Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: Purge_WTF on November 01, 2006, 06:08:17 PM
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/#storyContinued (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/#storyContinued)
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/#storyContinued (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/#storyContinued)
I refuse to open that link for fear I will be tainted!
-
Bush owes troops an apology, not Kerry
Those are the headlines.
The reality is: Bush, Rumsfield and the other gay neo-cons who have never served a day in combat their entire lives owe the families of these dead soldiers an apology for putting them in harms way BASED ON A LIE.
And yes, this doesn't let Kerry off the hook either.
-
Most of the people I know who signed up for the military weren't cut out for college (i.e. not the most intelligent guys). Most need the money and come from the lower class or lower middle class. Of course some are intelligent or not out of the lower classes but most are not well off and educated. Kerry is right.
Why would he have to apologize for stating the truth?
-
Most of the people I know who signed up for the military weren't cut out for college (i.e. not the most intelligent guys). Most need the money and come from the lower class or lower middle class. Of course some are intelligent or not out of the lower classes but most are not well off and educated. Kerry is right.
Why would he have to apologize for stating the truth?
Becuase in politics, truth takes a back seat to political correctness. In this case, it's not a complete truth. In some instances...yes, but overall no.
An all volunteer army is always mostly filled with poeple with little or no advanced education and or limited opportunities who are trying to escape a poor economic situtation. Most of these people do not make the millitary a career but instead get needed skills they can use in real life. They are of average intelligence.
They are really more of a product of a poor educational system and family units that don't place a high importance on education combined with a modren society that encourages the opposite of hard work and bettering your self through education.
-
I refuse to open that link for fear I will be tainted!
http://www.usafoods.com.au/uploads/271_Kool%20Aid.jpg (http://www.usafoods.com.au/uploads/271_Kool%20Aid.jpg)
-
http://www.usafoods.com.au/uploads/271_Kool%20Aid.jpg (http://www.usafoods.com.au/uploads/271_Kool%20Aid.jpg)
lol ;D I get it! I get it!
-
Most of the people I know who signed up for the military weren't cut out for college (i.e. not the most intelligent guys). Most need the money and come from the lower class or lower middle class. Of course some are intelligent or not out of the lower classes but most are not well off and educated. Kerry is right.
Forgetting politics it's disrespectful to say that about those whose lives are on the line, true or not. Being right doesn't require actually saying it, which was tasteless given the ongoing sacrifices.
That's aside from the fact that this generalization doesn't apply across the board.
-
look up the facts. the majority of the soldiers in iraq are from middle to upper middle class. the only people who have put troops in harms way are the fucking terrorists. the terrorists are the ones who started the war. bad information and lies are 2 differant things. the fact is the liberals have nothing to run on, so they came up with the bullshit "bush lied so we could go to iraq".
-
look up the facts. the majority of the soldiers in iraq are from middle to upper middle class. the only people who have put troops in harms way are the fucking terrorists. the terrorists are the ones who started the war. bad information and lies are 2 differant things. the fact is the liberals have nothing to run on, so they came up with the bullshit "bush lied so we could go to iraq".
where did you look up that information?
how did Bush NOT lie? Where were the WMDs that he claimed to have proof of?
-
look up the facts. the majority of the soldiers in iraq are from middle to upper middle class. the only people who have put troops in harms way are the fucking terrorists. the terrorists are the ones who started the war. bad information and lies are 2 differant things. the fact is the liberals have nothing to run on, so they came up with the bullshit "bush lied so we could go to iraq".
Yea, lets have this, how did bush not lie?
-
say what you want about Olbermann but the guy is a damn good speaker.
hes damn intense though...someone should buy him a beer so he can relax for a bit;D
-
look up the facts. the majority of the soldiers in iraq are from middle to upper middle class.
Go ahead and provide them; they're not the majority.
-
the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain and the 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction.
so You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction.now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious. bush even admits to that. but faulty intelligence is not a lie
-
say what you want about Olbermann but the guy is a damn good speaker.
hes damn intense though...someone should buy him a beer so he can relax for a bit;D
He's a spin doctor!
-
'spin' is a word that republicans use in a way that makes no sense like "fuzzy math".
-
In all fairness, Bush got us into war over WMDs.
He didn't say WMDs from bunkers left over from before 1991.
He talked of buying yellow cake from Africa and roving chemlab trucks. "We know where the WMD are" - Rummy on Meet the Press.
IF he had said "I think there's about 500 pieces of 1985-1990 degraded mustard gas buried in the desert, would he have received the green light for war? No. North Korea and other states are far more potent threats.
