable was a mistake. Like campaigning for war, he got the "swing" votes by exaggerating the danger. Yes, he took advantage of his 90% approval rating at the time to do something dangerous and controversal. He knew the world, which already hated America, would loath us even more. He knew he'd be accused immediately of doing this for "oil". If he was willing to rush into war, he would be stupid to assume people wouldn't rush into accusations.
If everyone in America were like me, Bush wouldn't have needed to mention WMD's at all. If he said "We're taking out Hussien" I would have said "amen brother!" It's the impressionable people in America he was talking to. It's those same people who are listening to the Dem's critisize Bush for political gain. It's those people who are going to decide the election, unfortunately.
I have faith in the war on terrorism. He's staying the course in Iraq. He's establishing a trustful relationship with that part of the region. Saddam, not in power, is helpful in the war on terror. BUT (to be critical of America) ONLY if we stay the course and make sure Iraq's democracy is actually established. If in the next four years we don't put a LOT MORE pressure on other countries in the region, other dictators, then I will lose faith in the president. If he's never given that chance, he'll go down in history as a broken promise president.
If the war on terror is the big picture... (this thread started in the iraq section, which spawned because of the actions in the war on terror) then the recent turn of events, probes into the Bush administration, all smell like politics to me.
If the war on Terror is going to be a success, is has to continue for the next 20 years. But the next 4 are especially important. Bush needs the next four years to prove he meant what he said on September 12th.
oneofpeace said this in post #55 :
I agree if we're going to war against terror, then we have to keep up the pressures. However Sayzak, this is a delicate issue when talking of invading another's country. One cannot have a hope of succeeding in such a venture if they appear before the world to be unjust and to be a bully.
I thinks America's most drastic measures are behind us. We're not being a bully, we're standing out ground. Putting our foot down. Have you ever been picked on? You don't have to be a bully to protect yourself.
quote:
US credibility was on the line with Iraq. When we didn't find what was promised, then it becomes more than merely accusation, but in the minds of extremist seeking to recruit, things like this only solidifies their views and furthers recruitment for events such as 9/11.
That's true. It's unfortunate. But I think the biggest and most important promise that Bush is going to hold true to, is he'll stay the course and make sure Iraq is succesful. That promise will go a lot further than WMD's. (Once again however, the fact that Saddam was trying to get them proves this was the right thing to do).
quote:
Bush blew it. Iraq was not neccessary in the war on terror and I know you don't want to hear this, but the only reason Iraq was on radar is because of the US.
don't leave me hanging like that... Care to elaborate?
quote:
he's not much different from 100's of other brutal dictators around the world when speaking of atrocities.
He's not?
quote:
Ask yourself a question Sayzak. Do you believe we can go before the UN and world to invade a country tomorrow if we had rock solid evidence and not appear to be imperialist? I don't think so because Iraq has weakened our position so much that we can't justify the justifiable.
Yes. I think we can. But we both know that's not going to happen in the next year or so. We've spent too much of our recourses in a quick period of time to sustain this pace. As soon as we're able, however, I think we can and will.
quote:
There are serious issues here Sayzak. Although it makes no difference to you, not having those WMD when you said you did poses serious future issues for the US. I for one don't believe we'll invade another country unless it's Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or some other resourced rich land in that region.
Let me get this straight. You assume I'm not taking this issue seriousely because... why? What did I say to give you that impression? I'm not sure who'll we invade next, or if we'll have to invade at all. There have been actions taken in other countries already. Actions that would have never happened if we hadn't attacked Iraq.
quote:
If you think people are making nothing but mere accusations, then not finding those WMD has only strengthened their position.
No doubt.
quote:
We cannot afford another blunder of this magnitude and the problem now posed is that the real threat wasn't in Iraq, but with these other nations that developed the weapons we gave Saddam then deposed him for.
