Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Busted on November 04, 2008, 01:17:33 AM
-
Since someone posted top 3, who are your top 3 worst Presidents?
-
W
-
George W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
Herbert Hoover
I think GWB is a good man and his heart is in the right place but he surrounded himself with pieces of shit named, Rumsfeld and Cheney. They made things worse.
Overall when it's all said and done people will see he put us in an unnessasary war among many other things.
-
Ulysses S. Grant
Warren G. Harding
Richard M. Nixon
My opinion on W.
(George W. Bush is tentative as not enough time has passed to know just how bad the repercussions are. History may also vindicate him in time depending on if there is a political shift in the Middle East as a result of his policies.)
-
Ulysses S. Grant
Warren G. Harding
Richard M. Nixon
My opinion on W.
(George W. Bush is tentative as not enough time has passed to know just how bad the repercussions are. History may also vindicate him in time depending on if there is a political shift in the Middle East as a result of his policies.)
Dispite Nixon being a crook, he did quite well with his bringing China and the U.S. closer. This is why he wasn't on my list.
-
George W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
Herbert Hoover
So you are telling me that George W bush who got us through 911, the dotcom bust, enron etc scandals, is worse than Andrew Jackson who basically told the Us Supreme court to fuck off when they ruled in the Cherokees favor to keep the land and forcibly removed them to Oklahoma?
Trail of Tears ring a bell?
Buchannan - refused to challenge spead of slavery in what would be become the confederate states
Andrew Johnson - was impeached because he opposed reconstruction including the 14th amendment after lincoln died...
Warren G Harding - dude played poker while his friends plundered he US treasury
-
George W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
Herbert Hoover
I think GWB is a good man and his heart is in the right place but he surrounded himself with pieces of shit named, Rumsfeld and Cheney. They made things worse.
Overall when it's all said and done people will see he put us in an unnessasary war among many other things.
I agree with the Rumsfeld and Cheney bit.
-
Dispite Nixon being a crook, he did quite well with his bringing China and the U.S. closer. This is why he wasn't on my list.
His criminal and highly illegal involvement in Watergate is by far the biggest threat ever to Democracy and to the Constitution. Certainly the most dictator-esque event ever conducted or conceived of by a sitting President.
-
So you are telling me that George W bush who got us through 911, the dotcom bust, enron etc scandals, is worse than Andrew Jackson who basically told the Us Supreme court to fuck off when they ruled in the Cherokees favor to keep the land and forcibly removed them to Oklahoma?
Trail of Tears ring a bell?
Buchannan - refused to challenge spead of slavery in what would be become the confederate states
Andrew Johnson - was impeached because he opposed reconstruction including the 14th amendment after lincoln died...
Warren G Harding - dude played poker while his friends plundered he US treasury
I'll be honest with you, I don't know enough about some of these guys to make a "worst" informed decision.
-
I'll be honest with you, I don't know enough about some of these guys to make a "worst" informed decision.
We have had some real loser presidents lol. a majority of them were in the 1800s. dunno what the deal was in that century...
-
His criminal and highly illegal involvement in Watergate is by far the biggest threat ever to Democracy and to the Constitution. Certainly the most dictator-esque event ever conducted or conceived of by a sitting President.
Umm, look at what George W. Bush has done? He was far worse in terms of dictatorship with phone tapping, Gitmo, waterboarding, not letting Congress have key witnessess testify etc...
-
Umm, look at what George W. Bush has done? He was far worse in terms of dictatorship with phone tapping, Gitmo, etc...
George W Bush has not done anything Unconstitutional or Criminal under our law. He has certainly expanded the Executive Powers via, signing resolutions, Implied Powers, WarPowers Act as well as with Congressional compliance.
Nothing illegal at all however and well within the legal bounds of the Constitution.
-
Umm, look at what George W. Bush has done? He was far worse in terms of dictatorship with phone tapping, Gitmo, waterboarding, not letting Congress have key witnessess testify etc...
Lincoln also suspended Habeas Corpus using the WarPowers Act and had his Secretary of State, William Seward, regularly arrest many newspaper reporters and held indefinitely. A few times, some Congressman were even locked up. lol
-
George W Bush has not done anything Unconstitutional or Criminal under our law. He has certainly expanded the Executive Powers via, signing resolutions, Implied Powers, WarPowers Act as well as with Congressional compliance.
Nothing illegal at all.
I think he expanded his exec powers to the point of being almost criminal.
It will never be proven but I believe that Cheney and Bush knew Iraq never possessed WMDs and it was all doctored as way to take Saddam out. Was Saddam a piece of shit? Well so is Fidel and Kim Jung Ill, how come we didn't go after them? Terrorism? It's been proven Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until Al Qaeda in Iraq grouped after we got there.
GWB has done shit for us domestically except to expand government worse than any liberal and give tax breaks that did shit for the economy.
Overall the only positive thing he can be remembered for is taking out Saddam and he did this through preemptive action....basically he started a war.
-
I think he expanded his exec powers to the point of being almost criminal.
It will never be proven but I believe that Cheney and Bush knew Iraq never possessed WMDs and it was all doctored as way to take Saddam out. Was Saddam a piece of shit? Well so is Fidel and Kim Jung Ill, how come we didn't go after them? Terrorism? It's been proven Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until Alquida in Iraq grouped after we got there.
GWB has done shit for us domestically except to expand government worse than any liberal and give tax breaks that did shit for the economy.
Considering what has happened in the last 8 years, our economy was doing quite well until this last crash.... Hmm what happened two years ago?? ;D
Bush spent like charlie sheen in a strip club, there is no denying that.
-
Interesting bit of history about Lincoln and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. It weighed heavily on his mind and if he did not, the Union would have easily been dissolved as their were "snakes and scavengers and turncoats" everywhere feeding information to the rebellion.
Suspension of the Writ
On April 14, 1861, Fort Sumpter fell to the Confederacy. On April 27, 1861, President Lincoln gave the Commanding General of the U.S. Army, Winfield Scott, the following instructions in order to prevent secession-minded Marylanders from interfering with the Capital's communication with the North:
You are engaged in repressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of the military line, which is now used between the City of Philadelphia and the City of Washington, via Perryville, Annapolis City, and Annapolis Junction, you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus for the public safety, you, personally or through the officer in command at the point where the resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ. (8)
The public had forced the pro-Union governor Thomas Hicks to call the legislature into session. He warned the President that the legislature was filled with Confederate sympathizers. (9) Lincoln was reluctant to act as a letter to General Winfield Scott dated April 25, 1861 indicates. In it Lincoln discouraged ordering the arrest of members of the Maryland legislature:
The Maryland Legislature assembles tomorrow at Annapolis; and, not improbably, will take action to arm the people of that State against the United States . . . they have a clearly legal right to assemble; and, we can not know in advance, that their action will not be lawful, and peaceful . . . we can not permanently prevent their action . . . we can not long hold them as prisoners . . . I therefore conclude that it is only left to the commanding General to watch, and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt, and efficient means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their cities - and in the extremist necessity, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. (10)
The crisis quickly took and turn for the worst and the President filled the Maryland's capital with federal troops and military authorities. They made several arrests including the Baltimore marshal of police George P. Kane, Baltimore Mayor William Brown, and, on September 17, nine members of the Maryland legislature and the chief clerk of the Maryland Senate. The members of the Maryland legislature were arrested for fear that, if allowed to attend the legislative session, they would vote for secession from the Union.
For all of his handwringing, Lincoln believed it was better to save the Union than live up to its guarantees. (11) In 1862 in a public letter to Horace Greely, he went so far as to say, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it." (12) There is perhaps no worse example of the restriction of free speech in the entire Civil War than this one. Duly elected members of a state legislature were prevented from assembling and speaking on a critical issue. Along with free speech and assembly, states' rights were crushed in this effort to preserve the Union. It was clear from this moment what hierarchy of values Lincoln held dear.
-
Considering what has happened in the last 8 years, our economy was doing quite well until this last crash.... Hmm what happened two years ago?? ;D
Bush spent like charlie sheen in a strip club, there is no denying that.
Come on man it was all a giant bubble. I will say that Bush does not get all the blame, Clinton is in there also for passing the bill to allow people to get houses that can't afford them.
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me about the deficit he ran up....jeez.:-X
-
Interesting bit of history about Lincoln and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. I personally believe it was necessary for Lincoln to do this in order to save the Union. It weighed heavily on his mind and if he did not, the Union would have easily been dissolved as their were "snakes and scavengers and turncoats" everywhere feeding information to the rebellion. Nobody but Lincoln could have saved the Union. It was a near miracle.
Suspension of the Writ
On April 14, 1861, Fort Sumpter fell to the Confederacy. On April 27, 1861, President Lincoln gave the Commanding General of the U.S. Army, Winfield Scott, the following instructions in order to prevent secession-minded Marylanders from interfering with the Capital's communication with the North:
You are engaged in repressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of the military line, which is now used between the City of Philadelphia and the City of Washington, via Perryville, Annapolis City, and Annapolis Junction, you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus for the public safety, you, personally or through the officer in command at the point where the resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ. (8)
The public had forced the pro-Union governor Thomas Hicks to call the legislature into session. He warned the President that the legislature was filled with Confederate sympathizers. (9) Lincoln was reluctant to act as a letter to General Winfield Scott dated April 25, 1861 indicates. In it Lincoln discouraged ordering the arrest of members of the Maryland legislature:
The Maryland Legislature assembles tomorrow at Annapolis; and, not improbably, will take action to arm the people of that State against the United States . . . they have a clearly legal right to assemble; and, we can not know in advance, that their action will not be lawful, and peaceful . . . we can not permanently prevent their action . . . we can not long hold them as prisoners . . . I therefore conclude that it is only left to the commanding General to watch, and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt, and efficient means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their cities - and in the extremist necessity, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. (10)
The crisis quickly took and turn for the worst and the President filled the Maryland's capital with federal troops and military authorities. They made several arrests including the Baltimore marshal of police George P. Kane, Baltimore Mayor William Brown, and, on September 17, nine members of the Maryland legislature and the chief clerk of the Maryland Senate. The members of the Maryland legislature were arrested for fear that, if allowed to attend the legislative session, they would vote for secession from the Union.
For all of his handwringing, Lincoln believed it was better to save the Union than live up to its guarantees. (11) In 1862 in a public letter to Horace Greely, he went so far as to say, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it." (12) There is perhaps no worse example of the restriction of free speech in the entire Civil War than this one. Duly elected members of a state legislature were prevented from assembling and speaking on a critical issue. Along with free speech and assembly, states' rights were crushed in this effort to preserve the Union. It was clear from this moment what hierarchy of values Lincoln held dear.
Great article. Like I said in the other thread. Lincoln was all about saving the union and I agree with him. What at least Lincoln had legit reasons for what he did. Bush really stretched it.
-
Worst ever:
1. George W Bush
2. Herbert Hoover. Fcuked up the US economy and brought the nation into the great Depression. then he had the nerve to critizise FDR for his New Deal that fixed what Hoover fcuked up.
3. Gerald Ford.Who the fcuk is Gerald Ford?
Most underrated: Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon.
Most overrated: Easily John F Kennedy. The guy almost brought the world into WW III, had his kid brother to thank for a lot if not all.
-
george w bush
jimmy carter
james buchanan
-
George W Bush has not done anything Unconstitutional or Criminal under our law. He has certainly expanded the Executive Powers via, signing resolutions, Implied Powers, WarPowers Act as well as with Congressional compliance.
Nothing illegal at all however and well within the legal bounds of the Constitution.
Are you being serious?
-
George W Bush has not done anything Unconstitutional or Criminal under our law. He has certainly expanded the Executive Powers via, signing resolutions, Implied Powers, WarPowers Act as well as with Congressional compliance.
Nothing illegal at all however and well within the legal bounds of the Constitution.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm pretty sure lying to congress to get us into a war is pretty illegal. and yes, he did. Don't give me that intelligence failure crap either...
-
Worst ever:
1. George W Bush
2. Herbert Hoover. Fcuked up the US economy and brought the nation into the great Depression. then he had the nerve to critizise FDR for his New Deal that fixed what Hoover fcuked up.
3. Gerald Ford.Who the fcuk is Gerald Ford?
Most underrated: Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon.
Most overrated: Easily John F Kennedy. The guy almost brought the world into WW III, had his kid brother to thank for a lot if not all.
To be fair hedgehog, most scholarship on the Cuban missile crisis now acknowledges that it was Bobby Kennedy who was the hawk who pushed for air strikes very early on, and in fact it was Jack Kennedy who was the more moderating influence throughout the thirteen days crisis.
-
George W Bush has not done anything Unconstitutional or Criminal under our law. He has certainly expanded the Executive Powers via, signing resolutions, Implied Powers, WarPowers Act as well as with Congressional compliance.
Nothing illegal at all however and well within the legal bounds of the Constitution.
Holy fvck. ::)
-
Worst ever:
1. George W Bush
2. Herbert Hoover. Fcuked up the US economy and brought the nation into the great Depression. then he had the nerve to critizise FDR for his New Deal that fixed what Hoover fcuked up.
3. Gerald Ford.Who the fcuk is Gerald Ford?
Most underrated: Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon.
Most overrated: Easily John F Kennedy. The guy almost brought the world into WW III, had his kid brother to thank for a lot if not all.
What did Jimmy do?
-
Franklin Pierce (sp)
-
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm pretty sure lying to congress to get us into a war is pretty illegal. and yes, he did. Don't give me that intelligence failure crap either...
Libs hate that argument cause it makes it impossible to continue blaming Bush. Every intelligence agency from US to Britain to Germany to France to .. I could go on forever.. thought Saddam had more WMDs than were found. Saddam even admitted that after he destroyed or moved the bulk of what he had only a couple months before the invasion he aggressively played smoke and mirrors to make other countries think he did.
-
Ulysses S. Grant
Warren G. Harding
Richard M. Nixon
My opinion on W.
(George W. Bush is tentative as not enough time has passed to know just how bad the repercussions are. History may also vindicate him in time depending on if there is a political shift in the Middle East as a result of his policies.)
This is my list except with Hoover in for Nixon...
-
Libs hate that argument cause it makes it impossible to continue blaming Bush. Every intelligence agency from US to Britain to Germany to France to .. I could go on forever.. thought Saddam had more WMDs than were found. Saddam even admitted that after he destroyed or moved the bulk of what he had only a couple months before the invasion he aggressively played smoke and mirrors to make other countries think he did.
It's not the intelligence... it's the audacity of the Administration that pisses me off.
To say "We know where they are", then to say, "We're not sure where they are."
To say, "We know he has them", and then changing it to "we believed he had them."
Instead of coming out and saying, Our intelligence is showing us that he has this or that... Bush basically walked into the room and said, listen up Mofos... I KNOW it's there... I KNOW WHERE... Now vote for War or you're a bunch of idiots.
So, yeah... I take issue with Bush, but not in the same way as everyone else.
-
So you are telling me that George W bush who got us through 911, the dotcom bust, enron etc scandals, is worse than Andrew Jackson who basically told the Us Supreme court to fuck off when they ruled in the Cherokees favor to keep the land and forcibly removed them to Oklahoma?
Trail of Tears ring a bell?
Buchannan - refused to challenge spead of slavery in what would be become the confederate states
Andrew Johnson - was impeached because he opposed reconstruction including the 14th amendment after lincoln died...
Warren G Harding - dude played poker while his friends plundered he US treasury
Is this a joke?
-
It's not the intelligence... it's the audacity of the Administration that pisses me off.
To say "We know where they are", then to say, "We're not sure where they are."
To say, "We know he has them", and then changing it to "we believed he had them."
Instead of coming out and saying, Our intelligence is showing us that he has this or that... Bush basically walked into the room and said, listen up Mofos... I KNOW it's there... I KNOW WHERE... Now vote for War or you're a bunch of idiots.
So, yeah... I take issue with Bush, but not in the same way as everyone else.
He's a politician and he's not going to just read intelligence reports aloud to the country. Any politician would do the same and that was only one reason to kill Saddam. The Iraq war wasn't a mistake even though the media has made it seem so for 5 years.