We were told of NEW wmds, and given OLD wmds. To some, it's "Hey, he had them, we were justified!". Well, they like war and think it's cool when people die. I do not.
-
George Tenet the head of the cia looked the president in the eye, and said, “President, weapons of mass destruction are a slam dunk.’ with the 3 differant intelligance agencys giving you the same information when the country is scared shitless of another attack. If you’re the president, do you ignore all that? if you dont like the war dont go. nobodys going to make you.
-
George Tenet the head of the cia looked the president in the eye, and said, “President, weapons of mass destruction are a slam dunk.’ with the 3 differant intelligance agencys giving you the same information when the country is scared shitless of another attack. If you’re the president, do you ignore all that? if you dont like the war dont go. nobodys going to make you.
Why hasn't Bush come forward and named the groups who gave him poor intel, and admitted that the WMD we were promised, were not there. Some 1985 shit was.
Why the hell are the people in power who told him this info, still getting a paycheck?
how the fuck did our three top intelligence agencies ALL GET IT WRONG when the UN and the on-the-ground team which was all over iraq with the best equipment in the world and 24/7 satellite coverage, not an ounce of WMD was found?
Why didn't Bush DEMAND the 3 intel agencies to show him just what they had, that the rest of the world couldn't find?
This leads to teh foregone conclusion that Iraq was always a target. Stupid people don't see it. But the rest of us know that WMD was just a lame excuse to get us in there. The rest of the world knew it. it's about oil and regional domination. it was never about WMD. Pwnd.
-
Most of the people I know who signed up for the military weren't cut out for college (i.e. not the most intelligent guys). Most need the money and come from the lower class or lower middle class. Of course some are intelligent or not out of the lower classes but most are not well off and educated. Kerry is right.
Why would he have to apologize for stating the truth?
Assuming Sen Kerry was referring to the military and not a "botched joke", he was not right. From the newest recruit to the most senior general, the military as a whole is better educated than the general public-- and the education disparity is increasing due to the Montgomery GI Bill and other education incentives. Talk to any recruiter or just look at the military personnel statistics to verify this. They may not be cut out for college when they signed up, but they probably are a lot more educated once they leave the service.
-
Why hasn't Bush come forward and named the groups who gave him poor intel, and admitted that the WMD we were promised, were not there. Some 1985 shit was.
Why the hell are the people in power who told him this info, still getting a paycheck?
how the f**k did our three top intelligence agencies ALL GET IT WRONG when the UN and the on-the-ground team which was all over iraq with the best equipment in the world and 24/7 satellite coverage, not an ounce of WMD was found?
Why didn't Bush DEMAND the 3 intel agencies to show him just what they had, that the rest of the world couldn't find?
This leads to teh foregone conclusion that Iraq was always a target. Stupid people don't see it. But the rest of us know that WMD was just a lame excuse to get us in there. The rest of the world knew it. it's about oil and regional domination. it was never about WMD. Pwnd.
the cia director was fired. the cia under the patriot act is almost completly differant now. the un weapons inspectors were kicked out of iraq. giving us even more suspicion of what was going on there.
-
the cia director was fired. the cia under the patriot act is almost completly differant now. the un weapons inspectors were kicked out of iraq. giving us even more suspicion of what was going on there.
No. Two days before we invaded, Sadaam caved and granted complete access to his bedrooms and bathrooms, as per UN/US requests. (It was a rather silly demand intended to irritate and spy - who keeps Sarin or Anthrax in their bed? lol)
We declined. Then we bombed the shit outta them. Look it up. We've lost 2800 men and killed 100 to 600k, because he violated our arbitrary timeline for letting us search his sock drawer for WMD. yes. Funny shit, eh? lol...
-
the cia director was fired. the cia under the patriot act is almost completly differant now. the un weapons inspectors were kicked out of iraq. giving us even more suspicion of what was going on there.
CIA director is a window dressing position, you know that. The come in and out every 18 months or so.
Please tell me
1) what 3 agencies told bush there weer WMD.
2) Who was fired form each for their error.
-
How the f**k can anyone listen to that loser Olbermann? ::) The guy is a f**king former ESPN announcer. :-[
Only the morons at MSNBC would give this douche a forum to talk about things he knows nothing about. ??? It's truly f**king hilarious!
Go away, Keith. That entire network is about to be sent to the scrapheap anyway. You'll soon be begging for your job back at ESPN even if you have to start bl*wing Dan Patrick just to get it. :P
-
How the f**k can anyone listen to that loser Olbermann? ::) The guy is a f**king former ESPN announcer. :-[
Only the morons at MSNBC would give this douche a forum to talk about things he knows nothing about. ??? It's truly f**king hilarious!