It could be debated what steps we needed to take first, but I wouldn'r regret attacking Iraq first... Well, second to Afghanistan actually. Other nations will b delt with in one way or the other.
quote:
I have no confidence in our securities. Iraq is just a mirror of what America could be because of rash decision and hidden agendas. They are not stable today because of this and guess what, neither is America.
America could fall. But the amazing thing about America is that no matter how hard we fall, unlike say the Romans, we'll always have the resolve and freedom to get up and dust ourselvs off. Through all the hardships this nation has had, we're still here. And we're the most powerful and free nation on Earth. In a real democracy, it isn't possible for a president to be a dictator. Just ask that guy who used to be governer of California.
I thinks America's most drastic measures are behind us. We're not being a bully, we're standing out ground. Putting our foot down. Have you ever been picked on? You don't have to be a bully to protect yourself.
No, but you are a bully when you're the one picking the fight. Sayzak, Iraq was never a threat. Are you missing that point? However finding uranium enrichment cylinders in Iran is. N. Korea shouting to the top of their lungs "we have nukes and will use them too" is. Because you were picked on by a bully, doesn't give you the right to accuses everyone of bullying you and beating them up.
quote:
But I think the biggest and most important promise that Bush is going to hold true to, is he'll stay the course and make sure Iraq is succesful. That promise will go a lot further than WMD's...etc
Let me tell you what will go even a lot further than no WMD. The impressions America made in the minds of those yet unconvinced that America is waging war against their religions and lands. Like I said, Iraq is not stable. They just swapped one disaster for the next and it's not going to end simply because we're forcing our way of life on them.
quote:
"Bush blew it. Iraq was not neccessary in the war on terror and I know you don't want to hear this, but the only reason Iraq was on radar is because of the US."
don't leave me hanging like that... Care to elaborate?
Sure I will. Every measure to get rid of Saddam has America's signature on it. We have made him out to be the exact image in your mind today. Because of the US, the issue of Iraq has been on the front burner. For a while it wasn't, but Bush Jr. certainly picked it up and placed it there again.
quote:
"he's not much different from 100's of other brutal dictators around the world when speaking of atrocities."
He's not?
Nope his not. Comes as a shock huh? Read up on some history, both current and past. Do a search on "brutal dictators". Then do the same and add "supported by US". You may find some shocking things going on around the world.
quote:
Let me get this straight. You assume I'm not taking this issue seriousely because... why? What did I say to give you that impression?
I never thought you weren't taking this issue serious Sayzak, I just don't think you know how serious this issue is. There's a difference. Not finding those WMD presents a pretty big problem for the US.
quote:
...Other nations will b delt with in one way or the other...
Well who gets to say how they will be dealt with, Bush? How is it that you still have faith in his words? If a builder built you a home, and it fell apart, you mean to tell me you will use the same builder to rebuild you another home? Perhaps you would Sayzak, but I wouldn't count that as one of your most banner moments.
quote:
..... the amazing thing about America is that no matter how hard we fall, unlike say the Romans, we'll always have the resolve and freedom to get up and dust ourselvs off........In a real democracy, it isn't possible for a president to be a dictator. Just ask that guy who used to be governer of California.
First thing is at the risk of sounding like "might is right" I agree with you on your former post, but the latter was a gross dismantling of democracy. And at the hands of republicans AGAIN the votes of the people were disenfranchised. I think it was a travesty.
America has a problem. Iraq has made it worse not better for us. The only way in my opinion to rehabilitate our image is for use to vote Bush out, even if it's another republican. However if anyone, democrate, republican or independant subscribe to the same idiologies as this no brained dimwitted cowpoke, then in my opinion, he has to go too. America is not a better place today than it was 3 yrs ago.
sayzak21
I thinks America's most drastic measures are behind us. We're not being a bully, we're standing out ground. Putting our foot down. Have you ever been picked on? You don't have to be a bully to protect yourself.
If you think the "most drastic measures are behind" the US, you should read PNAC, written BEFORE 9/11 by such figures as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Perle, and these guys are ambitious:
"The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions."