-
He's a politician and he's not going to just read intelligence reports aloud to the country. Any politician would do the same and that was only one reason to kill Saddam. The Iraq war wasn't a mistake even though the media has made it seem so for 5 years.
The money we're spending on it proves it was a mistake.
-
The money we're spending on it proves it was a mistake.
If we can pay off the debt then no it's not. I agree that we should have killed him in 91 and saved all that money but his Dad pussed out at 100 hours.
'Sides, I'd rather pay to kill third-world, islamo-fascist dictators than pay Jerome on the street to sling junk and LaQueasha to pop out a few more future criminals.
-
If we can pay off the debt then no it's not. I agree that we should have killed him in 91 and saved all that money but his Dad pussed out at 100 hours.
'Sides, I'd rather pay to kill third-world, islamo-fascist dictators than pay Jerome on the street to sling junk and LaQueasha to pop out a few more future criminals.
That's why abortion should remain legal... so that people don't have to pop out kids they don't want or can't afford.
Personally, I'd rather see that money stay in the US... I don't give a shit about some islamo-fascist dictator as you put it.
-
That's why abortion should remain legal... so that people don't have to pop out kids they don't want or can't afford.
Personally, I'd rather see that money stay in the US... I don't give a shit about some islamo-fascist dictator as you put it.
Yeah until he gives millions to terrorist groups to kill American civilians. You think we should wait til he stated invading neighbors again?
People shouldn't have the INCENTIVE to have kids they can't take care of in the first place. I don't think that qualifies as a good reason to "keep the money in the US."
I think you should take a hard look at your priorities, buddy.
-
Yeah until he gives millions to terrorist groups to kill American civilians. You think we should wait til he stated invading neighbors again?
People shouldn't have the INCENTIVE to have kids they can't take care of in the first place. I don't think that qualifies as a good reason to "keep the money in the US."
I think you should take a hard look at your priorities, buddy.
Dude,
Saddam was in check... everyone knew he was in check... what part of no WMDs did you not catch.
Saddam wasn't invading anyone and you damn well know it.
Even if he did... How is that the US's problem?
You need to look at YOUR priorities I think... When 3rd world countries that may as well be glass as far as I'm concerned are bigger priorities than America.
-
Dude,
Saddam was in check... everyone knew he was in check... what part of no WMDs did you not catch.
Saddam wasn't invading anyone and you damn well know it.
Even if he did... How is that the US's problem?
You need to look at YOUR priorities I think... When 3rd world countries that may as well be glass as far as I'm concerned are bigger priorities than America.
Violated the UN cease-fire 17 times = NOT in check
Playing shadow games with weapons inspectors for years = NOT in check
Torturing and murdering civilians by the thousands = NOT in check
Sponsoring Terrorism = NOT in check
The point was to keep him from becoming a problem, which he was continually for over 20 years.
-
Violated the UN cease-fire 17 times = NOT in check
Playing shadow games with weapons inspectors for years = NOT in check
Torturing and murdering civilians by the thousands = NOT in check
Sponsoring Terrorism = NOT in check
The point was to keep him from becoming a problem, which he was continually for over 20 years.
Sponsoring Terrorism? Where? Show me that proof.
As far as the other items... He was totally in check... was he difficult, yes, but he wasn't causing a problem... No one gave a damn about Saddam before George Bush started tying him to Al Qaeda and you know it.
-
The money we're spending on it proves it was a mistake.
5 trillion for the war for 50 trillion worth of oil, some mistake............... ::)
you Mexicans will never understand the big picture
-
Franklin D. Roosevelt - Brought us the Fed and income tax
Lindon Johnson - Expanded Vietnam a war we never should have been in while his wife profited from ownership in Bell helicopter (made the Huey UH 1 helicopter)
George W Bush - Failed terribly to live up to his oath to execute and protect the constitution.
IMO Bill Clinton should be in there as the body count since he took office is staggering. Pretty much anyone set to testify against him (Monica the exception) seems to commit suicide.
-
Violated the UN cease-fire 17 times = NOT in check
Playing shadow games with weapons inspectors for years = NOT in check
Torturing and murdering civilians by the thousands = NOT in check
Sponsoring Terrorism = NOT in check
The point was to keep him from becoming a problem, which he was continually for over 20 years.
He was no imminent threat to the US. He was complying with UNRes 1441.
The invasion was still illegal and Bush is a mass murderer. I think the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis would agree with me.
-
He was no imminent threat to the US. He was complying with UNRes 1441.
The invasion was still illegal and Bush is a mass murderer. I think the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis would agree with me.
Still counting the insurgents with the civilians I'm sure. Illegal my foot.
-
Franklin D. Roosevelt - Brought us the Fed and income tax
What are you talking about??
The Fed was created in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson, the same year the 16th amendment instituted the income tax.
-
lol damn typeo, I was bouncing back and forth between Wilson and FDR. FDR lengthened the Depression by interfering in the market.
Wilson helped greatly to bring us the creature from Jekyll island (The Fed) and income tax(due to debt money).
When posting do you ever think one thing and type another? Ummm, yea thats what happened. Sorry about that.
-
5 trillion for the war for 50 trillion worth of oil, some mistake............... ::)
you Mexicans will never understand the big picture
You do some research and show where the US has received ANY oil money from Iraq... Oh wait... You can't, because it HASN'T.
Since you live in Canada and can't vote for the real power... do yourself a favor and stay out of the business of the adults here in the US.
We're changing the world and you're just hanging to our nut sacks trying to get a peep at the vag we destroy on a daily basis.
-
Still counting the insurgents with the civilians I'm sure. Illegal my foot.
Yes I am. I will dog the Bush people/supporters for the rest of my days to remind them of the pointless and murderous killings aka the Iraqi invasion.
You can't prove it was legal.
Worst presidents? Truman, Reagan and Bush the Lesser.
-
lol damn typeo, ... FDR lengthened the Depression by interfering in the market.
...
If by "lengthened the Depression" you mean "ended the Depression" then you have something there.
-
If by "lengthened the Depression" you mean "ended the Depression" then you have something there.
lol Riiiiiiiiight!
Govt is the solution. Do you know what cause the depression or what it was? Wall street collapsing was not it. It played a role, but only happened because all loans were called in after the currency in circulation had been reduced over and over and over again. The fed caused it. Less than ten years after it was set up to protect the economy, it creates the depression. Having enough currency in circulation to match the debt could have ended it right away. That is why Burnanke is pumping tons of cash into the economy. He spent his life studying the depression and its cause.
FDR had peoples gold confiscated, but that wasn't in your middle school book was it? That gold moved to Ft. Knox has never been inventoried.
-
Reagan
Typical lib, decker. Have you even once deviated from the socialist big gov't mindset?
-
george w bush
jimmy carter
james buchanan
I agree Big....if the list was longer, I'd say Grant too... :-X
-
Dispite Nixon being a crook, he did quite well with his bringing China and the U.S. closer. This is why he wasn't on my list.
I agree Nixon did work closely with China & Russia. He was a bit paranoid, but he was an effective statesman.... :-X
-
lol Riiiiiiiiight!
Govt is the solution. Do you know what cause the depression or what it was? Wall street collapsing was not it. It played a role, but only happened because all loans were called in after the currency in circulation had been reduced over and over and over again. The fed caused it. Less than ten years after it was set up to protect the economy, it creates the depression. Having enough currency in circulation to match the debt could have ended it right away. That is why Burnanke is pumping tons of cash into the economy. He spent his life studying the depression and its cause.
FDR had peoples gold confiscated, but that wasn't in your middle school book was it? That gold moved to Ft. Knox has never been inventoried.
The reasons for the Depression are many. It was in the making for a decade before the market crash. The supply side of the economy's equations was glutted. Unregulated laissez faire capitalism was a major culprit. The republican recipe of low taxes, little or no regulation and unenforced anti-trust laws ruled the day. The FEd did sit on its hands preferring to let the market work out the problem itself and that failed (there were a few interest rate cuts). Hoover did most of his gov intervention into the problem in his last year long after the problem became a cancer. The Depression did not start receding until FDR adopted more fully, governmental spending, regulation and intervention into the free market.
The gold standard was restricting the government's ability to affect the money supply. It had to go.
-
Typical lib, decker. Have you even once deviated from the socialist big gov't mindset?
I'm a socialist armed with the facts. Reagan's Coolidge/Hoover approach to government set the stage for the worst president in history: W. The same failed policies of little regulation, no oversight and fiscal mismanagement (borrow and spend) set the economic tone for the latest generation of rightwingers. The 'success' of the economy in the 80s was due largely to Paul Volcker's efforts and not Reagan's.
-
I'm a socialist armed with the facts. Reagan's Coolidge/Hoover approach to government set the stage for the worst president in history: W. The same failed policies of little regulation, no oversight and fiscal mismanagement (borrow and spend) set the economic tone for the latest generation of rightwingers. The 'success' of the economy in the 80s was due largely to Paul Volcker's efforts and not Reagan's.
Hahahahahahahahah!!!!! Oh brother... You're "facts" are a lot of loosely associated events which you seem to string together to try and blame everything on Repubs what is really liberals standing in the way of the constitution, individual liberty, and free-market capitalism for 30 years.
Can someone say "blind"?
-
Hahahahahahahahah!!!!! Oh brother... You're "facts" are a lot of loosely associated events which you seem to string together .....
Reagan's tax cuts caused the economic boom of the 1980s.
Reagan's tax cuts paved the way for the economic boom of the 1990s under Clinton.
Reagan won the cold war by asking the Soviets to tear down a wall.
....to try and blame everything on Repubs what is really liberals standing in the way of the constitution, individual liberty, and free-market capitalism for 30 years.
We live in a Socialist Democratic Republic. Get used to it. It's our history.
-
Reagan's tax cuts caused the economic boom of the 1980s.
Reagan's tax cuts paved the way for the economic boom of the 1990s under Clinton.
Reagan won the cold war by asking the Soviets to tear down a wall.
We live in a Socialist Democratic Republic. Get used to it. It's our history.
Reagan did more than cut taxes.. but you already know that. ;D
We live in a constitutional republic with some socialist elements. That's our history, period.
-
The gold standard was restricting the government's ability to affect the money supply. It had to go.
Are you aware what that has done to the dollar since? How much national debt we would not have had it not gone? The gold standard kept the Govt spending inline. With it gone, they can take loans out in your name, my name, kids names.... Socialism is the fastest path to wide spread poverty. It never works without capitalist nation to prop it up. It is also a sure fire way to install corrupt governments.
The republican recipe of low taxes, little or no regulation and unenforced anti-trust laws ruled the day.
low taxes... lol We aren't even supposed to be taxed on our income at all! Before Willson we were not taxed at all on our income. Thanks to the Fed we now have national debt again. I say again because Andrew Jackson killed the first central bank and the economy grew on average 10% yearly after. He was the last president to pay off the national debt.
If we stuck to the constitution and let congress coin money to beguin with tax on income would not even need to be a debate. As it stands now every dollar printed is debt. A loan if you will. Bah your a socialist, you already drank to kool aid. Why not move to china then. lol
-
Are you aware what that has done to the dollar since? How much national debt we would not have had it not gone? The gold standard kept the Govt spending inline. With it gone, they can take loans out in your name, my name, kids names.... Socialism is the fastest path to wide spread poverty. It never works without capitalist nation to prop it up. It is also a sure fire way to install corrupt governments.
The gold standard is not an elastic standard. That handicaps the gov.'s ability to intervene in the collapse of free market recessions into full blown depressions. Since the goldstandard was shitcanned and Keynesian spending was adopted, this country has not had a Depression.
low taxes... lol We aren't even supposed to be taxed on our income at all! Before Willson we were not taxed at all on our income. Thanks to the Fed we now have national debt again. I say again because Andrew Jackson killed the first central bank and the economy grew on average 10% yearly after. He was the last president to pay off the national debt.
Thanks to gov. spending, we have a national debt. The political system is predicated on free elections where candidate's bringing home pork spending usually do pretty well and are re-elected for such gifts to the People.
If we stuck to the constitution and let congress coin money to beguin with tax on income would not even need to be a debate. As it stands now every dollar printed is debt. A loan if you will. Bah your a socialist, you already drank to kool aid. Why not move to china then. lol
There is no magic historical moment in constitutional law that is applicable to today's situation. We can't go back to the old ways b/c it is no longer 1776.
-
Reagan did more than cut taxes.. but you already know that. ;D
...
Quite right! He helped establish 'borrow and spend' as normative republican economics. He also traded weapons with Iranian terrorists...that's treason.
-
Reagan's tax cuts caused the economic boom of the 1980s.
Reagan's tax cuts paved the way for the economic boom of the 1990s under Clinton.
Reagan won the cold war by asking the Soviets to tear down a wall.
We live in a Socialist Democratic Republic. Get used to it. It's our history.
The expansion of a Global economy is why the Clinton years did so well... NAFTA and other forms of free trade aided that to a large extent, but its biting us now.
-
I think some of you are forgetting American History and how the corruption of and in the Grant Administration proves that the Gold Standard as an archaic,implausible,finite,debauched and inelastic monetary system. Now for your History Lesson.
Panic of 1873
The Panic of 1873 was the start of the Long Depression, a severe nationwide economic depression in the United States that lasted until 1879. It was precipitated by the bankruptcy of the Philadelphia banking firm Jay Cooke on September 18, 1873, following the crash on May 9, 1873 of the Vienna Stock Exchange in Austria (the so-called Gründerkrach or “founders' crash”). It was one of a series of economic crises in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Causes
United States
In September 1873, the American economy entered a crisis. This followed a period of post Civil War economic overexpansion that arose from the Northern railroad boom. It came at the end of a series of economic setbacks: the Black Friday panic of 1869, the Chicago fire of 1871, the outbreak of equine influenza in 1872, and the demonetization of silver in 1873.
The Black Friday panic was caused by the attempt of Jay Gould and Jim Fisk to corner the gold market in 1869. They were prevented from doing so by the decision of the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant to release government gold for sale. The drive culminated in a day of panic when thousands were ruined - Friday, September 24, 1869, popularly called Black Friday. There was great indignation against the perpetrators.
Coming at the height of an extemely dry period, the Chicago fire of October 8-9, 1871, caused a loss of nearly $200 million in property in a blaze that overran four square miles. Its effect was compounded by simultaneous fires at Holland, Michigan, Manistee, Michigan, and Peshtigo, Wisconsin. The lumbering industry boomed as Chicago rebuilt, but other sectors of the economy were disordered by the financial losses incurred in the series of fires.[1]
The outbreak of equine influenza in 1872 had a pervasive effect on the economy. Called the “ Great Epizoötic”, it had an effect on every aspect of American transportation. The whole street railway industry ground to a halt. Locomotives came to a halt as coal or wood could not be delivered to power them. Even the United States Army Cavalry was reduced to fighting the Western tribes on foot; their adversaries likewise found their mounts too sick to do battle. The outbreak forced men to pull wagons by hand, while trains and ships full of cargo sat unloaded, tram cars stood idle and deliveries of basic community essentials were no longer being made. The effect this disease had on the US economy should not be understated.[2]
The Coinage Act of 1873 changed the United States policy with respect to silver. Before the Act, the United States had backed its currency with both gold and silver, and it minted both types of coins. The Act moved the United States to the gold standard, which meant it would no longer buy silver at a statutory price or convert silver from the public into silver coins (and stopped minting silver dollars altogether.)
The Act had the immediate effect of depressing silver prices. This hurt Western mining interests, who labeled the Act "The Crime of '73." Its effect was offset somewhat by the introduction of a silver trade dollar for use in the Orient, and by the discovery of new silver deposits at Virginia City, Nevada, resulting in new investment in mining activity.[3] But the coinage law also reduced the domestic money supply, which hurt farmers and anyone else who carried heavy debt loads. The resulting outcry raised serious questions about how long the new policy would last.[4] This perception of instability in United States monetary policy caused investors to shy away from long-term obligations, particularly long-term bonds. The problem was compounded by the railroad boom, which was in its later stages at the time.