Go away, Keith. That entire network is about to be sent to the scrapheap anyway. You'll soon be begging for your job back at ESPN even if you have to start bl*wing Dan Patrick just to get it. :P
I know it's fun to bash people.
But Olbermann has been working in primetime cable news for quite a few years now. And his voice is one of the only ones who focus more upon maintaining constitutional rights, then about riling people up with political bickering.
You have Oreilly bitching about Saw 3. You have Olbermann fighting nightly for an explanation of the war objectives/timeline, and more importantly, constitutional rights.
Which man is a bigger loser? The one who spends 10 minutes bashing movies and discussing torture with a psychologist (orielly)? Or, the guy who spends 10 minutes pointing out to Americans the ways their rights have been lessened in the last 6 years?
Monster awareness deliverace to the people, vs. monster diversion.
-
I know it's fun to bash people.
But Olbermann has been working in primetime cable news for quite a few years now. And his voice is one of the only ones who focus more upon maintaining constitutional rights, then about riling people up with political bickering.
You have Oreilly bitching about Saw 3. You have Olbermann fighting nightly for an explanation of the war objectives/timeline, and more importantly, constitutional rights.
Which man is a bigger loser? The one who spends 10 minutes bashing movies and discussing torture with a psychologist (orielly)? Or, the guy who spends 10 minutes pointing out to Americans the ways their rights have been lessened in the last 6 years?
Monster awareness deliverace to the people, vs. monster diversion.
:o good post
-
CIA director is a window dressing position, you know that. The come in and out every 18 months or so.
Please tell me
1) what 3 agencies told bush there weer WMD.
2) Who was fired form each for their error.
didnt you read my post
the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain and the 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction.
so You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction.now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious. bush even admits to that. but faulty intelligence is not a lie
-
I know it's fun to bash people.
But Olbermann has been working in primetime cable news for quite a few years now. And his voice is one of the only ones who focus more upon maintaining constitutional rights, then about riling people up with political bickering.
You have Oreilly bitching about Saw 3. You have Olbermann fighting nightly for an explanation of the war objectives/timeline, and more importantly, constitutional rights.
Which man is a bigger loser? The one who spends 10 minutes bashing movies and discussing torture with a psychologist (orielly)? Or, the guy who spends 10 minutes pointing out to Americans the ways their rights have been lessened in the last 6 years?
Monster awareness deliverace to the people, vs. monster diversion.
remember these guys are on the radio all day, then they have tv shows. sometimes they have to come up with things to waste time. so neither one of the guys are losers
-
remember these guys are on the radio all day, then they have tv shows. sometimes they have to come up with things to waste time. so neither one of the guys are losers
I hope that's not an attempt at logic :-X
-
didnt you read my post
the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain and the 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction.
so You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction.now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious. bush even admits to that. but faulty intelligence is not a lie
Second night in a row you've cited the 911 commission as a reliable source.
please recognize that even in the eyes of the committee leaders, the 911 Commission report was merely a narrative attempting to explain Al Quida's involvement in 9/11 and the failure of US systems.
The men leading the report, kean and hamilton, call it very incomplete in need of further editions.
it is rife with errors - I just read a book which points out many anomalies in that report, some of which are completely uintrue glaring discrepencies which they ignored.
To use the 911 report - written by the admin, for the admin, clearing the admin, in order to defend the admin, is very poor debating on your part. you are better than that, man.
kh,
Do you believe in the war in iraq enough to fight in it? Would you let your sons die in the sand for "freeing the iraqis"? Or is it easy for you to manage other lives, as it'll never affect you?
-
I know it's fun to bash people.
But Olbermann has been working in primetime cable news for quite a few years now. And his voice is one of the only ones who focus more upon maintaining constitutional rights, then about riling people up with political bickering.
You have Oreilly bitching about Saw 3. You have Olbermann fighting nightly for an explanation of the war objectives/timeline, and more importantly, constitutional rights.
Which man is a bigger loser? The one who spends 10 minutes bashing movies and discussing torture with a psychologist (orielly)? Or, the guy who spends 10 minutes pointing out to Americans the ways their rights have been lessened in the last 6 years?
Monster awareness deliverace to the people, vs. monster diversion.
Come on, 240. You can't see that his whole thing is schtick?
The guy knows dick. His whole purpose is just to rile O'Reilly. At first, O'Reilly took the bait thus giving Olbermann more attention than he deserved.
And don't tell me that he cares about civil liberties. I love how everyone on the left is God-like and everyone on the right is the Devil himself in Keith's bizarre little world.
The day anyone needs Keith Olbermann to tell them anything is the day they need to go in the garage, start the car, shut the door...and leave the motor running.