What "critical regions" means pre-9/11 shouldn't be too diffiult to imagine. So we've now had two wars since 9/11, what makes you think these guys have finished? Although I think we can safely say there won't be another war at least until Bush gets re-elected.
As for being picked on, you're going to have to convince me that Iraq "picked on" America or that the US needed to "protect" itself because I don't see it. Iraq invade Kuwait, not Texas or Calafornia. Saddam was a friend of America at the time and most likely didn't expect his actions to lead to the consequences they did lead to, especially since America had supported him during his war against Iran - were we hoping Saddam was going to actually conquer Iran before we were going to do something about him?
And so on to the invasion of Kuwait which led to:
200,000 dead Iraqi troops in the first Gulf war.
500,000 dead from over a decade of sanctions
10,000 dead civilians in the second Gulf war.
And who knows how many dead Iraq troops, mostly conscripts forced to fight for a leader they despised.
The price of us supporting Saddam and then falling out with him have been enormously high for the Iraqis. Put yourself in their shoes, I think they might feel suitably "picked on".
If you think the "most drastic measures are behind" the US, you should read PNAC, written BEFORE 9/11 by such figures as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Perle, and these guys are ambitious:
"The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions."
What "critical regions" means pre-9/11 shouldn't be too diffiult to imagine. So we've now had two wars since 9/11, what makes you think these guys have finished? Although I think we can safely say there won't be another war at least until Bush gets re-elected.
As for being picked on, you're going to have to convince me that Iraq "picked on" America or that the US needed to "protect" itself because I don't see it. Iraq invade Kuwait, not Texas or Calafornia. Saddam was a friend of America at the time and most likely didn't expect his actions to lead to the consequences they did lead to, especially since America had supported him during his war against Iran - were we hoping Saddam was going to actually conquer Iran before we were going to do something about him?
And so on to the invasion of Kuwait which led to:
200,000 dead Iraqi troops in the first Gulf war.
500,000 dead from over a decade of sanctions
10,000 dead civilians in the second Gulf war.
And who knows how many dead Iraq troops, mostly conscripts forced to fight for a leader they despised.
The price of us supporting Saddam and then falling out with him have been enormously high for the Iraqis. Put yourself in their shoes, I think they might feel suitably "picked on".
You have a short term memory, no offense. First of all, the comment about drastic measures being behind us, I was reffering to the use of the A-bomb. And When I was talking about being picked on, I was talking about Terrorism in general, and all the necessary steps in fighting it.
You have a short term memory, no offense. First of all, the comment about drastic measures being behind us, I was reffering to the use of the A-bomb. And When I was talking about being picked on, I was talking about Terrorism in general, and all the necessary steps in fighting it.
Short memory? Non taken. You don't think Iraq's been through and is going to go through drastic measures?
Saddam was bad, like many dictators we've supported and some we haven't but what did Iraq actually do to deserve the attention that it's recieved from the US over the last 10 years or so? Has all this mess been about the invasion of Kuwait. Saddam was a secular leader surrounded by fundamentalists Islamic nations, and he was the enemy of Al Quida because of it, thus an enemy of the organisation that attacked the US.
If Iraq becomes an Islamic nation, as is the likely outcome - if it doesn't slip into civil war - then if could become extremely hostile to the US. Are we going to invade again and say - well we wanted democracy in Iraq just not that kind of democracy.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is - is the title of this post close to the truth?
No, but you are a bully when you're the one picking the fight. Sayzak, Iraq was never a threat. Are you missing that point? However finding uranium enrichment cylinders in Iran is. N. Korea shouting to the top of their lungs "we have nukes and will use them too" is. Because you were picked on by a bully, doesn't give you the right to accuses everyone of bullying you and beating them up.
If you're trying to convince me that Saddam Hussien, while seeking wmd's, is not a threat... Then yes, I am definately, and always will be missing your point.