At the end of the Civil War, there was a boom in railroad construction, with 35,000 miles (56,000 km) of new track laid across the country between 1866 and 1873. The railroad industry, at the time the nation's largest employer outside of agriculture, involved large amounts of money and risk. A large infusion of cash from speculators caused abnormal growth in the industry and overbuilding of docks, factories and ancillary facilities. At the same time, too much capital was involved in projects offering no immediate or early returns.[5]
Jay Cooke & Company fails
In September 1873, Jay Cooke & Company, a major component of the United States' banking establishment, found itself unable to market several million dollars in Northern Pacific Railway bonds. Cooke's firm, like many others, was invested heavily in the railroads. At a time when investment banks were anxious for more capital for their enterprises, President Ulysses S. Grant's monetary policy of contracting the money supply made matters worse. While businesses were expanding, the money they needed to finance that growth was becoming more scarce.
Cooke and other entrepreneurs had planned to build the nation's second transcontinental railroad, called the Northern Pacific Railway. Cooke's firm provided the financing, and ground was broken near Duluth, Minnesota, for the line on February 15, 1870. But just as Cooke was about to swing a $300 million government loan in September 1873, reports circulated that his firm's credit had become nearly worthless. On September 18, the firm declared bankruptcy.[6][7][8] The Northern Pacific would not be completed until 1883, and then by another financier: Henry Villard.[9][10]
Europe
A similar process of overexpansion was going on in Germany and Austria, where the period from German unification in 1870-71 to the crash in 1873 came to be called the Gründerjahre or "founders' years." A liberalized incorporation law in Germany led to the founding of new enterprises, such as the Deutsche Bank, as well as the incorporation of established ones. Euphoria over the military victory against France in 1871, combined with the influx of capital from the payment by France of war reparations, encouraged stock market speculation in railways, factories, docks, steamships - in short, the same areas of overexpansion as in the United States.[11]
On May 9, 1873, the Vienna Stock Exchange crashed, no longer able to sustain false expansion, insolvency, and dishonest manipulations. A series of Viennese bank failures resulted, causing a contraction of the money available for business lending. In Berlin, the railway empire of Bethel Henry Strousberg crashed, bursting the speculation bubble there. The contraction of the German economy was exacerbated by the conclusion of war reparations payments to Germany by France in September 1873. Coming two years after the founding of the German Empire, the panic became known as the Gründerkrach or "founders' crash".[12][13][14]
Effects
In Vienna and Berlin, Paris and London, St. Petersburg and New York, the business cycle had run its course. The failure of the Jay Cooke bank, followed quickly by that of Henry Clews, set off a chain reaction of bank failures and temporarily closed the New York stock market. Factories began to lay off workers as the United States slipped into depression. The effects of the panic were quickly felt in New York, more slowly in Chicago, Virginia City and San Francisco.[15][16][17]
The New York Stock Exchange closed for ten days starting September 20. Of the country's 364 railroads, 89 went bankrupt. A total of 18,000 businesses failed between 1873 and 1875. Unemployment reached 14% by 1876, during a time which became known as the Long Depression. Construction work lagged, wages were cut, real estate values fell and corporate profits vanished.[18][19]
Recovery from the crash was much quicker in Europe than in America.[20][21] Moreover, German businesses managed to avoid the sort of deep wage cuts that exacerbated American labor relations at the time.[22] There was a racial component to the economic recovery in Germany and Austria as small investors irrationally blamed the Jews for their losses in the crash.[23][24]
German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck gradually veered away from liberal economic policies in the 1870s, finally embracing a full conservative program, including trade protectionism, in 1879.[25][26][27]
Wage cuts and poor working conditions among American railroad workers resulted in the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, preventing the trains from moving, especially in Pennsylvania and the great railway hub of Chicago. President Rutherford B. Hayes sent in federal troops in an attempt to stop the strikes. Fights between strikers and troops killed more than 100 and left many more injured. Further trouble came in July 1877 in the form of a crash in the market for lumber, resulting in the bankruptcy of several leading Michigan lumbering concerns.[28] The effects of the resulting second business slump reached California by 1878.[29]
The tension between workers and the leaders of banking and manufacturing interests lingered on well after the depression lifted in the spring of 1879, the end of the crisis coinciding with the beginning of the great wave of immigration into the United States which lasted until the early 1920s.
Poor economic conditions caused voters to turn against the Republican Party. In the 1874 congressional elections, the Democrats assumed control of the House. Public opinion during the period made it difficult for the Grant Administration to develop a coherent policy regarding the Southern states. The North began to steer away from Reconstruction. As Southern states fell to the Democrats, African Americans found that they could no longer pursue activist policies of reform. Retrenchment was a common response of southern states to state debts during the depression. As funds were cut from state governments, education often suffered, despite being an integral part of blacks’ hopes for social reform. Finally, the election of the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, to the Presidency in the disputed election of 1876 led to the end of Reconstruction in March 1877.[30]
-
Gold is easily synthesized and can be man-made. Why would you want to base your countries wealth on a finite resource that does not occur globally nor does it hold value in some countries.
Just like Diamonds, the value is perception, nothing more. Pointless to base wealth on.
-
Gold is easily synthesized and can be man-made. Why would you want to base your countries wealth on a finite resource that does not occur globally nor does it hold value in some countries.
Just like Diamonds, the value is perception, nothing more. Pointless to base wealth on.
Agreed. Why is gold really so valuable? What is it's REAL worth?
-
Quite right! He helped establish 'borrow and spend' as normative republican economics. He also traded weapons with Iranian terrorists...that's treason.
hahahaha... wow. So now Reagan is a traitor too huh? Gimmie a break.
I know, I know.. you ran off the reservation years ago I'm sure.
-
hahahaha... wow. So now Reagan is a traitor too huh? Gimmie a break.
I know, I know.. you ran off the reservation years ago I'm sure.
He was a traitor to the USA the moment he went behind the Congress's back to deal with our enemy in Iran to fund rightwing death squads in El Salvador.
or 'freedom fighers' as reagan called them.
Were they freedom fighters when they cut the tits off of peasant women...or when they slaughtered nuns....or when they butchered families to intimidate the rest of the farmer peasants?
-
He was a traitor to the USA the moment he went behind the Congress's back to deal with our enemy in Iran to fund rightwing death squads in El Salvador.
or 'freedom fighers' as reagan called them.
Were they freedom fighters when they cut the tits off of peasant women...or when they slaughtered nuns....or when they butchered families to intimidate the rest of the farmer peasants?
Funny how Saddam was guilty of all this and more and Bush going after him was somehow a mistake.. hmmm...... ::)
-
Funny how Saddam was guilty of all this and more and Bush going after him was somehow a mistake.. hmmm...... ::)
Funny how you rightwingers can mischaracterize a fact pattern to fit the trappings of your black little hearts.
How is Reagan's funding death squads from the proceeds of weapons sales to our enemies in Iran the same thing as a brutal dictatorship in a land far away?
HHmmmmmmmm?
-
Funny how you rightwingers can mischaracterize a fact pattern to fit the trappings of your black little hearts.
How is Reagan's funding death squads from the proceeds of weapons sales to our enemies in Iran the same thing as a brutal dictatorship in a land far away?
HHmmmmmmmm?
Our enemy was communism than radical Islam. I don't condone human rights abuses but we fight bigger problems first and one at a time.
Liberals are so lame in claiming to give a shit about human rights abuses but if you can use that action against a Repub you don't like then, all of a sudden, NO ONE CARES ANYMORE!! lol.
Just admit it.. you're a hypocrite.
In fact, your loony side should be jumping for joy we went to Iraq. American soldiers have died and been wounded (since you hate the military and soldiers are somewhere between dog food and toilet water to you) and a murderous, fascist, torturous, and woman-hating regime has been brought to it's knees (not to mention they were all religious nuts and we all know how you feel about those religious types). ;D
-
Our enemy was communism than radical Islam. I don't condone human rights abuses but we fight bigger problems first and one at a time.
Huh? So that justifies the slaughter of farmers and peasants? We're at war...a cold war...with communism. Would you peasants please line up so we can kill you b/c you believe you have a voice in your country's government? Please be good chaps about this. We don't want a mess.
Liberals are so lame in claiming to give a shit about human rights abuses but if you can use that action against a Repub you don't like then, all of a sudden, NO ONE CARES ANYMORE!! lol.
Of all the insane spin you push, this is right at the top. Your egotistical rambling about liberals villifying a republican for invading Iraq (to stop human rights abuses??? hahahahaha) just b/c he's a republican is awesomely foolish.
Did Bush order the invasion to stop these human rights abuses in Iraq? Isn't that the same Bush that pushed for torture? The same Bush that pushed for houses of horrors like Abu Ghraib? The same Bush that ordered an illegal invasion of Iraq killing some 100,000+ innocents?
He is the epitome of a human rights president!
Just admit it.. you're a hypocrite.
You see hypocrisy b/c you want to see it. When the facts are laid out, you end up supporting a rogue mass murdering president in Bush and traitor like Reagan.
In fact, your loony side should be jumping for joy we went to Iraq. American soldiers have died and been wounded (since you hate the military and soldiers are somewhere between dog food and toilet water to you) and a murderous, fascist, torturous, and woman-hating regime has been brought to it's knees (not to mention they were all religious nuts and we all know how you feel about those religious types). ;D
Here here. You put a fine point on the issue of whether rightwingers live in a complete fantasy world that caters to their prejudice via wish fulfillment.
-
Huh? So that justifies the slaughter of farmers and peasants? We're at war...a cold war...with communism. Would you peasants please line up so we can kill you b/c you believe you have a voice in your country's government? Please be good chaps about this. We don't want a mess.
Of all the insane spin you push, this is right at the top. Your egotistical rambling about liberals villifying a republican for invading Iraq (to stop human rights abuses??? hahahahaha) just b/c he's a republican is awesomely foolish.
Did Bush order the invasion to stop these human rights abuses in Iraq? Isn't that the same Bush that pushed for torture? The same Bush that pushed for houses of horrors like Abu Ghraib? The same Bush that ordered an illegal invasion of Iraq killing some 100,000+ innocents?
He is the epitome of a human rights president!
You see hypocrisy b/c you want to see it. When the facts are laid out, you end up supporting a rogue mass murdering president in Bush and traitor like Reagan.
Here here. You put a fine point on the issue of whether rightwingers live in a complete fantasy world that caters to their prejudice via wish fulfillment.
lol... MELTDOWN
Of course fighting a larger enemy doesn't justify it but, like I said, priority was bigger fish to fry. Saddams record was one of MANY reasons used to justify the war. Liberal idiots.. YOU, focus solely on WMDs because god-forbid we actually had good reasons to go to Baghdad. And comparing Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to the kind of torture Saddam used?!?!?! Puh-leez!! lol ;D Everything I said was spot on and you need to take off your dress and admit it.
-
The same Bush that ordered an illegal invasion of Iraq killing some 100,000+ innocents?
Don't be silly Decker, 100,000 dead people mean nothing, nothing at all.
Piss on little Iraqi kids. I see nothing wrong at all with killing stacks of them. Babies too. Only lives that matter are those that wave an American flag.I see no reason, none at all for anyone to be mad over 100,000 dead people. They should be happy, being killed is nice ::)
-
lol... MELTDOWN
Of course fighting a larger enemy doesn't justify it but, like I said, priority was bigger fish to fry. Saddams record was one of MANY reasons used to justify the war. Liberal idiots.. YOU, focus solely on WMDs because god-forbid we actually had good reasons to go to Baghdad. And comparing Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to the kind of torture Saddam used?!?!?! Puh-leez!! lol ;D Everything I said was spot on and you need to take off your dress and admit it.
"meltdown..." What a conclusive way to end a discussion. You win. I don't...know....how....to counter this....'meltdown'...
You're wrong. That's what's so right about you. Those 100,000 - 700,000 dead Iraqis were not killed by Bush's murderous invasion. They died falling in the shower or tripping over their couches.
You site 'good reasons' for invading Iraq. Good to whom? You or the 700,000 dead Iraqis?
As for my dress, well, let's see how you hold up a taffeta dream like the one I'm wearing when you're my age Mr. SPot On.
-
Don't be silly Decker, 100,000 dead people mean nothing, nothing at all.
Piss on little Iraqi kids. I see nothing wrong at all with killing stacks of them. Babies too. Only lives that matter are those that wave an American flag.I see no reason, none at all for anyone to be mad over 100,000 dead people. They should be happy, being killed is nice ::)
Now you're coming around to the Right Way of thinking!
-
Iraq is better off with American intervention.
In Iraq people have the right to vote and violence is
down substantially from before the invasion with
150,000(New England Journal of Medicine) killed in the
last 5 years, although the levels of violence is still
too high. In fact the first 12 years of rule under
Saddam Hussein were more violent with over 300,000
iraqi's (Human right watch) and over 375,000 killed in
the iran iraq war,and substantially better then under
the oil for food program where according to the UN
1,000,000 iraqi's died in 9 years(CNN).
-
Iraq is better off with American intervention.
In Iraq people have the right to vote and violence is
down substantially from before the invasion with
150,000(New England Journal of Medicine) killed in the
last 5 years, although the levels of violence is still
too high. In fact the first 12 years of rule under
Saddam Hussein were more violent with over 300,000
iraqi's (Human right watch) and over 375,000 killed in
the iran iraq war,and substantially better then under
the oil for food program where according to the UN
1,000,000 iraqi's died in 9 years(CNN).
Iraq is worse off after the illegal Bush invasion.
100,000-700,000 dead Iraqis would agree with me.
2-4 million displaced Iraqis would agree with me.
4000 dead American soldiers are on my side.
How about the 31,000 wounded US vets....One leg, destroyed face, shattered mind...
How about the 600 billion spent to destroy and rebuild the country (in a halfassed manner)? That's our money. Shit, we could have just bribed each and every Iraqi citizen to lighten up.
I am not an Iraqi sympathizer and I don't give one fuck if they have some semblance of democratic voting.
-
The facts are Iraq is better now then when Saddam was leader.
There were over 1.8 million Iraqi's killed under Saddam Hussein.
The numbers by any estimation are less.
The American army is all volunteer. People that sign up know they are going to Iraq or Afghanistan. It is a choice they make.
Also Afghanistan has been harder on American and coalition soldiers per capita then Iraq.
This year there so far there have been 286 soldiers killed in Iraq, there are over 150,000 soldiers in Iraq.
258 US and coalition soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, there are just over 50,000 soldier there.
-
The facts are Iraq is better now then when Saddam was leader.
There were over 1.8 million Iraqi's killed under Saddam Hussein.
The numbers by any estimation are less.
I don't think so.
The American army is all volunteer. People that sign up know they are going to Iraq or Afghanistan. It is a choice they make.
So they got what was coming to them?
Let me guess, you support the troops right?
Do I have to point out how evil your contention is or do you understand that now?
Also Afghanistan has been harder on American and coalition soldiers per capita then Iraq.
That might be a valid point if the Iraq invasion was not illegitimate from the outset. It's an illegal war tantamount to murder.
Five years of occupation have destroyed Iraq as a country. Baghdad is today a collection of hostile Sunni and Shiite ghettoes divided by high concrete walls. Different districts even have different national flags. Sunni areas use the old Iraqi flag with the three stars of the Baath party, and the Shiite wave a newer version, adopted by the Shiite-Kurdish government. The Kurds have their own flag.
The Iraqi government tries to give the impression that normality is returning. Iraqi journalists are told not to mention the continuing violence. When a bomb exploded in Karada district near my hotel, killing 70 people, the police beat and drove away a television cameraman trying to take pictures of the devastation. Civilian casualties have fallen from 65 Iraqis killed daily from November 2006 to August 2007 to 26 daily in February. But the fall in the death rate is partly because ethnic cleansing has already done its grim work and in much of Baghdad there are no mixed areas left.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/355506_iraq19.html
We can further quantify the failure of the invasion and the failure to bring current Iraq up to standards seen under Hussein. Look at the electricity available, potable water available, higher educational insitutions destroyed and not rebuilt, wholesale displacement of communities where Sunnis try to come home only to find their properties taken by Shia families.
It's a huge failure.
-
Deaths are down.
It may not be perfect but Iraqi casualties are there lowest in over 2 years.
CASUALTIES:
_Confirmed U.S. military deaths as of May 2008: at least 4,085.