-
And don't tell me that he cares about civil liberties. I love how everyone on the left is God-like and everyone on the right is the Devil himself in Keith's bizarre little world.
This has nothing to do with L/R.
This has to do with civil liberties. And there are millions of republicans - moderate repubs - who voted for reagan and bushes who suddenly can't figure out why they have less rights under a repub than they had under scumbag bubba from 92 to 2000.
party has jack shit to do with this. I wish oreilly WOULD tlak about how we're losing rights. instead, he chooses 12 minute rants on 'why torture is good and we need to do it more', completely making us look like animals on the world stage, complete fearmongering.
-
who says the 911 commision report was crap? kean and hamilton. find out who those guys are and then ask why they would be against it.
so if the 3 top intelligence agencies in the world isn't good enough for you then i dont know what to say.
if you dont agree with the war dont fucking go. and dont send your kids either. but dont disrespect the people who have volunteered to go their to fight for something they believe in
-
party has jack shit to do with this. I wish oreilly WOULD tlak about how we're losing rights. instead, he chooses 12 minute rants on 'why torture is good and we need to do it more', completely making us look like animals on the world stage, complete fearmongering.
Maybe he doesn't feel any have been lost.
Most don't.
-
Olbermann, O'Reilly, Limbaugh...
They all suck.
Why?
Not because of their political views. But because they are telling people what to think. People tune in to Limbaugh and Olbermann to see what they should think, instead of making up their own minds.
Be your own fcuking person, FFS.
YIP
Zack
-
who says the 911 commision report was crap? kean and hamilton. find out who those guys are and then ask why they would be against it.
They are the charman and co-chairman. When the two men who RAn the thing aren't at all confident in its findsings, how can the rest of us be?
if you dont agree with the war dont fucking go. and dont send your kids either. but dont disrespect the people who have volunteered to go their to fight for something they believe in
I value the lives of American soldiers. As the polls numbers showed, HALF of them DO NOT want to be there, as you stated. So do they believe in it? Less and less, it seems...
I just want our men and women to stay alive. They can do this by moving to city outskirts instead of standing on city corners.
-
I refuse to open that link for fear I will be tainted!
lol. Me too. ;D
Da da da, da da da!
-
I know it's fun to bash people.
But Olbermann has been working in primetime cable news for quite a few years now. And his voice is one of the only ones who focus more upon maintaining constitutional rights, then about riling people up with political bickering.
You have Oreilly bitching about Saw 3. You have Olbermann fighting nightly for an explanation of the war objectives/timeline, and more importantly, constitutional rights.
Which man is a bigger loser? The one who spends 10 minutes bashing movies and discussing torture with a psychologist (orielly)? Or, the guy who spends 10 minutes pointing out to Americans the ways their rights have been lessened in the last 6 years?
Monster awareness deliverace to the people, vs. monster diversion.
That's why I admire Olbermann so much--he's the perfect remedy for the disease that is Bush-esque Neoconservatism.
-
That's why I admire Olbermann so much--he's the perfect remedy for the disease that is Bush-esque Neoconservatism.
Just curious, if you don't mind. Are you a dem, or a jilted repub?
-
Just curious, if you don't mind. Are you a dem, or a jilted repub?
Somewhere in between right now. I'm a Conservative and don't like many of the candidates that the Democrats are pushing, but at the same time, I'm sick to death of the current GOP and the way they've violated Conservative principles over the past six years. Judging from your posts, I suspect that you're in a similar situation.
-
Somewhere in between right now. I'm a Conservative and don't like many of the candidates that the Democrats are pushing, but at the same time, I'm sick to death of the current GOP and the way they've violated Conservative principles over the past six years. Judging from your posts, I suspect that you're in a similar situation.
Yes. I voted for bush twice, then learned 911 is very fishy (got us into Afgh), WMD was fishy (got us into iraq), and that the constitution has replaced the Charmin in the Oval Office.
I'm a local repub, national libertarian, maybe? I hate dems. I hate neocons. I want to return to being a moderate repub. IE: No warmongering.
-
Yea, lets have this, how did bush not lie?
Because a lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive. (Unless you're 240, who makes up his own definition.) Bush no more lied than the Democrat and Republican members of Congress who supported the war and other world leaders who all thought Sadaam had WMDs.
-
Because a lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive. (Unless you're 240, who makes up his own definition.) Bush no more lied than the Democrat and Republican members of Congress who supported the war and other world leaders who all thought Sadaam had WMDs.
Every president lies. At least have the damn minerals to admit that Bush misled us to further an agenda that you believe will benefit us in the long run.