America isn't some adolesent child. When America is picked on, we're not going to go randomly attack people to scare bullies away. However there are REAL terrorists in the world who have wanted to spill american blood sine way before 9/11. To avoid antoher 9/11 (I can't believe I have to explain this to you again), we're taking out the BULLIES.
quote:
Let me tell you what will go even a lot further than no WMD. The impressions America made in the minds of those yet unconvinced that America is waging war against their religions and lands. Like I said, Iraq is not stable. They just swapped one disaster for the next and it's not going to end simply because we're forcing our way of life on them.
Well these things take time. And now the people in that region can express themselves AND their religions the way they want, without Saddam KILLING them for it. They've already started.
quote:
Sure I will. Every measure to get rid of Saddam has America's signature on it. We have made him out to be the exact image in your mind today. Because of the US, the issue of Iraq has been on the front burner. For a while it wasn't, but Bush Jr. certainly picked it up and placed it there again.
Please answer this question: Did Saddam Hussien support terrorists, commit cruel crimes against humanity, and seek getting WMD's?
Answer that and tell me why Iraq wasn't necessary in the war on terror -- in the same sentance, if you can.
quote:
Nope his not. Comes as a shock huh? Read up on some history, both current and past. Do a search on "brutal dictators". Then do the same and add "supported by US". You may find some shocking things going on around the world.
Oh, I thought you were talking about George Bush. I know about the "shocking things" going on around the world. George Bush isn't responsible for them. He's doing what he can, inch by inch, to put an end to it.
quote:
I never thought you weren't taking this issue serious Sayzak, I just don't think you know how serious this issue is. There's a difference. Not finding those WMD presents a pretty big problem for the US.
Yes, I certainly see that. It's too bad we can't just sit the world down and have a talk. However, if the means of the world get any worse than those of the terrorists on 9/11, I'd be amazed.
quote:
Well who gets to say how they will be dealt with, Bush? How is it that you still have faith in his words? If a builder built you a home, and it fell apart, you mean to tell me you will use the same builder to rebuild you another home? Perhaps you would Sayzak, but I wouldn't count that as one of your most banner moments.
In this equation, I'm going to assume Bush = the builder. What is the "home" he built, which aparantly fell apart?
quote:
First thing is at the risk of sounding like "might is right" I agree with you on your former post, but the latter was a gross dismantling of democracy. And at the hands of republicans AGAIN the votes of the people were disenfranchised. I think it was a travesty.
You know those "republicans" who kicked whats-his-face from office? Those were the same freakin' people who elecred him in the first place. The ability to remove a bad governer from office is an example of Democracy.
quote:
America has a problem. Iraq has made it worse not better for us. The only way in my opinion to rehabilitate our image is for use to vote Bush out, even if it's another republican. However if anyone, democrate, republican or independant subscribe to the same idiologies as this no brained dimwitted cowpoke, then in my opinion, he has to go too. America is not a better place today than it was 3 yrs ago.
Maybe not today. Maybe not even in the next few years. But we will be in time, and so will the world, once terrorism across the globe is wiped out. The more terrorism we get rid of, the more faith the world will have in us, and the more the world will cooperate. If every nation were as ambitious to extinguish terrorism it would be done in a few years. We're still in the beginning stages. Don't think about how the world loves us today, think about how the world will be, if everything goes as planned, 20 years from now. 50 years from now.
Imagine the alternative, where terrorism it's self is more free than most of the people on Earth. What a shame.
Thomas Friedman, a liberal who supported this war before, during and after the invasion:
The right reason for the war, and this was the core of my own argument, was that the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten our open society were not the hidden WMD of Saddam. Those, as I said, were always deterrable because Saddam and his sons loved life more than they hated us. No, the real WMD that threatened us, and still do, are the young people being churned out, year after year, by failed and repressive Arab states, who hate us more than they love life and therefore are undeterrable. I am talking here about the boys of 9/11. I am talking here about all the youth identified in the two U.N. Development Programme Arab Human Develop
I think they've dribbled away most of any credibility they might have once had. 