_Confirmed U.S. military wounded (hostile) as of May 30, 2008: 30,143.
_Confirmed U.S. military wounded (non-hostile, using medical air transport) as of May 3, 2008: 32,248
_U.S. military deaths for May 2008: 19.
_Deaths of civilian employees of U.S. government contractors as of March 31, 2008, the most recent figure available: 1,181.
_Iraqi deaths in May from war-related violence:
The Iraqi civilian casualty count so far for the month of May is at its lowest level since December 2005. According to Associated Press reporting through May 30, at least 528 Iraqis (excluding insurgents) have been killed in war-related violence. This is an average of 17 deaths per day, and is less than half of the 1,080 reported killed during April.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hYGX5eW9D0fsF_dr-CFT5nEG0d7wD9121ILO0
Also more people have water and sewer service and power generation.
ELECTRICITY:
_Prewar nationwide: 3,958 megawatts. Hours per day (estimated): 4-8.
_May 26, 2008 nationwide: 4,110 megawatts. Hours per day: 9.9.
_Prewar Baghdad: 2,500 megawatts. Hours per day (estimated): 16-24.
_May 26, 2008 Baghdad: Megawatts not available. Hours per day: 7.3.
_Note: Current Baghdad megawatt figures are no longer reported by the U.S. State Department's Iraq Weekly Status Report.
TELEPHONES:
_Prewar land lines: 833,000.
_April 4, 2008: 1,360,000.
_Prewar cell phones: 80,000.
_April 30, 2008: More than 12 million.
WATER:
_Prewar: 12.9 million people had potable water.
_April 30, 2008: 20.9 million people have potable water.
SEWERAGE:
_Prewar: 6.2 million people served.
_April 30, 2008: 11.3 million people served.
(Note: The number for sewerage has not changed in the newest SIGIR report.)
This was from May.
Why is it evil to point out that people sign up to fight in wars. It is a risky venture that not all people want to do, but people sign up for risky jobs all of the time. It is the governments job to make it safer, but there will always be risk in combat and I have no idea if any of the 4000 soldiers that have died in Iraq are on your side, many soldiers have gone to Iraq to fight in war that they believed in.
-
Those dead soldiers probably wouldn't agree with you either.
You must be the most spineless member on getbig. Yeah, it's a war. People die. People were dying under Hussein as well. The point of war is to prevent further devastation and if the war provides an eventual means of stability and prosperity for Iraqis than it was a good thing. I know your side consistently supports failure and defeat so that would just be awful for you, wouldn't it?
50 years from now Iraq may be flourishing and far better off than under Hussein yet you'll still be clinging to your nutless philosophy. Iraq is better off and if we continue to support it will stay that way.
-
This was from May.
Why is it evil to point out that people sign up to fight in wars. It is a risky venture that not all people want to do, but people sign up for risky jobs all of the time. It is the governments job to make it safer, but there will always be risk in combat and I have no idea if any of the 4000 soldiers that have died in Iraq are on your side, many soldiers have gone to Iraq to fight in war that they believed in.
Your tables showing a decline in casualties is not relevant. Those people should not be dead or wounded in the first place. That's like making the comparision btn homicide rates btn a large US city and deaths in Iraq. It's evil.
Would you have walked into Columbine after the disaster and tell the survivors that "hey , you should feel lucky!. More people die in Chicago on a daily basis than died here at your high school!"
Clean water often a luxury in Iraq
About 40 percent of Iraqi households still don’t have running water, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In Baghdad, about two-thirds of the city’s sewage still flows untreated to rivers and other waterways, said Lt. Col. Jarrett Purdue, the head of the water sector for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Gulf Region Division.
Most estimates put the total cost of delivering clean water across Iraq at more than $10 billion, and that number goes up every time insurgents target pipelines, pumping stations and other facilities. A homemade bomb recently broke a water main in Baghdad’s Adhamiyah neighborhood, cutting service to hundreds of thousands of people, the U.S. military said.
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/11/09/irwater.html
I don't know where you pulled your numbers but they are wrong. The US blew up the water and sewage systems (A war crime) and now we will pay 10 billion dollars to fix what we destroyed. How nice that is.
All that for only $10 billion. I guess the invasion was a success!
For Iraqis, the lack of reliable power has been one of the biggest frustrations of the war. The U.S. government has committed $4.91 billion to repairing the ravaged electricity infrastructure and bringing new generating units online. But most Iraqis can count on just a few hours of power a day.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/14/world/fg-solar14
Only around 5 billion dollars to rebuild that which we destroyed.
An army of people who volunteered to defend our country were used as murderous tools by the Bush Administration. The risk and death faced in Iraq should have never happened. It was not normal. It was not in the scope of the duty for which these men and women enlisted.
They did not get what they deserved. They were used and abused and discarded.
-
Those dead soldiers probably wouldn't agree with you either.
You must be the most spineless member on getbig. Yeah, it's a war. People die. People were dying under Hussein as well. The point of war is to prevent further devastation and if the war provides an eventual means of stability and prosperity for Iraqis than it was a good thing. I know your side consistently supports failure and defeat so that would just be awful for you, wouldn't it?
50 years from now Iraq may be flourishing and far better off than under Hussein yet you'll still be clinging to your nutless philosophy. Iraq is better off and if we continue to support it will stay that way.
You are wrong. So what's new. When anyone wants to get the horse's ass perspective, bingo, Brixton enters the Fray!
Why do you call a crime against humanity a war?
You may be right about the dead soldiers--they follow orders the way you do. Bush tells you of the heroism of slaughtering children, seniors, men, women and you wave the flag and answer "Yes sir!"
The war was started b/c of WMDs so cut the shit about helping Iraqis.
How does killing 650,000 Iraqis help them? Take your time with that one, there will be a quiz.
50 years from now? Who are you fucking Kreskin? Do you have some magic ability to foresee the future like the Oracle at Delphi?
You're a typical starry-eyed rightwinger. 'You just wait....50 years from now you'll be proven wrong!'
How cowardly of you.
-
The numbers came form an AP story about the progress in Iraq in May.
It was a direct cut and paste.
The groups that provided the information were SIGIR and the U.S. State Department's Iraq Weekly Status Report.
http://www.sigir.mil/reports/quarterlyreports/Oct08/Default.aspx
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/
All of this is better then under Saddam.
Things are bad, but they are better then they were.
-
What kills me is who gives the right to one nation to decide what is better for another and decide to invade and kill people.
Irony is they run around like world dictators while preaching democracy. Plus I thought it was about WMD? Oh whoops that was a lie. ::)
It's a terrible day when humans condone the killing of others.
-
You are wrong. So what's new. When anyone wants to get the horse's ass perspective, bingo, Brixton enters the Fray!
Why do you call a crime against humanity a war?
You may be right about the dead soldiers--they follow orders the way you do. Bush tells you of the heroism of slaughtering children, seniors, men, women and you wave the flag and answer "Yes sir!"
The war was started b/c of WMDs so cut the shit about helping Iraqis.
How does killing 650,000 Iraqis help them? Take your time with that one, there will be a quiz.
50 years from now? Who are you fucking Kreskin? Do you have some magic ability to foresee the future like the Oracle at Delphi?
You're a typical starry-eyed rightwinger. 'You just wait....50 years from now you'll be proven wrong!'
How cowardly of you.
That shit was hilarious man! I'm stealing that when someone comes to me with some bullshit ;D, even though I do agree with him more but thats besides the point.
-
What kills me is who gives the right to one nation to decide what is better for another and decide to invade and kill people.
Irony is they run around like world dictators while preaching democracy. Plus I thought it was about WMD? Oh whoops that was a lie. ::)
It's a terrible day when humans condone the killing of others.
This post is kind of ignorant.
The UN security council passed a resolution that was approved by the UN security council authorizing action if Saddam didnt comply. Several countries had intelligence that lead us to believe that the WMD were there so we went in. This could have easily been avoided if Sadaam had come clean, but based on passed actions he had no reason to belive that it was just another basless threat from a lame duck ogranization. He had everything to lose if we all found out he had nothing.... turns out he had everything to lose by continuing his actions.
We with our partners went in to disarm Saddam. Turns out several intelligence agencies across the world were wrong about the weapons they believed him to have so we now enter a phase where we try to give the country back to the people that inhabit it. We did not take their resources and we have not randomly exterminated them. We have given them a framework and the choice to create their own goverment and sovereignty.
-
This post is kind of ignorant.
The UN security council passed a resolution that was approved by the UN security council authorizing action if Saddam didnt comply. Several countries had intelligence that lead us to believe that the WMD were there so we went in. This could have easily been avoided if Sadaam had come clean, but based on passed actions he had no reason to belive that it was just another basless threat from a lame duck ogranization. He had everything to lose if we all found out he had nothing.... turns out he had everything to lose by continuing his actions.
We with our partners went in to disarm Saddam. Turns out several intelligence agencies across the world were wrong about the weapons they believed him to have so we now enter a phase where we try to give the country back to the people that inhabit it. We did not take their resources and we have not randomly exterminated them. We have given them a framework and the choice to create their own goverment and sovereignty.
No it's not ignorant, look at world levels. The USA is the most interventionist nation that ever existed.
The USA acts like the world police, even many Americans admit that. To deny that is ignorant.
And if you think it's ignorant to be againest killing of humans, well there really is no debating that point :-\
-
No it's not ignorant, look at world levels. The USA is the most interventionist nation that ever existed.
The USA acts like the world police, even many Americans admit that. To deny that is ignorant.
And if you think it's ignorant to be againest killing of humans, well there really is no debating that point :-\
Ok look at is this way:
Can you give some examples of where you think USA acts like the world police? Would you prefer a nation with power such as ours become more isolationist and turns a blind eye to everything?
I would never disagree with you that it is ignorant to be against killing people. But you made it sound like we just went into Iraq and just started ranomlly killing people. Also there seemed to be an insinuation that we have just been continaually killing people.
Typically in war, when people are shooting at you, the point is to kill them first. Also since the initial fall of Saddam, the people that have died have been to cowardly suicide bombers and terrorists. A great many Iraqis have died to these same people who are continuing to attack us.
-
Ok look at is this way:
Can you give some examples of where you think USA acts like the world police? Would you prefer a nation with power such as ours become more isolationist and turns a blind eye to everything?
I would never disagree with you that it is ignorant to be against killing people. But you made it sound like we just went into Iraq and just started ranomlly killing people. Also there seemed to be an insinuation that we have just been continaually killing people.
Typically in war, when people are shooting at you, the point is to kill them first. Also since the initial fall of Saddam, the people that have died have been to cowardly suicide bombers and terrorists. A great many Iraqis have died to these same people who are continuing to attack us.
Valid points, but the fact remains whichever study one believes 100,000 odd Iraqis are dead. Fact remains the US is a foriegn force in someone's else country. Just facts.
Examples of the US being the world police, lol, be serious. Starting with 80 military bases worldwide, uh how many nations have been bombed this past month alone - 4 is it? Not even to mention history, dear god where to start, especially if one counts the covert issues like the contras and Shah or Iran. I do drivel but really, can't expect me to write a book on that >:(
It is very accepted the US has an interventionist policy, really no disputing that. I am not saying it's all bad, it's not, but I do not agree with one nation trying to rule the world.
-
Valid points, but the fact remains whichever study one believes 100,000 odd Iraqis are dead. Fact remains the US is a foriegn force in someone's else country. Just facts.
Examples of the US being the world police, lol, be serious. Starting with 80 military bases worldwide, uh how many nations have been bombed this past month alone - 4 is it? Not even to mention history, dear god where to start, especially if one counts the covert issues like the contras and Shah or Iran. I do drivel but really, can't expect me to write a book on that >:(
It is very accepted the US has an interventionist policy, really no disputing that. I am not saying it's all bad, it's not, but I do not agree with one nation trying to rule the world.
There is no doubt the US has a tremendous presence in the world, but we are also the world most powerful nation. Can you name any 1 nation in the history of the world with that title that has been less despotic than the US? We hold back considerably it seems.
Chances are however that things may change in the very near future. Empires fall always from within... :-\
-
There is no doubt the US has a tremendous presence in the world, but we are also the world most powerful nation. Can you name any 1 nation in the history of the world with that title that has been less despotic than the US? We hold back considerably it seems.
Chances are however that things may change in the very near future. Empires fall always from within... :-\
No offense but the empire started falling a ways back. Considering the nation is just sinking into vast debt, borrowing money hand over fist, companies are failing, jobs are dropping like flies, homes are being lost, the crime, people were duped into not realizing they were losing their rights, gov bailing out businesses, the list is endless. Most people seem to accept things are not going too well now. Hardly anything new.
-
Not only Dubya is the worst, but he is the dumbest too.
-
No offense but the empire started falling a ways back. Considering the nation is just sinking into vast debt, borrowing money hand over fist, companies are failing, jobs are dropping like flies, homes are being lost, the crime, people were duped into not realizing they were losing their rights, gov bailing out businesses, the list is endless. Most people seem to accept things are not going too well now. Hardly anything new.
OK NEGATIVE NANCY! no there are definetly some problems we are facing, but we still have incredible growth potential. The problem is the many in the US are spoiled and in denial about the finacial state of things so they keep pushing off what is inevitible. There will be a crash of some sort and we need to stop living beyond our means, but we are not quite pushing up daisys just yet ;D
-
You are wrong. So what's new. When anyone wants to get the horse's ass perspective, bingo, Brixton enters the Fray!
Why do you call a crime against humanity a war?
You may be right about the dead soldiers--they follow orders the way you do. Bush tells you of the heroism of slaughtering children, seniors, men, women and you wave the flag and answer "Yes sir!"
The war was started b/c of WMDs so cut the shit about helping Iraqis.
How does killing 650,000 Iraqis help them? Take your time with that one, there will be a quiz.
50 years from now? Who are you fucking Kreskin? Do you have some magic ability to foresee the future like the Oracle at Delphi?
You're a typical starry-eyed rightwinger. 'You just wait....50 years from now you'll be proven wrong!'
How cowardly of you.
Hahahahahah!!! Laughable, a bleeding heart america-hater calling someone else a coward!!! lol ;D Jeez.. Funny how civilians have been killed in every other war throughout history but it's Bush who's the mass murderer. Just to show your bias you don't differentiate between insurgents and noncombatants. Oh wait, wait.. it doesn't matter because they're all innocent, right?!?! After all, you seem to have no problems with those who target women and children for murder unless you can lie and say it's our troops doing it. ::)
Thank you for proving me right about your side AGAIN.
Focus on the WMDs all you want. Every intel agency the world over believed he had em and if you'd like to pretend that's the only reason we went there go right ahead. Not like you've been objective about anything so far anyway.
Typical media-washed chomsky assbag, "Damn the facts, we have an agenda here!!!"
-
Hahahahahah!!! Laughable, a bleeding heart america-hater calling someone else a coward!!! lol ;D Jeez.. Funny how civilians have been killed in every other war throughout history but it's Bush who's the mass murderer. Just to show your bias you don't differentiate between insurgents and noncombatants. Oh wait, wait.. it doesn't matter because they're all innocent, right?!?! After all, you seem to have no problems with those who target women and children for murder unless you can lie and say it's our troops doing it. ::)
You've lied to yourself so long that Bush's illegal and naked attack of aggression is really a justified use force against a broken down two bit country that posed ZERO threat to the US.
How do you feel about that? Have you really convinced yourself that Iraq was a deadly comet headed directly to the US to take us down and that the only course of action we had was attacking them first?
...
Focus on the WMDs all you want. Every intel agency the world over believed he had em and if you'd like to pretend that's the only reason we went there go right ahead. Not like you've been objective about anything so far anyway.
Typical media-washed chomsky assbag, "Damn the facts, we have an agenda here!!!"
Tell me honestly BB, whose opinion regarding the presence of WMDs in Iraq was more convincing:
A. These legions of intel agencies world wide claiming WMDs were in IRaq (The US's intel was 10 years old)
or
B. The WMD inspectors on the ground in IRaq actively scouring the country with unannounced surprise inspections?
Is it A or B?
Which evidence is more probative regarding the threat posed to the US by Iraq's WMDs?