But don't insult your fellow getbiggers with "Did bush intend to deceive, or did he have bad info?". Bush has the best intel in the world. We look in alternative media and see we planned to invated Afghanistan 3 months before 911. Was Bush being completely honest when he said we were invading afghan because of 911?
-
Every president lies. At least have the damn minerals to admit that Bush misled us to further an agenda that you believe will benefit us in the long run.
But don't insult your fellow getbiggers with "Did bush intend to deceive, or did he have bad info?". Bush has the best intel in the world. We look in alternative media and see we planned to invated Afghanistan 3 months before 911. Was Bush being completely honest when he said we were invading afghan because of 911?
Didin't Condi and Powell state a year before the invasion that Sadaam wasn't a threat?
-
Yes. I voted for bush twice, then learned 911 is very fishy (got us into Afgh), WMD was fishy (got us into iraq), and that the constitution has replaced the Charmin in the Oval Office.
I'm a local repub, national libertarian, maybe? I hate dems. I hate neocons. I want to return to being a moderate repub. IE: No warmongering.
Why the labels 240 or bust?
Why not just look at where each politician and party stand, and then make up your mind?
Why let political labels influence who you support?
YIP
Zack
-
Every president lies. At least have the damn minerals to admit that Bush misled us to further an agenda that you believe will benefit us in the long run.
But don't insult your fellow getbiggers with "Did bush intend to deceive, or did he have bad info?". Bush has the best intel in the world. We look in alternative media and see we planned to invated Afghanistan 3 months before 911. Was Bush being completely honest when he said we were invading afghan because of 911?
I guess John Kerry lied too? From Kerry in 2002:
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why does Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection team previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM (U.N. Special Commission) identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all those things and more because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy the world should trust?
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067100/posts
-
Yes, Kerry is a fucking liar also. I'm no dem and I am no Kerry fan.
But why would you use the fact that "Kerry lied too!" to combat my charge that Bush lied?
-
Yes, Kerry is a fucking liar also. I'm no dem and I am no Kerry fan.
But why would you use the fact that "Kerry lied too!" to combat my charge that Bush lied?
"Bush no more lied than the Democrat and Republican members of Congress who supported the war and other world leaders who all thought Sadaam had WMDs."
-
"Bush no more lied than the Democrat and Republican members of Congress who supported the war and other world leaders who all thought Sadaam had WMDs."
Then are you prepared to admit bush lied too?
Of course Kerry lied. But you're accusing Kerry of lying, for listening to intel provided to him by the White House, which you claim didn't lie.
What a fucking train wreck your logic is.
-
Then are you prepared to admit bush lied too?
Of course Kerry lied. But you're accusing Kerry of lying, for listening to intel provided to him by the White House, which you claim didn't lie.
What a fucking train wreck your logic is.
I did not say Bush lied. I did not say Kerry lied. You did.
-
I did not say Bush lied. I did not say Kerry lied. You did.
LOL... dude, you threw out the red herring.
I pointed out that Afghan war plans were in place 3 months before 911. Your response? "Um, well Kerry lied in 2002.."
LOL.. what a fucking dodge, man. Address my point. Bush planned Afghanistan was 3 months before 9/11 because they sold the oil pipeline to argentina, not the US led Unocal. please address this, and stop throwing out political diversions.
-
It doesn't matter who voted or who did not vote for the war.
the fact remains: We were led to believe Sadaam had WMD's and they didn't. Condi and Powell both stated Sadaam wasn't a threat a year prior.
The Bush administration lied about the threat to win public support for the war.
In the mass hysteria of fear from 9/11 democrats had no choice but to vote for the war or jepordize their political standing.
It was a slam dunk for the BUSH administration and we are just now finding out the truth.
-
LOL... dude, you threw out the red herring.
I pointed out that Afghan war plans were in place 3 months before 911. Your response? "Um, well Kerry lied in 2002.."
LOL.. what a fucking dodge, man. Address my point. Bush planned Afghanistan was 3 months before 9/11 because they sold the oil pipeline to argentina, not the US led Unocal. please address this, and stop throwing out political diversions.
Why do you keep making up quotes? Good grief. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I said neither one of them lied.
"Bush no more lied than the Democrat and Republican members of Congress who supported the war and other world leaders who all thought Sadaam had WMDs." ::)
-
It doesn't matter who voted or who did not vote for the war.
the fact remains: We were led to believe Sadaam had WMD's and they didn't. Condi and Powell both stated Sadaam wasn't a threat a year prior.
The Bush administration lied about the threat to win public support for the war.
In the mass hysteria of fear from 9/11 democrats had no choice but to vote for the war or jepordize their political standing.
It was a slam dunk for the BUSH administration and we are just now finding out the truth.
I don't agree at all. It absolutely does matter who voted for the war and who supported the war. It wasn't just Bush. It was Democrats, Republicans, and other world leaders.
We really don't know, and may never know, precisely what Sadaam had and when and how he disposed of his weapons. Some of that material is very mobile. He had billions in cash, which I don't believe he used for legitimate reasons. It's possible he had nothing, but just as possible that he moved stuff out of the country before we invaded. He had years to prepare. In any event, there was enough evidence and information to convince John Kerry, Democrats, Republicans, and leaders around the world that Sadaam was hiding something.
-
It absolutely does matter who voted for the war and who supported the war. It wasn't just Bush. It was Democrats, Republicans, and other world leaders.
Which world leaders voted for the war?
Blair, and... ?
-
I don't agree at all. It absolutely does matter who voted for the war and who supported the war. It wasn't just Bush. It was Democrats, Republicans, and other world leaders.
We really don't know, and may never know, precisely what Sadaam had and when and how he disposed of his weapons. Some of that material is very mobile. He had billions in cash, which I don't believe he used for legitimate reasons. It's possible he had nothing, but just as possible that he moved stuff out of the country before we invaded. He had years to prepare. In any event, there was enough evidence and information to convince John Kerry, Democrats, Republicans, and leaders around the world that Sadaam was hiding something.
It is not prudent, moral, kosher or whatever, in the least, to go to war and endanger American lives without concrete proof of certain immanent danger to the safety of our citizens. it turns out it was all false. Frankly, it was false in the case presented, but in the atmosphere of terrorist fear it was viewed differently.
Again, who voted for or against means nothing. These are politicians. They are supposed to to be the voice of the poeple. And the American public was manipulated in supporting a war based on a lie by the BUSH administration.
-
Which world leaders voted for the war?
Blair, and... ?
Russia, China, France, Syria, etc. In 2002 the UN voted 15-0 to urge Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences."
Man. I guess 15 world leaders lied too? ::)
-
It is not prudent, moral, kosher or whatever, in the least, to go to war and endanger American lives without concrete proof of certain immanent danger to the safety of our citizens. it turns out it was all false. Frankly, it was false in the case presented, but in the atmosphere of terrorist fear it was viewed differently.
Again, who voted for or against means nothing. These are politicians. They are supposed to to be the voice of the poeple. And the American public was manipulated in supporting a war based on a lie by the BUSH administration.
and China, and Russian, and France, England, etc., etc. . . .
-
Russia, China, France, Syria, etc. In 2002 the UN voted 15-0 to urge Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences."
Man. I guess 15 world leaders lied too? ::)
They voted for a resolution. The resolution was slowly but surely being enforced. Sadaam caved 2 days before we invaded, and approved complete access to everything. We declined and bombed instead.
How many of those 15 nations helped us invade iraq? One? UK? Who else?
See, they knew there was no WMD threat. And so do you.
-
Russia, China, France, Syria, etc. In 2002 the UN voted 15-0 to urge Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences."
Man. I guess 15 world leaders lied too? ::)
No, they didn't lie................ They voted. Major difference. And if you want to talk about the information they voted on then they you can say they voted on inaccurate information.
Next:
The U.N. said serious consequences, not an Invasion by America and England.
Another great example of republican rhetoric of quoting the UN resolution when it's convienient but not quoting them when we do something with out their approval.
-
No, they didn't lie................ They voted. Major difference. And if you want to talk about the information they voted on then they you can say they voted on inaccurate information.
Next:
The U.N. said serious consequences, not an Invasion by America and England.
Another great example of republican rhetoric of quoting the UN resolution when it's convienient but not quoting them when we do something with out their approval.
I see. So Bush lied and everyone else voted based on inaccurate information.
And since when does quoting a UN resolution become Republican rhetoric?
-
I see. So Bush lied and everyone else voted based on inaccurate information.
And since when does quoting a UN resolution become Republican rhetoric?
Well, sorry,. Mr. I, is fond of quoting the UN resolution and i tend to associate the 2 unfairly.
As to your first sentence: Did they vote for a war?
Add to your response of:
Which world leaders voted for the war?
Blair, and... ?
Which was:
Russia, China, France, Syria, etc. In 2002 the UN voted 15-0 to urge Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences."
Man. I guess 15 world leaders lied too? ::)
Disarm what? the WMD's that weren't there?
-
Well, sorry,. Mr. I, is fond of quoting the UN resolution and i tend to associate the 2 unfairly.
As to your first sentence: Did they vote for a war?