-
I'm still waiting on answer for this one. If BB can't step up to the plate, can anyone else?
-
You've lied to yourself so long that Bush's illegal and naked attack of aggression is really a justified use force against a broken down two bit country that posed ZERO threat to the US.
How do you feel about that? Have you really convinced yourself that Iraq was a deadly comet headed directly to the US to take us down and that the only course of action we had was attacking them first?
Tell me honestly BB, whose opinion regarding the presence of WMDs in Iraq was more convincing:
A. These legions of intel agencies world wide claiming WMDs were in IRaq (The US's intel was 10 years old)
or
B. The WMD inspectors on the ground in IRaq actively scouring the country with unannounced surprise inspections?
Is it A or B?
Which evidence is more probative regarding the threat posed to the US by Iraq's WMDs?
The same weapons inspectors that were the butt of consistent acts of deception on the part of Saddam? ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHH AHAH!!!!!!! Good god you're stupid.
For years they would arrive at sites and ten miles out were trucks burning up the desert in the opposite direction. Good one Decker ;D
-
The same weapons inspectors that were the butt of consistent acts of deception on the part of Saddam? ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHH AHAH!!!!!!! Good god you're stupid.
For years they would arrive at sites and ten miles out were trucks burning up the desert in the opposite direction. Good one Decker ;D
What proof do you have of this?
I've heard a lot of naysayers and Bush nut huggers state this, but I've yet to read one shred of evidence from a reputable source about this.
-
What proof do you have of this?
I've heard a lot of naysayers and Bush nut huggers state this, but I've yet to read one shred of evidence from a reputable source about this.
Isn't it interesting that, for years, inspectors were randomly denied access and upon returning to the same sites hours/days later were then ALLOWED access? I think even Decker could figure that one out.
Saddam hides weapons programs:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/10/iraq-031003-afps02.htm
See how many times Iraq fails to comply or cooperate:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron
Some interesting links:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html
-
Isn't it interesting that, for years, inspectors were randomly denied access and upon returning to the same sites hours/days later were then ALLOWED access? I think even Decker could figure that one out.
See how many times Iraq fails to comply or cooperate:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron
Some interesting links:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html
Thank you for not answering the question. gutless....punk.....(Stripes)
You lie and push other's lies to make your point. The best way to handle the likes of you is a little veracious disinfectant.
Bush broke the law the second he ordered the invasion of Iraq without UN Security Council approval.
First of all, 1441 lays out the process to be followed. Any alleged Iraqi violations are to be reported to the Security Council, which will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation." Only the Council can then decide what to do next.
Secondly, 1441 does not authorize the use of "all necessary means"--the only language recognized as authorizing force. The U.S. and U.K. tried to get this phrase into the resolution, but other Security Council members rejected it. The replacement language, "serious consequences," is not, and was not intended to be, synonymous.
Third, after 1441 was adopted, every Security Council member--including the U.S. and U.K.--affirmed that it did not provide for "automaticity"--the automatic resort to force. It was this very issue over which the Council struggled for weeks. It's simply fraudulent to now claim that 1441 incorporated automaticity.
As U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."
Fourth, any Security Council authorization for the use of force must be unambiguous, to avoid exactly the present disagreement. Clearly, 1441 is not.
Fifth, only the Security Council itself can authorize the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. The Council cannot cede that decision to individual member states.
And sixth, an authorization for the use of force always specifies the intended objective of that force. U.N. resolutions do not empower nations to use force for whatever reasons they wish. Even if 1441 did authorize the use of force to enter Iraq and detect and destroy Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, that would not authorize the stated--and quite different--purpose of this invasion: the removal of the present government from power.
In fact, Security Council resolutions cannot authorize "regime change." The U.N. Charter gives the Council no such power, and even the Council may act only within the limitations of the Charter.
http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq6-fr.htm
Your feverish attempt at conspiracy nonsense Saddam hides weapons programs:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/10/iraq-031003-afps02.htm
also falls flat. Read your fucking link. It says nothing about proof of any WMDs moved by Hussein. In fact, the hero of your piece, Dave Kay has noted the following: Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/index.html
Now BB, do you admit you're are wrong about the "threat" posed by the feeble and broken Iraq and that President George Bush is a mass murderer for ordering the slaughter of men, women, and children without justification?
-
Thank you for not answering the question. gutless....punk.....(Stripes)
You lie and push other's lies to make your point. The best way to handle the likes of you is a little veracious disinfectant.
Bush broke the law the second he ordered the invasion of Iraq without UN Security Council approval.
First of all, 1441 lays out the process to be followed. Any alleged Iraqi violations are to be reported to the Security Council, which will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation." Only the Council can then decide what to do next.
Secondly, 1441 does not authorize the use of "all necessary means"--the only language recognized as authorizing force. The U.S. and U.K. tried to get this phrase into the resolution, but other Security Council members rejected it. The replacement language, "serious consequences," is not, and was not intended to be, synonymous.
Third, after 1441 was adopted, every Security Council member--including the U.S. and U.K.--affirmed that it did not provide for "automaticity"--the automatic resort to force. It was this very issue over which the Council struggled for weeks. It's simply fraudulent to now claim that 1441 incorporated automaticity.
As U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."
Fourth, any Security Council authorization for the use of force must be unambiguous, to avoid exactly the present disagreement. Clearly, 1441 is not.
Fifth, only the Security Council itself can authorize the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. The Council cannot cede that decision to individual member states.
And sixth, an authorization for the use of force always specifies the intended objective of that force. U.N. resolutions do not empower nations to use force for whatever reasons they wish. Even if 1441 did authorize the use of force to enter Iraq and detect and destroy Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, that would not authorize the stated--and quite different--purpose of this invasion: the removal of the present government from power.
In fact, Security Council resolutions cannot authorize "regime change." The U.N. Charter gives the Council no such power, and even the Council may act only within the limitations of the Charter.
http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq6-fr.htm
Your feverish attempt at conspiracy nonsense also falls flat. Read your fucking link. It says nothing about proof of any WMDs moved by Hussein. In fact, the hero of your piece, Dave Kay has noted the following: Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/index.html
Now BB, do you admit you're are wrong about the "threat" posed by the feeble and broken Iraq and that President George Bush is a mass murderer for ordering the slaughter of men, women, and children without justification?
There is no "proof" that hasn't been unclassified. What I showed you was a very plausible and likely story based on what's available to the public. And you refused to consider it because you're an idiot. Those of us privy to more information know better.
You can cry about "1441!!! UN!!! Resolutions!!! WAHHHHHH!!! WAAAAAHHHHH!!!" all day long but the fact is that it's a worthless argument for a worthless organization. How many times did Saddam violate terms and the UN did.. nothing. We never needed their permission since they have no real authority.
You're right. It says nothing of "stockpiles." Of course that doesn't matter much since it was obvious weapons programs were being pursued and Saddam continually displayed a pattern of deception. Saddam fought inspectors every step of the way until he was FORCED to comply. Even then he attempted to undermine their efforts. Maybe you never asked yourself what that probably means but the rest of us have.
Your posts make me laugh, though. As you get more and more angry because my posts totally undermine your cowardly position it's comical how your rants become even more insulting and of emotional outbursts. Keep crying pussy... Bush isn't any mass murderer or whatever nutcase scenario you wish would come of this. You're an extremist and a radical. To make things worse you also have your head up your ass and only see what you want to.
-
There is no "proof" that hasn't been unclassified. What I showed you was a very plausible and likely story based on what's available to the public. And you refused to consider it because you're an idiot. Those of us privy to more information know better.
So let me get this straight: You are 'privy' to top secret information but still choose to debate daily, and for some period of hours, on the political section of a bodybuilding forum?
-
So you are telling me that George W bush who got us through 911, the dotcom bust, enron etc scandals, is worse than Andrew Jackson who basically told the Us Supreme court to fuck off when they ruled in the Cherokees favor to keep the land and forcibly removed them to Oklahoma?
Exactly, but people live only for the now, they forget what happened yesterday on the day things actually happened. most people have only a five minute attention span.
[/quote]
-
George W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
Herbert Hoover
I think GWB is a good man and his heart is in the right place but he surrounded himself with pieces of shit named, Rumsfeld and Cheney. They made things worse.
Overall when it's all said and done people will see he put us in an unnessasary war among many other things.
QFTed a great n1gga right there.
Peace wiggs, the gauthier clan loves you.
-
There is no "proof" that hasn't been unclassified. What I showed you was a very plausible and likely story based on what's available to the public. And you refused to consider it because you're an idiot. Those of us privy to more information know better.
So now we are dealing with plausible stories (in your mind) instead of proof. Thank god you are privied to inside information. Otherwise one might think you're making shit up and talking out of your ass.
You can cry about "1441!!! UN!!! Resolutions!!! WAHHHHHH!!! WAAAAAHHHHH!!!" all day long but the fact is that it's a worthless argument for a worthless organization. How many times did Saddam violate terms and the UN did.. nothing. We never needed their permission since they have no real authority.
Typical lawless rightwinger. The UN did nothing? You have no idea what you are talking about. What's new?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
The sanctions resulting in a total economic embargo crippled the disarmed country. But yet, Iraq was a powerhouse itching to take down the US with tons of WMDs.
Contact me when your sober.
You're right. It says nothing of "stockpiles." Of course that doesn't matter much since it was obvious weapons programs were being pursued and Saddam continually displayed a pattern of deception. Saddam fought inspectors every step of the way until he was FORCED to comply. Even then he attempted to undermine their efforts. Maybe you never asked yourself what that probably means but the rest of us have.
Now we are back to the inchoate "intent" to have WMDs. Where were the programs or weapons? Sorry BB, no dice.
Your posts make me laugh, though. As you get more and more angry because my posts totally undermine your cowardly position it's comical how your rants become even more insulting and of emotional outbursts. Keep crying pussy... Bush isn't any mass murderer or whatever nutcase scenario you wish would come of this. You're an extremist and a radical. To make things worse you also have your head up your ass and only see what you want to.
You embarrass yourself with your factually unsupported sophomoric posts.
I just push the 'ass button' with barbs and you oblige willingly.
Bush isn't a mass murderer? How did the tens of thousands of Iraqis die then? ...falling in the shower?....tripping over their fucking couches?
Bush is the biggest mass murderer of this decade.
-
So let me get this straight: You are 'privy' to top secret information but still choose to debate daily, and for some period of hours, on the political section of a bodybuilding forum?
was
-
So now we are dealing with plausible stories (in your mind) instead of proof. Thank god you are privied to inside information. Otherwise one might think you're making shit up and talking out of your ass.
Typical lawless rightwinger. The UN did nothing? You have no idea what you are talking about. What's new?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
The sanctions resulting in a total economic embargo crippled the disarmed country. But yet, Iraq was a powerhouse itching to take down the US with tons of WMDs.
Contact me when your sober.
Now we are back to the inchoate "intent" to have WMDs. Where were the programs or weapons? Sorry BB, no dice.
You embarrass yourself with your factually unsupported sophomoric posts.
I just push the 'ass button' with barbs and you oblige willingly.
Bush isn't a mass murderer? How did the tens of thousands of Iraqis die then? ...falling in the shower?....tripping over their fucking couches?
Bush is the biggest mass murderer of this decade.
Most Iraqis killed in Iraq are killed by other Iraqi's.
How is that Bush's fault?
You should be blaming the killing squads of Al Qaeda and Al Sadr, but instead you blame Bush.
Most of the 4000 soldiers killed in Iraq have been killed keeping the peace, not the other way around.
As I have said before Iraq is better off now then it was before the American intervention.
But your ok with Saddam gassing his own people and starving them in the 90's or displacing whole communities in the south and north.
-
So now we are dealing with plausible stories (in your mind) instead of proof. Thank god you are privied to inside information. Otherwise one might think you're making shit up and talking out of your ass.
Typical lawless rightwinger. The UN did nothing? You have no idea what you are talking about. What's new?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
The sanctions resulting in a total economic embargo crippled the disarmed country. But yet, Iraq was a powerhouse itching to take down the US with tons of WMDs.
Contact me when your sober.
Now we are back to the inchoate "intent" to have WMDs. Where were the programs or weapons? Sorry BB, no dice.
You embarrass yourself with your factually unsupported sophomoric posts.
I just push the 'ass button' with barbs and you oblige willingly.
Bush isn't a mass murderer? How did the tens of thousands of Iraqis die then? ...falling in the shower?....tripping over their fucking couches?
Bush is the biggest mass murderer of this decade.
Still, the most plausible scenario is the one I just put before you and you refuse to open your eyes. Maybe it makes you angry that a great deal about the Iraq war will be classified for years but that's your problem. "Sanctions!!! Sanctions!!! Sanctions!!! hahahahaha.. pathetic. Once again, the UN is an impotent organization. Even with all their "efforts" Saddam still managed to destabilize the region and pursue weapons programs and torture and murder his own civilians etc, etc.
Iraqis dies because one element chose to attack US Soldiers in the form of insurgents, another element chose to use the war as a platform to launch civil violence and yet another were innocents in the crossfire. How that translates to being different than any other war and Bush magically becoming a mass murderer is beyond me. It's obviously no stretch at all for your imagination but that must be a luxury of being an uber-biased anti-american liberal, facts and reason no longer matter.
-
Most Iraqis killed in Iraq are killed by other Iraqi's.
How is that Bush's fault?
B/c the soldiers Bush ordered to attack Iraq killed Iraq citizens defending their country from the illegal invasion.
You should be blaming the killing squads of Al Qaeda and Al Sadr, but instead you blame Bush.
I blame Bush b/c Iraq wouldn't have collapsed into civil war with ethnic cleansing if he hadn't ordered the invasion.
Most of the 4000 soldiers killed in Iraq have been killed keeping the peace, not the other way around.
Why were they keeping the peace in Iraq? B/c they destroyed the peace in the first place.
As I have said before Iraq is better off now then it was before the American intervention.
I can point to tens of thousands of dead that would disagree with your conclusion.
But your ok with Saddam gassing his own people and starving them in the 90's or displacing whole communities in the south and north.
Do you mean the 1988 gassing that took place with Bush the smarter's endorsement? Is that the gassing you're talking about?
Did you know that Iran overran the Kurdish town and Iraq attacked? It was a battle of the Iran/Iraq war. Unfortunately Kurds got caught up in the battle.
Since we're talking history, how about we attack France for invading England in the Norman conquest?
-
Still, the most plausible scenario is the one I just put before you and you refuse to open your eyes. Maybe it makes you angry that a great deal about the Iraq war will be classified for years but that's your problem. "Sanctions!!! Sanctions!!! Sanctions!!! hahahahaha.. pathetic. Once again, the UN is an impotent organization. Even with all their "efforts" Saddam still managed to destabilize the region and pursue weapons programs and torture and murder his own civilians etc, etc.
Your plausible scenario is not a valid argument for starting a war.
Do you acknowledge that? Do you understand that plausible stories cannot be the basis for wholesale death and destruction?
Is that starting to register? See this is where legal precepts for lawful wars kick in. Like it or not, Bush's use of force was not justified in any legal sense.
Prove me wrong with some facts instead of your hypotheticals.
Iraqis dies because one element chose to attack US Soldiers in the form of insurgents, another element chose to use the war as a platform to launch civil violence and yet another were innocents in the crossfire. How that translates to being different than any other war and Bush magically becoming a mass murderer is beyond me. It's obviously no stretch at all for your imagination but that must be a luxury of being an uber-biased anti-american liberal, facts and reason no longer matter.
The Iraqis use of force in repelling the invading coalition forces was/is a valid form of self defense.
If a woman kills a rapist in self defense with a gun, do you blame her for attacking the rapist?
Bush ordered the invasion illegally...an illegal unjustified use of force.
He's a mass murderer pure and simple and he should hang for his crimes. I'll settle for life in prison though b/c I am against the death penalty.
-
Reagan's tax cuts caused the economic boom of the 1980s.
Reagan's tax cuts paved the way for the economic boom of the 1990s under Clinton.
Reagan won the cold war by asking the Soviets to tear down a wall.
We live in a Socialist Democratic Republic. Get used to it. It's our history.
Reagen left us in Debt... Fact.
People and their tax cuts claiming it does major economic growth. Creating JOBS grows the economy. As business owner if you give me a 3% tax cut and save me 15,000 im not going to employ another employee. Im going to go spend that shit!!!!!!!!! :D (most likely overseas)
-
Reagen left us in Debt... Fact.
My references were to tired rightwing saws about Reagan. I was being ironic. Everything I said about him is manifestly not true.
-
B/c the soldiers Bush ordered to attack Iraq killed Iraq citizens defending their country from the illegal invasion.
I blame Bush b/c Iraq wouldn't have collapsed into civil war with ethnic cleansing if he hadn't ordered the invasion.
Why were they keeping the peace in Iraq? B/c they destroyed the peace in the first place.
I can point to tens of thousands of dead that would disagree with your conclusion.
Do you mean the 1988 gassing that took place with Bush the smarter's endorsement? Is that the gassing you're talking about?
Did you know that Iran overran the Kurdish town and Iraq attacked? It was a battle of the Iran/Iraq war. Unfortunately Kurds got caught up in the battle.
Since we're talking history, how about we attack France for invading England in the Norman conquest?
Saddam did much more than Gas one Kurdish town.
But since you are supporting his actions you should know this.
BTW there was already a cultural war and ethnic cleansing going on Iraq.
The forced migration of Arabs to Kirkuk so that the city wouldn't be Kurdish.
The draining of the Tigris Delta to force Shitis into Sadr city so that Saddam could control them.
The gassing of Kurds in the north.
The forced starvation of large groups of Shities so that Saddam could continue to buy weapons under food for oil program.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/15/Worldandnation/Atrocities_attributed.shtml
Hopefully when America leaves the chances for Iraq to live in peace will be greatly enhanced.
-
Saddam did much more than Gas one Kurdish town.
But since you are supporting his actions you should know this.
BTW there was already a cultural war and ethnic cleansing going on Iraq.
The forced migration of Arabs to Kirkuk so that the city wouldn't be Kurdish.
The draining of the Tigris Delta to force Shitis into Sadr city so that Saddam could control them.
The gassing of Kurds in the north.
The forced starvation of large groups of Shities so that Saddam could continue to buy weapons under food for oil program.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/15/Worldandnation/Atrocities_attributed.shtml
Hopefully when America leaves the chances for Iraq to live in peace will be greatly enhanced.
Is an explanation the same thing as a defense? I don't think that's quite true, do you? And what's with President Bush the smarter letting the whole thing slide as if it were nothing? Surely such a crime deserved swift retribution.
-
Is an explanation the same thing as a defense? I don't think that's quite true, do you? And what's with President Bush the smarter letting the whole thing slide as if it were nothing? Surely such a crime deserved swift retribution.
It did and that is how the neo-con movement started.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Oh well isn't history wonderful.
-
It did and that is how the neo-con movement started.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Oh well isn't history wonderful.
I believe the US issued a weak verbal condemnation of the event. And everyone thinks the UN is useless.
-
I believe the US issued a weak verbal condemnation of the event. And everyone thinks the UN is useless.
The UN is useless.
Rwanda, Kurds, Chad, Somalia. All the UN did was watch.
The only people that like the UN are the ones that benefit from the IMF.
Or that can use as it as a stump to belittle the US.
-
Wait Joker ur forgeting all the raping and pillaging that "UN peacekeepers" did while helping their fellow African brothers. The UN feeds and supports the warlords...its a joke.
-
The UN is useless.
Rwanda, Kurds, Chad, Somalia. All the UN did was watch.
The only people that like the UN are the ones that benefit from the IMF.
Or that can use as it as a stump to belittle the US.
Gee, the USA is a charter member of the UN. International law is given as much credence as the biggest player on the block allows.
If the US willingly shits on international law embodied by the UN, then we have a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy about its ineffectiveness, don't we?
-
The UN knows full well we're the only people capable of proping up their bullshit resolutions. We should tell em they're on their own. I'm not all for Team America, but if u don't want a burnt out Africa, we're all thats left.
-
Wait Joker ur forgeting all the raping and pillaging that "UN peacekeepers" did while helping their fellow African brothers. The UN feeds and supports the warlords...its a joke.
Such a cynical young man.
Take a gander at some of the accomplishments of the UN:
http://www.una-usadanecounty.org/about/index.php?category_id=1550
1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.
2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts
3. The UN has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections
4. Development - The system's annual disbursements, including loans and grants, amount to more than $10 billion.
5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.
6. UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure.
7. UN Conference eon Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, resulted in treaties on bio-diversity and climate change.
8. Has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90.
9. Over 300 international treaties, on topics as varied as human rights conventions to agreements on the use of outer space and seabed.
10. The International Court of Justice has helped settle international disputes involving territorial issues, diplomatic relations, hostage-taking, and economic rights.
11. The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.
12. More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
13. Aiding Palestinian Refugees with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services virtually without interruption. There are 2.9 million refugees in the Middle East served by UNRWA.
14. Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty in Developing Countries, providing credit that has benefited over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries.
15. The Africa Project Development Facility has helped entrepreneurs in 25 countries to find financing for new enterprises. The Facility has completed 130 projects which represent investments of $233 million and the creation of 13,000 new jobs, saving some $131 million in foreign exchange annually.
16. Promoting Women's Rights have supported programs and projects to improve the quality of life for women in over 100 countries, including credit and training, marketing opportunities, etc.
17. Providing Safe Drinking Water Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.
18. Eradicating Smallpox through vaccinations and monitoring. Helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere, with global eradication expected soon.
19. Pressing for Universal Immunization of polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis has a 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of more than 3 million children each year.
20. Reducing child mortality rates, halved since 1960, increasing the average life expectancy from 37 to 67 years.
21. Fighting parasitic diseases, such as saving the lives of 7 million children from going blind from the river blindness and rescued many others from guinea worm and other tropical diseases.
22. Promoting investment in developing countries promoting entrepreneurship and self-reliance, industrial cooperation and technology transfer and cost-effective, ecologically-sensitive industry.
23. Reducing the effects of natural disasters early warning system, which utilizes thousands of surface monitors as well as satellites, has provided information for the dispersal of oil spills and has predicted long-term droughts.
24. Providing food to victims of emergencies Over two million tons of food each year. 30 million people facing acute food shortages in 36 countries benefited from this assistance last year.
25. Clearing land mines - The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear land minds from Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia.
26. Protecting the ozone layer & global warminghighlighting the damage caused to the earth's ozone layer. As a result there has been a global effort to reduce chemical emissions of substances that have caused the depletion of the ozone.
27. Preventing over-fishing
28. Limiting deforestation and promoting sustainable forestry development in 90 countries.
29. Cleaning up pollution encouraged adversaries such as Syria and Israel, and Turkey and Greece to work together to clean up beaches. As a result, more than 50% of the previously polluted beaches are now usable.
30. Protecting consumers' health have established standards for over 200 food commodities and safety limits for more than 3,000 food contaminants.
31. Reducing fertility rates Family planning programs. Women in developing countries are having fewer children from six births per woman in the 1960s to 3.5 today. In the 1960s, only 10% of the world's families were using effective methods of family planning. The number now stands at 55 percent.
32. Fighting drug abuse Reduce demand for illicit drugs, suppress drug trafficking, and has helped farmers to reduce their economic reliance on growing narcotic crops by shifting farm production toward other dependable sources of income.
33. Improving global trade relations The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has worked to obtain special trade preferences for developing countries to export their products to developed countries with fair prices.
34. Promoting economic reform Together with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations has helped many countries improve their economic management, offered training for government finance officials, and provided financial assistance to countries experiencing temporary balance of payment difficulties.
35. Promoting worker rights worked to guarantee freedom of the right to association, the right to organize, collective bargaining, setting worker safety standards, the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, promote employment and equal remuneration and has sought to eliminate discrimination and child labor.
36. Introducing improved agricultural techniques and reducing costs Resulted in improved crop yields, Asian rice farmers have saved $12 million on pesticides and governments over $150 a year in pesticide subsidies.
37. Promoting stability and order in the world's oceans global agreement for the protection, preservation and peaceful development of the oceans.
38. Improving air and sea travel Setting safety standards for sea and air travel, making air travel the safest mode of transportation.
39. Protecting intellectual property Protection for new inventions and maintains a register of nearly 3 million national trademarks. artists, composers and authors worldwide.
40. Promoting the free flow of information free of censorship and culturally unbiased, aid to develop and strengthen communication systems, established news agencies and supported an independent press.
41. Improving global communications Regulated international mail delivery, coordinated use of the radio spectrum, promoted cooperation in assigning positions for stationary satellites, and established international standards for communications, thereby ensuring the unfettered flow of information around the globe.
42. Empowering the voiceless recognize the needs and contributions of groups usually excluded from decision-making such as the aging, children, youth, homeless, indigenous an disabled people.
43. Establishing "children as a zone of peace" From El Salvador to Lebanon, Sudan to former Yugoslavia, provide vaccines and other assistance desperately needed by children caught in armed conflict.
44. Generating worldwide commitment in support of the needs of children more than 150 governments have committed to reaching over 20 specific measurable goals to radically improve children's lives by the year 2000.
45. Improving education in developing countries 60% of adults in developing countries can now read and write, and 80 percent of children in these countries attend school.
46. Improving literacy for women Raise the female literacy rate in developing countries from 36 percent in 1970 to 56 percent in 1990.
47. Safeguarding and preserving historic cultural and architectural sites protected through the efforts of UNESCO, and international conventions have been adopted to preserve cultural property.
48. Facilitating academic and cultural exchanges encouraged scholarly and scientific cooperation, networking of institutions and promotion of cultural expressions, including those of minorities and indigenous people.
-
The UN knows full well we're the only people capable of proping up their bullshit resolutions. We should tell em they're on their own. I'm not all for Team America, but if u don't want a burnt out Africa, we're all thats left.
The complexity is that the US is the main player in the world and the UN, by its charter, calls for international cooperation...not the US bullying anyone it wants.
Do you think efforts to create and support an international legal network where dispute resolution is held to objective standards is a waste of time?
-
I am not going to comment all the complete list, but many items seem to not have worked or the UN impact is vastly overstated.
Like over fishing, deforestation. They are getting worse not better
The UN didn't bring down apartheid in South Africa.
-
I am not going to comment all the complete list, but many items seem to not have worked or the UN impact is vastly overstated.
Like over fishing, deforestation. They are getting worse not better
The UN didn't bring down apartheid in South Africa.
I disagree.
-
Your plausible scenario is not a valid argument for starting a war.
Do you acknowledge that? Do you understand that plausible stories cannot be the basis for wholesale death and destruction?
Is that starting to register? See this is where legal precepts for lawful wars kick in. Like it or not, Bush's use of force was not justified in any legal sense.
Prove me wrong with some facts instead of your hypotheticals.
The Iraqis use of force in repelling the invading coalition forces was/is a valid form of self defense.
If a woman kills a rapist in self defense with a gun, do you blame her for attacking the rapist?
Bush ordered the invasion illegally...an illegal unjustified use of force.
He's a mass murderer pure and simple and he should hang for his crimes. I'll settle for life in prison though b/c I am against the death penalty.
It is when our leaders are privy to information that we aren't.
It is when considering the MANY reasons we had to go to Iraq. Saddams intentions alone we're enough to, at minimum, prevent him from continued acts of deception and noncompliance. You can't fail to comply a thousand times and then comply once when we say were going to use force and then claim you were in agreement.
It is when our allies decided we were justified enough that they send troops of their own.
If you think that insurgents killing our soldiers was justified then I have to assume you actually are NOT so stupid as to continue lumping in the number of dead Iraqi combatants with your inflated death toll.
But you ARE an idiot so I'm sure you will anyway. ;D
I thinks it's hilarious you claim to support the rights of a woman to defend herself from rape with force yet your side is vehemently against right to carry laws which provide said protection. Typical spineless liberal hypocrite.
-
It is when our leaders are privy to information that we aren't.
It is when considering the MANY reasons we had to go to Iraq. Saddams intentions alone we're enough to, at minimum, prevent him from continued acts of deception and noncompliance. You can't fail to comply a thousand times and then comply once when we say were going to use force and then claim you were in agreement.
It is when our allies decided we were justified enough that they send troops of their own.
If you think that insurgents killing our soldiers was justified then I have to assume you actually are NOT so stupid as to continue lumping in the number of dead Iraqi combatants with your inflated death toll.
But you ARE an idiot so I'm sure you will anyway. ;D
I thinks it's hilarious you claim to support the rights of a woman to defend herself from rape with force yet your side is vehemently against right to carry laws which provide said protection. Typical spineless liberal hypocrite.
What was your MOS?
-
What was your MOS?
FC2. I was an Aegis Weapons System tech.
-
B/c the soldiers Bush ordered to attack Iraq killed Iraq citizens defending their country from the illegal invasion.
I blame Bush b/c Iraq wouldn't have collapsed into civil war with ethnic cleansing if he hadn't ordered the invasion.
Why were they keeping the peace in Iraq? B/c they destroyed the peace in the first place.
I can point to tens of thousands of dead that would disagree with your conclusion.
Do you mean the 1988 gassing that took place with Bush the smarter's endorsement? Is that the gassing you're talking about?
Did you know that Iran overran the Kurdish town and Iraq attacked? It was a battle of the Iran/Iraq war. Unfortunately Kurds got caught up in the battle.
Since we're talking history, how about we attack France for invading England in the Norman conquest?
I have read a lot of insane things on getbig before...this takes the cake and it's not a close contest. Disagree with the war all you want, but to even suggest that there was peace in Iraq before the war started has got to be one of the most insane things I've ever heard. It's was universally recognized as one of the most violent places on earth, with one of the most violent and immoral men ever to head a state.
When you talk about ethnic cleansing, you can't simply point to one event, it was an ongoing factor in Iraq for years, and one Saddam did not make much of an effort to hide.
-
I have read a lot of insane things on getbig before...this takes the cake and it's not a close contest. Disagree with the war all you want, but to even suggest that there was peace in Iraq before the war started has got to be one of the most insane things I've ever heard. It's was universally recognized as one of the most violent places on earth, with one of the most violent and immoral men ever to head a state.
When you talk about ethnic cleansing, you can't simply point to one event, it was an ongoing factor in Iraq for years, and one Saddam did not make much of an effort to hide.
I disagree with this statement... Saddam was violent, but he was the only person who committed the violence in Iraq.
It wasn't chaos and you didn't have different factions vying for power... Saddam ran the show.
I would say Iraq is much more chaotic and violent now then it was under Saddam's rule.
-
I disagree with this statement... Saddam was violent, but he was the only person who committed the violence in Iraq.
It wasn't chaos and you didn't have different factions vying for power... Saddam ran the show.
I would say Iraq is much more chaotic and violent now then it was under Saddam's rule.
It's been an unstable period for the last 5 years but that's to be expected with the transition. Now that the violence is down 90% and we've pretty much won watch the levels of violence to go down even further. Unless Obongo pulls us out before we're finished, of course.
-
It is when our leaders are privy to information that we aren't.
It is when considering the MANY reasons we had to go to Iraq. Saddams intentions alone we're enough to, at minimum, prevent him from continued acts of deception and noncompliance. You can't fail to comply a thousand times and then comply once when we say were going to use force and then claim you were in agreement.
Who says? You? You goddam fool your call for murderous action cost real people their lives...and for what? Hussein capitulated to the demands for inspections-end of fucking story!
Or do you feel it is justified payback to kill 100,000 Iraqis b/c of Hussein's untimely compliance with inspections?
Jesus Christ BB, Bush got what he wanted--he got unfettered access for inspections and yet he still ordered the attack?
How the hell do you justify that?
For the love of god, answer that one question.
It is when our allies decided we were justified enough that they send troops of their own.
If you think that insurgents killing our soldiers was justified then I have to assume you actually are NOT so stupid as to continue lumping in the number of dead Iraqi combatants with your inflated death toll.
I believe the number of dead Iraqis is much much higher than reported b/c of the shifting verbal gymnastics the government did with counting the dead.