Add to your response of:
Which was:
Disarm what? the WMD's that weren't there?
Did they vote for war? That's the way it reads to me. We interpreted the phrase "serious consequences" liberally.
My whole point is numerous countries, leaders, politicians, lay people, military people, etc. believed Sadaam had WMDs. That's why the UN security council voted 15-0 to condemn and threaten Sadaam. That's why the House and Senate were close to unanimous in their votes on resolutions. That's why Kerry made such strong allegations about WMDs. You cannot just lay all of this on Bush and say he deceived the world. Doesn't make any sense to me.
-
Kerry shouldn't have to say sorry for anything!
IT IS CLEARLY OBVIOUS THAT HE WAS TAKING A JAB AT BUSH! PLAIN AND FUCKING SIMPLE!
So what if he's a history of taking shots at his fellow Vietnam vets? You fuckers ever think that maybe he feels bad about what some of the US soliders did to the Vietnamese? Going public about atrocities is betrayal? ???
-
People were more mad that he talked out of school about the Vietnam atrocities.
That shit happened. period. They weren't mad at the troops for losing it and doing some executing in vilages. They were mad at Kerry for breaking some unwritten law of leaving it on the field.
-
Did they vote for war? That's the way it reads to me. We interpreted the phrase "serious consequences" liberally.
My whole point is numerous countries, leaders, politicians, lay people, military people, etc. believed Sadaam had WMDs. That's why the UN security council voted 15-0 to condemn and threaten Sadaam. That's why the House and Senate were close to unanimous in their votes on resolutions. That's why Kerry made such strong allegations about WMDs. You cannot just lay all of this on Bush and say he deceived the world. Doesn't make any sense to me.
It should make alot of sense. Are there things past administrations have done that where not on the up and up? If it wasn't for Condi and Powell making statements of the "non-threat" Sadaam posed before 9/11 i might be more inclined to believe otherwise. Or at least believe less in the possibility of the report of WMD being a lie. But taking some of these things into account just to name a few:
- Virtual absence of WMD's and facilities for making WMD's
- Geopolitical/economical motivations for the establishment of a democratic society in the region
- The American publics Massive susceptibility to fear based manipulation
Outlines to me our government "manufactured consent" (no chomsky title pun intended)
The liberal interpretation of the UN's statement: "Serious consequences" that translated into the USA invading Iraq makes us no different than garden variety vigilantes. Is that what we are? Is that how we justify doing things? Because we are not the UN's police force are we? Like Hez is to the Lebanese government are we?
-
beach bum didn't understand a damn word you just said, and will retort with something stupid about a gorilla, or something his friend told him in a barber shop. he won't argue you point by point, because that would really hurt this glass house of reason he's built with no facts.
-
It should make alot of sense. Are there things past administrations have done that where not on the up and up? If it wasn't for Condi and Powell making statements of the "non-threat" Sadaam posed before 9/11 i might be more inclined to believe otherwise. Or at least believe less in the possibility of the report of WMD being a lie. But taking some of these things into account just to name a few:
- Virtual absence of WMD's and facilities for making WMD's
- Geopolitical/economical motivations for the establishment of a democratic society in the region
- The American publics Massive susceptibility to fear based manipulation
Outlines to me our government "manufactured consent" (no chomsky title pun intended)
The liberal interpretation of the UN's statement: "Serious consequences" that translated into the USA invading Iraq makes us no different than garden variety vigilantes. Is that what we are? Is that how we justify doing things? Because we are not the UN's police force are we? Like Hez is to the Lebanese government are we?
I don't think we're vigilantes at all. We didn't act alone. I haven't looked up all of the countries who have provided troops and money, but I'm sure it's more than one.
-
beach bum didn't understand a damn word you just said, and will retort with something stupid about a gorilla, or something his friend told him in a barber shop. he won't argue you point by point, because that would really hurt this glass house of reason he's built with no facts.
What annoys me is that people like him purposely confine their thoughts within a box, so their ideals remain intact. Someday their glass house will shatter!
-
beach bum didn't understand a damn word you just said, and will retort with something stupid about a gorilla, or something his friend told him in a barber shop. he won't argue you point by point, because that would really hurt this glass house of reason he's built with no facts.
Wrong again. :) Even though we disagree on parts of the war, I can actually have an intelligent debate/discussion with Ozmo.
-
What annoys me is that people like him purposely confine their thoughts within a box, so their ideals remain intact. Someday their glass house will shatter!
Don't you have a joint to smoke? :)
-
I don't think we're vigilantes at all. We didn't act alone. I haven't looked up all of the countries who have provided troops and money, but I'm sure it's more than one.