But you ARE an idiot so I'm sure you will anyway. ;D
I thinks it's hilarious you claim to support the rights of a woman to defend herself from rape with force yet your side is vehemently against right to carry laws which provide said protection. Typical spineless liberal hypocrite.
It figures. You can't even understand analogical reasoning. Why did I presume that you're able to debate me?
If you think the slaughter was justified you're as much a ghoul as Bush.
-
I have read a lot of insane things on getbig before...this takes the cake and it's not a close contest. Disagree with the war all you want, but to even suggest that there was peace in Iraq before the war started has got to be one of the most insane things I've ever heard. It's was universally recognized as one of the most violent places on earth, with one of the most violent and immoral men ever to head a state.
When you talk about ethnic cleansing, you can't simply point to one event, it was an ongoing factor in Iraq for years, and one Saddam did not make much of an effort to hide.
What a trite piece of unsubstantiated garbage you wrote.
So you deny that the invasion did not unleash ethnic cleansing and displacement?
Iraq is disintegrating as ethnic cleansing takes hold
Across central Iraq, there is an exodus of people fleeing for their lives as sectarian assassins and death squads hunt them down. At ground level, Iraq is disintegrating as ethnic cleansing takes hold on a massive scale.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-is-disintegrating-as-ethnic-cleansing-takes-hold-478937.html
-
What a trite piece of unsubstantiated garbage you wrote.
So you deny that the invasion did not unleash ethnic cleansing and displacement?
Iraq is disintegrating as ethnic cleansing takes hold
Across central Iraq, there is an exodus of people fleeing for their lives as sectarian assassins and death squads hunt them down. At ground level, Iraq is disintegrating as ethnic cleansing takes hold on a massive scale.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-is-disintegrating-as-ethnic-cleansing-takes-hold-478937.html
There was ethnic cleansing before.
I already pointed you to human rights watch and the UN which have both documented it.
-
There was ethnic cleansing before.
I already pointed you to human rights watch and the UN which have both documented it.
As I already pointed out, Hussein was barbarous. But the main claim of ethnic cleansing points to a battle in the Iran/Iraq war and not the type unleashed by the invasion.
Do you deny that the invasion unleashed a civil war that culminated with large scale ethnic cleansing?
-
As I already pointed out, Hussein was barbarous. But the main claim of ethnic cleansing points to a battle in the Iran/Iraq war and not the type unleashed by the invasion.
Do you deny that the invasion unleashed a civil war that culminated with large scale ethnic cleansing?
Ethnic Cleansing was happening at the same scale as before the war.
The forced migration of Shias and Arabs, the displacement of the Kurds and over 1 million killed by starvation by Saddam in the ten years following the gulf war.
Almost all of the starving were from Shia and Kurdish areas.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n14065078
http://hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
-
Ethnic Cleansing was happening at the same scale as before the war.
The forced migration of Shias and Arabs, the displacement of the Kurds and over 1 million killed by starvation by Saddam in the ten years following the gulf war.
Almost all of the starving were from Shia and Kurdish areas.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n14065078
http://hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
INteresting. Again, you refer to effects of the Iran/Iraq war.
So why did EC blossom under the protective occupation of US/coalition forces?
I think I know why: the country devolved into civil war and E/C b/c the invasion destabalized the country. The Sunni Minority lost power and was on the run b/c they were outnumbered by the Shia majority. Death squads cleansed neighborhoods so that Shia families could move in.
-
INteresting. Again, you refer to effects of the Iran/Iraq war.
So why did EC blossom under the protective occupation of US/coalition forces?
I think I know why: the country devolved into civil war and E/C b/c the invasion destabalized the country. The Sunni Minority lost power and was on the run b/c they were outnumbered by the Shia majority. Death squads cleansed neighborhoods so that Shia families could move in.
There is the some truth to that. Sunni's treated Kurds and Shia like crap. Now that Shia has power, specific groups started to target the ones that went after them.
Another thing that happened IMO is the forced relocation of people, brought groups together that despise each other, with one groups(Arabs) having all of the power. The oppressed groups were looking for a reason to fight and to gain back what used to be there own land.
Relocation and settlement has caused many problems, the relocated settled people feel the land is theirs. The others don't.
-
There is the some truth to that. Sunni's treated Kurds and Shia like crap. Now that Shia has power, specific groups started to target the ones that went after them.
Another thing that happened IMO is the forced relocation of people, brought groups together that despise each other, with one groups(Arabs) having all of the power. The oppressed groups were looking for a reason to fight and to gain back what used to be there own land.
Relocation and settlement has caused many problems, the relocated settled people feel the land is theirs. The others don't.
I would agree with a lot of what you just said.
I don't know why we just don't offer up Greenland to these middleeastern assholes. Let 'em have their holylands over there.
-
I would agree with a lot of what you just said.
I don't know why we just don't offer up Greenland to these middleeastern assholes. Let 'em have their holylands over there.
Yep, No one fights when its 40 below.
-
Who says? You? You goddam fool your call for murderous action cost real people their lives...and for what? Hussein capitulated to the demands for inspections-end of fucking story!
Or do you feel it is justified payback to kill 100,000 Iraqis b/c of Hussein's untimely compliance with inspections?
Jesus Christ BB, Bush got what he wanted--he got unfettered access for inspections and yet he still ordered the attack?
How the hell do you justify that?
For the love of god, answer that one question.
I believe the number of dead Iraqis is much much higher than reported b/c of the shifting verbal gymnastics the government did with counting the dead.
It figures. You can't even understand analogical reasoning. Why did I presume that you're able to debate me?
If you think the slaughter was justified you're as much a ghoul as Bush.
The only reason he STARTED getting any real access was due to the use of force being imminent. Do you not understand that words have to be backed up with actions? Saddam basically waited until we were on our way before saying, "Ok, ok.. you got me!!" How many times does this have to happen? For how many YEARS??? It had to end sometime.
There's no debate Decker. You're so far off the reservation with your absurd "Bush is a mass murderer... Bush is eeeeevil." nonsense all you've succeeded in doing is showing your extremism and your ignorance. The fact that you are so biased left as to stand out, even in the getbig liberal crowd is testament to your radical and absurd views.
-
The only reason he STARTED getting any real access was due to the use of force being imminent. Do you not understand that words have to be backed up with actions? Saddam basically waited until we were on our way before saying, "Ok, ok.. you got me!!" How many times does this have to happen? For how many YEARS??? It had to end sometime.
There's no debate Decker. You're so far off the reservation with your absurd "Bush is a mass murderer... Bush is eeeeevil." nonsense all you've succeeded in doing is showing your extremism and your ignorance. The fact that you are so biased left as to stand out, even in the getbig liberal crowd is testament to your radical and absurd views.
Yes, I don't doubt for a minute that Bush's sabre rattling compelled Hussein to comply.
But Bush went too far.
Apparently you're ok with the butchering of the kids and the women and men b/c of some maladroit political ploy.
Your humanity is in question.
Call me a lefty all you want. It beats being sub-human.
My protestations are not a testament, they are a testimony to the things that make America great: honor of the law, respect for human life and justified self-defense.
You, your perspective pays tribute to the Nazi heritage: deadly illegality, war of aggression, and killing without conscience.
-
Yes, I don't doubt for a minute that Bush's sabre rattling compelled Hussein to comply.
But Bush went too far.
Apparently you're ok with the butchering of the kids and the women and men b/c of some maladroit political ploy.
Your humanity is in question.
Call me a lefty all you want. It beats being sub-human.
My protestations are not a testament, they are a testimony to the things that make America great: honor of the law, respect for human life and justified self-defense.
You, your perspective pays tribute to the Nazi heritage: deadly illegality, war of aggression, and killing without conscience.
Oh but putting an end to someone as close to Hitler as Hussein was is bad? Please. He butchered enough women and children and yet you defend him and his regime? Americans weren't going into houses shooting women and children yet Saddam proved to be fully willing to do that.
Feel free to remove your foot from your mouth.
-
Oh but putting an end to someone as close to Hitler as Hussein was is bad? Please. He butchered enough women and children and yet you defend him and his regime? Americans weren't going into houses shooting women and children yet Saddam proved to be fully willing to do that.
Feel free to remove your foot from your mouth.
Is there no piece of garbage propaganda so ridiculous that you won't run with it.
Hussein was not Hitler. Not even close. End of story.
I don't defend Hussein. Read with comprehension. I criticize the immoral and illegal acts of my own country.
Again, those kids and women died tripping in their living rooms right?
This kid mixed pop rocks and coke right?
(http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/iraq_child.jpg)
-
Decker you show no limits.
The fact is that 73 members of the senate voted to authorize the president to use the Armed Forces in Iraq.
Many of them were on the intel committee and oversaw the intelligence gathering in Iraq.
They were onside with GWB and many still agree that the war was right.
Also the President does need approval of the senate and congress to use the military. It is built into the constitution.
You only want to blame one person for all of these problems.
But the fact is both sides are equally responsible.
A plurality of democrats signed onto the Iraq war and almost half of the intel committee was democrat.
-
Is there no piece of garbage propaganda so ridiculous that you won't run with it.
Hussein was not Hitler. Not even close. End of story.
I don't defend Hussein. Read with comprehension. I criticize the immoral and illegal acts of my own country.
Again, those kids and women died tripping in their living rooms right?
This kid mixed pop rocks and coke right?
(http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/iraq_child.jpg)
Blaming Bush as being responsible for that is quite a stretch. Every other President who has led a war has had to deal with collateral damage yet it's only Bush who is a mass murderer? The man puts an end to someone eerily similar to Hitler himself you cry foul. You should be ashamed.. Saddam caused more of what you see in that picture and would have continued to do so if not for GWB.
-
Judging by my own experience and how they have effected me, my list was impossible to make. I was born in 1981 and really didn't care about a president till Bill Clinton. History books are full of lies so I am just going to go by my own experience and say that so far the worst President of my lifetime is George W. Bush
-
Decker you show no limits.
The fact is that 73 members of the senate voted to authorize the president to use the Armed Forces in Iraq.
Many of them were on the intel committee and oversaw the intelligence gathering in Iraq.
They were onside with GWB and many still agree that the war was right.
Also the President does need approval of the senate and congress to use the military. It is built into the constitution.
You only want to blame one person for all of these problems.
But the fact is both sides are equally responsible.
A plurality of democrats signed onto the Iraq war and almost half of the intel committee was democrat.
Only the president of the USA can order the troops into action. That's a constitutional fact.
All the other apportionments of blame take a backseat to that supreme consideration.
-
Blaming Bush as being responsible for that is quite a stretch. Every other President who has led a war has had to deal with collateral damage yet it's only Bush who is a mass murderer? The man puts an end to someone eerily similar to Hitler himself you cry foul. You should be ashamed.. Saddam caused more of what you see in that picture and would have continued to do so if not for GWB.
But for the Bush ordered invasion, that kid is not hamburger.
Bush caused the injuries to that child. Not Hussein. It was Bush.
Bush has ruined the lives millions of people. He's killed tens of thousands of innocents without justification.
He's a mass murderer who deserves retribution.
-
Blaming Bush as being responsible for that is quite a stretch. Every other President who has led a war has had to deal with collateral damage yet it's only Bush who is a mass murderer? The man puts an end to someone eerily similar to Hitler himself you cry foul. You should be ashamed.. Saddam caused more of what you see in that picture and would have continued to do so if not for GWB.
Grow up and stop comparing everyone to Hitler for political purposes.
Go read a book.
-
But for the Bush ordered invasion, that kid is not hamburger.
Bush caused the injuries to that child. Not Hussein. It was Bush.
Bush has ruined the lives millions of people. He's killed tens of thousands of innocents without justification.
He's a mass murderer who deserves retribution.
Decker what is that childs name? How did that happen? did an american soldier do that? or did someone who was trying to kill our soldiers or Iraqis who are working with us?
How did he ruin their lives? What tens of thousands of innocents were killed by Bush and our troops? Last time I checked our soldiers were bieng shot and attacked via mines and IDE and suicide bombers.
When iraqis try to vote for their newly found goverment and are taken out and beaten or threatedned or when the new police for is abducted and killed for trying to work with us to protect thier homes is that Bushes fault as well?
-
Grow up and stop comparing everyone to Hitler for political purposes.
Go read a book.
So when decker does it it's ok but when I do it's immature.. ::)
Shut up moron.
-
But for the Bush ordered invasion, that kid is not hamburger.
Bush caused the injuries to that child. Not Hussein. It was Bush.
Bush has ruined the lives millions of people. He's killed tens of thousands of innocents without justification.
He's a mass murderer who deserves retribution.
I'm sorry you are so misled. Iraq may very well flourish in safety and freedom from such atrocity THANKS to Bush but to the ignorant you will only see what you want to.
-
Decker what is that childs name? How did that happen? did an american soldier do that? or did someone who was trying to kill our soldiers or Iraqis who are working with us?
How did he ruin their lives? What tens of thousands of innocents were killed by Bush and our troops? Last time I checked our soldiers were bieng shot and attacked via mines and IDE and suicide bombers.
When iraqis try to vote for their newly found goverment and are taken out and beaten or threatedned or when the new police for is abducted and killed for trying to work with us to protect thier homes is that Bushes fault as well?
The child's name is fuck you. The child died as a result of the Bush ordered invasion.
Bush ruinded the Iraqis's lives by ordering their deaths in the illegal invasion and occupation of their sovereign nation.
Our soldiers should not be in Iraq in the first place.
I don't give a shit about voting in Iraq. It's none of my business...and none of yours either.
How do you feel about the voting in Togo?
-
So when decker does it it's ok but when I do it's immature.. ::)
Shut up moron.
It's caLLed '2 can play at that game'...
You brought up the bullshit talking point that Hussein is the same as HItler. Bullshit. So I threw it back in your face.
Are you the victim now?
Don't cry.
I apologize.
I just thought you needed some re-education.
-
I'm sorry you are so misled. Iraq may very well flourish in safety and freedom from such atrocity THANKS to Bush but to the ignorant you will only see what you want to.
Bush's illegal invasion killed tens of thousands of innocent people. It displaced 4 million more. It destabalized the area permitting a civil war to flourish and ethnic cleansing to thrive.
Now that the ethnic cleansing and displacement of the population are about complete, it's getting Soooooo much better in Iraq.
We only had to butcher them and kick them out of their country to get that peace.
With friends like Bush & Brixton, who needs a hitler like hussein?
-
It's caLLed '2 can play at that game'...
You brought up the bullshit talking point that Hussein is the same as HItler. Bullshit. So I threw it back in your face.
Are you the victim now?
Don't cry.
I apologize.
I just thought you needed some re-education.
You must have gotten picked on a lot as a child. You're terrible at trying to hurt someone's feelings.
-
Bush's illegal invasion killed tens of thousands of innocent people. It displaced 4 million more. It destabalized the area permitting a civil war to flourish and ethnic cleansing to thrive.
Now that the ethnic cleansing and displacement of the population are about complete, it's getting Soooooo much better in Iraq.
We only had to butcher them and kick them out of their country to get that peace.
With friends like Bush & Brixton, who needs a hitler like hussein?
Once again you are misled. You are so obvious about you personal vendetta towards Bush it has clouded your understanding of who is responsible. I'm done arguing with someone who refuses to see the truth through his own stupidity and hatred. It is people like you who cause America to remain in ignorance.
-
You must have gotten picked on a lot as a child. You're terrible at trying to hurt someone's feelings.
I think you tried that joke before. It worked about as well then.
Picked on? Not any more that anyone else. You'd be surprised what I'm guilty of.
-
Once again you are misled. You are so obvious about you personal vendetta towards Bush it has clouded your understanding of who is responsible. I'm done arguing with someone who refuses to see the truth through his own stupidity and hatred. It is people like you who cause America to remain in ignorance.
I provided fact-based statements with reasonable conclusions.
You cry like a pussy. No facts. No reason. Just rightwing bullshit talking points and PLENTY OF SECRET INFO THAT REALLY MAKES YOU CORRECT.
Good. Give up. Run home. You never addressed my arguments in a bona fide fashion anyways.
You waste my time.
But I love you all on these boards equally and at times, I will go the extra mile to help the lost such as yourself.