Vigilantes rarely act alone. But aside from that, the USA was the main mover here, no disputing that.
You gotta be careful here BB, your line of reasoning about how we acted on the UN's ultimatum of "serious consequences" when compared to:
"Don't steal from the local ABC store or you'll face the consequnces.....and when someone does he gets beaten to a pulp by an angry mob only to find out he never stole in the first place" Can be an analogy we can apply to "liberal translation thinking" and the Iraq war.
-
Don't you have a joint to smoke? :)
I'm a pipe man. ;D But I will roll the occasional joint or blunt. ;D
Anyways, I'm out of bud so I'm pretty much confined to drink for tonight.
-
Vigilantes rarely act alone. But aside from that, the USA was the main mover here, no disputing that.
You gotta be careful here BB, your line of reasoning about how we acted on the UN's ultimatum of "serious consequences" when compared to:
"Don't steal from the local ABC store or you'll face the consequnces.....and when someone does he gets beaten to a pulp by an angry mob only to find out he never stole in the first place" Can be an analogy we can apply to "liberal translation thinking" and the Iraq war.
I hear you. If it turned out the person didn't rob the store, but raped a customer, then the beat down might be okay. :) That's sort of how I view Sadaam. I think going in was the right decision for a variety of reasons (not a sole reason). And on top of that we may never know what happened with WMDs.
-
I hear you. If it turned out the person didn't rob the store, but raped a customer, then the beat down might be okay. :) That's sort of how I view Sadaam. I think going in was the right decision for a variety of reasons (not a sole reason). And on top of that we may never know what happened with WMDs.
Getting rid of Sadaam is the right thing to do in theory but not in practice IMO. Not worth the cost. Call me old fashioned, but preemptive invasion based on "something other than solid proof" is not what i think America is all about.
-
Beach bum,
we're bullies. Just sack up and admit it. we walked in there using a litany of weak rasons, none of which coudl stand on their own, but together providing just enough of a blurred reason for most to put down the remote long enough to say "'yeah, let's bomb them' before returning to Deal or no Deal.
N. Korea was a far greater threat. Why are you so quiet about their potency as a threat?
-
A North Korean war would suck. No other country really cared about Saddam and Iraq. China, South Korea, and Japan really don't want to deal with a North Korean collapse.
-
Beach bum,
we're bullies. Just sack up and admit it. we walked in there using a litany of weak rasons, none of which coudl stand on their own, but together providing just enough of a blurred reason for most to put down the remote long enough to say "'yeah, let's bomb them' before returning to Deal or no Deal.
N. Korea was a far greater threat. Why are you so quiet about their potency as a threat?
Why are you asking me a rhetorical question? You don't want an answer.
-
Well, by the same arguements for going into Iraq, we should be invading N. Korea right now!
Are we willing to lose 20,000 americans so we can spread democracy?
-
Well, by the same arguements for going into Iraq, we should be invading N. Korea right now!
Are we willing to lose 20,000 americans so we can spread democracy?
Not at all. I see very different situations, which I may mention later. Have to run . . . .
-
Well, by the same arguements for going into Iraq, we should be invading N. Korea right now!
Are we willing to lose 20,000 americans so we can spread democracy?
By the very definition of why we invaded iraq, the neocons here who support the iraqi war should support invading N Korea immediately.
NK has WMDs - real ones!
NK has an evil dictator leader who kills AT LEAST as many as saddam, and he starves them too!
NK needs democracy, just like iraq.
Every single one of the war supporters here - you either support an immediate NK invasion, or you are a fucking hypocrite. Which is it? :)
-
By the very definition of why we invaded iraq, the neocons here who support the iraqi war should support invading N Korea immediately.
NK has WMDs - real ones!
NK has an evil dictator leader who kills AT LEAST as many as saddam, and he starves them too!
NK needs democracy, just like iraq.
Every single one of the war supporters here - you either support an immediate NK invasion, or you are a fucking hypocrite. Which is it? :)
Isn't there tungstun in N. Korea?
-
Isn't there tungstun in N. Korea?
Oh shit! Invade!! We shall fill our mineral coffers! The streets will flow with the ore of the nonbelievers!
-
By the very definition of why we invaded iraq, the neocons here who support the iraqi war should support invading N Korea immediately.
NK has WMDs - real ones!
NK has an evil dictator leader who kills AT LEAST as many as saddam, and he starves them too!
NK needs democracy, just like iraq.
Every single one of the war supporters here - you either support an immediate NK invasion, or you are a fucking hypocrite. Which is it? :)
This may be one of your best posts ever.
Doesn't say a whole lot TBH, ;D
but a moment of clarity.
Very well done.
YIP
Zack