We can start here: Tell me why this is not a lie:
October 7, 2002 Bush addressed the nation and said that Hussein was “a great danger to our nation”, either by using “unmanned aerial vehicles” with “chemical or biological” payloads “for missions targeting the US” or by providing these weapons to a “terrorist groups or individual terrorists to attack us.”
The day after the speech, George Tenet declassified a letter, signed by John McLaughlin, (deputy director of the CIA) which stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the security of the country and would not be unless the US attacked Iraq. That letter predated Bush’s speech by a matter of hours. Since the CIA is an agency of the Executive Branch and the director reports only to the president, it is unthinkable that Bush did not know the contents of the letter stating Iraq was no imminent threat to the US.
Also, the letter simply corroborated the same finding in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate issued by the CIA to Bush on 10-1-2002. The CIA did not consider Hussein an imminent threat.
Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”
When Bush told the nation on 10-7 that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the country, he was telling millions of Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. Bush had his minions repeat lies like these in Congressional Briefings.
-
I provided fact-based statements with reasonable conclusions.
You cry like a pussy. No facts. No reason. Just rightwing bullshit talking points and PLENTY OF SECRET INFO THAT REALLY MAKES YOU CORRECT.
Good. Give up. Run home. You never addressed my arguments in a bona fide fashion anyways.
You waste my time.
But I love you all on these boards equally and at times, I will go the extra mile to help the lost such as yourself.
We can start here: Tell me why this is not a lie:
October 7, 2002 Bush addressed the nation and said that Hussein was “a great danger to our nation”, either by using “unmanned aerial vehicles” with “chemical or biological” payloads “for missions targeting the US” or by providing these weapons to a “terrorist groups or individual terrorists to attack us.”
The day after the speech, George Tenet declassified a letter, signed by John McLaughlin, (deputy director of the CIA) which stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the security of the country and would not be unless the US attacked Iraq. That letter predated Bush’s speech by a matter of hours. Since the CIA is an agency of the Executive Branch and the director reports only to the president, it is unthinkable that Bush did not know the contents of the letter stating Iraq was no imminent threat to the US.
Also, the letter simply corroborated the same finding in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate issued by the CIA to Bush on 10-1-2002. The CIA did not consider Hussein an imminent threat.
Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”
When Bush told the nation on 10-7 that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the country, he was telling millions of Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. Bush had his minions repeat lies like these in Congressional Briefings.
I exposed you and you didn't like it. Your "arguments" were reduced to "Bush is evil... Bush is the devil, etc." and it was pathetic. It seems as if Bush was not willing to let a growing threat BECOME an imminent threat which even your own failing side agreed with at the time and later came to attack when it became unpopular, nothing more.
I have given facts and supported them. You have given some facts showing one side but mostly nothing more than unwarranted condemnation and vitriol from someone who obviously is incapable of being within 40 miles of being objective.
The CIA is but one aspect of intel reporting. This is the same Tenant who helped sell the war in the first place, unfortunately on the subject of WMD's which was only one of MANY reasons to invade. In addition, you fail to consider the fact that Tenet and/or various members of the CIA might have had personal and less-than-honorable reasons for "declassifying" a letter like that and it's obvious that a lot more needs to come out before you can start saying he didn't support the invasion himself. Take from someone who knows, the President's actions are not dictated by a singular intelligence agency but are a product of careful planning influenced by the information from many. But I know you wouldn't know such things being from a school of thought that hates the military, national defense, preserving the safety and security of the US and our allies.
All typical of the wacko left of which you are a shining star of idiocy.
-
HAY GUYS!
-
HAY GUYS!
What is this picture?
-
I exposed you and you didn't like it. Your "arguments" were reduced to "Bush is evil... Bush is the devil, etc." and it was pathetic. It seems as if Bush was not willing to let a growing threat BECOME an imminent threat which even your own failing side agreed with at the time and later came to attack when it became unpopular, nothing more.
The only thing you've exposed is your world class inability to debate.
I see now. How stupid of me. Bush was protecting us from Iraq BEFORE it could become an imminent threat. Well, I do apologize, all the lies now make sense. He was lying to us for our own goo....wait a moment...?
What's this mean: It was Bush that first posited the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat: Iraq could “act on any given day”; that “before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger must be removed”; “Some ask how urgent this danger is to America. The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time.”; Iraq constituted “a threat of unique urgency”; “Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as forty-five minutes.” Bush said no less than six times at a press conference on March 6, 2003 that “Saddam is a threat to our Nation” and “Saddam and his weapons are a direct threat to this country.”; “The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”
Wow, it sure looks like he's talking about a pressing and imminent threat, doesn't it? Let's quantify. The threat was a threat of WMDs, right?
The WMD inspectors were finding nothing.... So where was this threat? ...in Hussein's mind? ...he intended to have weapons someday?
The the two you share something: you're both living in a fucking fantasy.
I have given facts and supported them. You have given some facts showing one side but mostly nothing more than unwarranted condemnation and vitriol from someone who obviously is incapable of being within 40 miles of being objective.
What facts did you give? Your double secret probation proof that only you are privied to? That's not proof. That's more fantasy.
The CIA is but one aspect of intel reporting. This is the same Tenant who helped sell the war in the first place, unfortunately on the subject of WMD's which was only one of MANY reasons to invade. In addition, you fail to consider the fact that Tenet and/or various members of the CIA might have had personal and less-than-honorable reasons for "declassifying" a letter like that and it's obvious that a lot more needs to come out before you can start saying he didn't support the invasion himself. Take from someone who knows, the President's actions are not dictated by a singular intelligence agency but are a product of careful planning influenced by the information from many. But I know you wouldn't know such things being from a school of thought that hates the military, national defense, preserving the safety and security of the US and our allies.
It's not Tenant...that's someone that rents an apartment...it's George Tenet. I don't know what your point is with this paragraph.
Take it from me, when Bush said that, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”, he meant that he'd be making up his mind whether to invade Iraq based on the latest intelligence.
Why did Bush tell the nation the exact opposite conclusion (that IRaq was no threat to the US) of the latest intelligence report?
All typical of the wacko left of which you are a shining star of idiocy.
Do your baseless contortions of argumentation hurt? You twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify the indefensible.
Join me on the side of truth, justice and the american way. Give up your meandering rationalizations.
-
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm pretty sure lying to congress to get us into a war is pretty illegal. and yes, he did. Don't give me that intelligence failure crap either...
Adonis is right.
-
The only thing you've exposed is your world class inability to debate.
I see now. How stupid of me. Bush was protecting us from Iraq BEFORE it could become an imminent threat. Well, I do apologize, all the lies now make sense. He was lying to us for our own goo....wait a moment...?
What's this mean: It was Bush that first posited the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat: Iraq could “act on any given day”; that “before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger must be removed”; “Some ask how urgent this danger is to America. The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time.”; Iraq constituted “a threat of unique urgency”; “Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as forty-five minutes.” Bush said no less than six times at a press conference on March 6, 2003 that “Saddam is a threat to our Nation” and “Saddam and his weapons are a direct threat to this country.”; “The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”
Wow, it sure looks like he's talking about a pressing and imminent threat, doesn't it? Let's quantify. The threat was a threat of WMDs, right?
The WMD inspectors were finding nothing.... So where was this threat? ...in Hussein's mind? ...he intended to have weapons someday?
The the two you share something: you're both living in a fucking fantasy.
What facts did you give? Your double secret probation proof that only you are privied to? That's not proof. That's more fantasy.
It's not Tenant...that's someone that rents an apartment...it's George Tenet. I don't know what your point is with this paragraph.
Take it from me, when Bush said that, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”, he meant that he'd be making up his mind whether to invade Iraq based on the latest intelligence.
Why did Bush tell the nation the exact opposite conclusion (that IRaq was no threat to the US) of the latest intelligence report?
Do your baseless contortions of argumentation hurt? You twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify the indefensible.
Join me on the side of truth, justice and the american way. Give up your meandering rationalizations.
Bush lied about what, Jackass?!?! Every other country believed he had stockpiles of WMD's. Every other intel agency believed he had WMD's. Democrats in Congress thought the threat was certainly important enough to support the war. And no surprise that the intel failed after Clinton gutted the intel world meanwhile we have democrats making sure cross talk between our own intel agencies is stifled before it can be disseminated. But no, in your backwards world it's Bush that is to blame. That position is just as absurd as "Bush is a mass murderer."
Saddam was a threat to us, but more to our allies and the region in general. How that problem escaped any "action" on the part of the UN doesn't surprise me.
Every intelligence agency from US to Britain to Germany to France to .. I could go on forever.. thought Saddam had more WMDs than were found. Saddam even admitted that after he destroyed or moved the bulk of what he had only a couple months before the invasion he aggressively played smoke and mirrors to make other countries think he did.
Oh look.. a fact!
He's a politician and he's not going to just read intelligence reports aloud to the country. The Iraq war wasn't a mistake even though the media has made it seem so for 5 years.
Ooh.. a historical fact!
Violated the UN cease-fire 17 times = NOT in check
Playing shadow games with weapons inspectors for years = NOT in check
Torturing and murdering civilians by the thousands = NOT in check
Sponsoring Terrorism = NOT in check
The point was to keep him from becoming a problem, which he was continually for over 20 years.
Even more facts!! Holy cow!!! ;D
Still counting the insurgents with the civilians I'm sure. Illegal my foot.
Hmm.. yep, that's a fact too.
Our enemy was communism than radical Islam. I don't condone human rights abuses but we fight bigger problems first and one at a time.
In fact, your loony side should be jumping for joy we went to Iraq. American soldiers have died and been wounded (since you hate the military and soldiers are somewhere between dog food and toilet water to you) and a murderous, fascist, torturous, and woman-hating regime has been brought to it's knees (not to mention they were all religious nuts and we all know how you feel about those religious types). ;D
More facts for ya!
Isn't it interesting that, for years, inspectors were randomly denied access and upon returning to the same sites hours/days later were then ALLOWED access? I think even Decker could figure that one out.
Saddam hides weapons programs:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/10/iraq-031003-afps02.htm
See how many times Iraq fails to comply or cooperate:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron
Oh, look at all those facts!!!!
You're right. It says nothing of "stockpiles." Of course that doesn't matter much since it was obvious weapons programs were being pursued and Saddam continually displayed a pattern of deception. Saddam fought inspectors every step of the way until he was FORCED to comply. Even then he attempted to undermine their efforts. Maybe you never asked yourself what that probably means but the rest of us have.
More facts..
Once again, the UN is an impotent organization. Even with all their "efforts" Saddam still managed to destabilize the region and pursue weapons programs and torture and murder his own civilians etc, etc.
Iraqis dies because one element chose to attack US Soldiers in the form of insurgents, another element chose to use the war as a platform to launch civil violence and yet another were innocents in the crossfire.
And more..
It's been an unstable period for the last 5 years but that's to be expected with the transition. Now that the violence is down 90% and we've pretty much won watch the levels of violence to go down even further.
This is getting repetitive..
Americans weren't going into houses shooting women and children yet Saddam proved to be fully willing to do that.
Bored..
BSaddam caused more of what you see in that picture and would have continued to do so if not for GWB.
Good job, moron. ;D
-
Bush lied about what, Jackass?!?! Every other country believed he had stockpiles of WMD's. Every other intel agency believed he had WMD's. Democrats in Congress thought the threat was certainly important enough to support the war. And no surprise that the intel failed after Clinton gutted the intel world meanwhile we have democrats making sure cross talk between our own intel agencies is stifled before it can be disseminated. But no, in your backwards world it's Bush that is to blame. That position is just as absurd as "Bush is a mass murderer."
The most recent intel—WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq and CIA analysis—both ‘conspired’ against the president’s lies.
The US’s intel that you rely on was 10 years old. Welcome to the party.
Are you joking that Bush didn’t lie? Here’s a refresher course free of charge:
LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."
LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the guy story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."
LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.
FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.
LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.
LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?
LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.
LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.
LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.
LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves. http://www.alternet.org/story/16274?page=entire
I got dozens more.
Now what were you saying about Bush not lying?
Saddam was a threat to us, but more to our allies and the region in general. How that problem escaped any "action" on the part of the UN doesn't surprise me.
No, you pinhead. The only relevant facts re WMDs were the ones supplied by the world class scientists on the ground in Iraq scouring the country for weapons….not 10 year old intel.
Try again.
...
Good job, moron. ;D
This is stupid even for you. Let me get this straight, you claim that the president is not going to read intelligence reports on Iraq…on a country he claims has WMDs that will kill 100s of thousands of American…he’s too busy.
I said it before and I’ll say it again, come back here when you’re sober.
The rest of the crap you posted is just spin that's been debunked for years.
You post the same debunked crap and expect different results. I think you know what that means.
-
Most of those "lies" were simply incorrect information which turned out to be false AFTER THE FACT. That means that the people telling these "lies" along with most other countries and intel agencies probably believed them until we were on the ground and proved otherwise. Intel failures don't constitute lies but since Bush is evil I can tell you're incapable of distinguishing the two. Bush didn't lie.
The problem is taking the word and work of weapons inspectors for granted. If this set of intel says Iraq is developing or has weapons and is intent on hiding that fact what makes you think Saddam is going to be upfront about it with inspectors? This is especially true considering his established pattern of deception. Of course they are going to say they were doing a great job. Do you really think they are going to say "Well, there really isn't much point in continuing this shadow game since he just denies us access when he wants to and/or moves/hides said weapons/materials so we don't get to them."
This is still only a witch hunt for those who hate Bush. While the stockpiles and current programs have never developed the lie is that there were no bio/chem weapons Iraq. And when more classified information is allowed to come out Bush will be completely exonerated. I'm sure that won't matter to you since it doesn't support your extremist lefty fantasy-land.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
-
Most of those "lies" were simply incorrect information which turned out to be false AFTER THE FACT. That means that the people telling these "lies" along with most other countries and intel agencies probably believed them until we were on the ground and proved otherwise. Intel failures don't constitute lies but since Bush is evil I can tell you're incapable of distinguishing the two. Bush didn't lie.
Absolutely untrue. Bush and his people rewrote the CIA intel in a white paper that removed modifying words or made modifiers more heinous to a portray a dangerous Iraq.
Both omissions and statements are lies. In his national address in Oct. 2002, Bush directly contradicted the CIA's conclusion that Iraq would not attack the US. He told the US people the direct opposite.
How on earth is that not a lie?
Do you want me to post 50 more utterances of Bush and company lying their asses off or will you admit the truth?
The problem is taking the word and work of weapons inspectors for granted. If this set of intel says Iraq is developing or has weapons and is intent on hiding that fact what makes you think Saddam is going to be upfront about it with inspectors? This is especially true considering his established pattern of deception. Of course they are going to say they were doing a great job. Do you really think they are going to say "Well, there really isn't much point in continuing this shadow game since he just denies us access when he wants to and/or moves/hides said weapons/materials so we don't get to them."
The intel you and Bush rely on was 10 years old at the time. The inspectors were on the ground doing a good job. Read some of Blix's testimony and statements. Read about the access the WMD inspectors were ultimately given.
"Iraq has been helpful on process. We distinguish between cooperation on process and cooperation on substance. We have noted repeatedly that access has been given to all sites we've wanted to see and this has been prompt in all cases. Not only not just opening doors but also answering, a lot of explaining etc at sites. The general statement would be that cooperation on process has been good." --Hans Blix
This is still only a witch hunt for those who hate Bush. While the stockpiles and current programs have never developed the lie is that there were no bio/chem weapons Iraq. And when more classified information is allowed to come out Bush will be completely exonerated. I'm sure that won't matter to you since it doesn't support your extremist lefty fantasy-land.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Of course I hate Bush. He needlessly ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of people.
Face it. Hussein had no ability to harm the US. Even if he had a multitude of chemical and biological weapons, he had no means of delivery.
The real question is why don't you hate Bush as well?
Do you think the killing of all those men, women and kids was necessary b/c of one man's political obstinancy (Hussein's)?
If you answer yes, then our discussion is over.
-
Absolutely untrue. Bush and his people rewrote the CIA intel in a white paper that removed modifying words or made modifiers more heinous to a portray a dangerous Iraq.
Both omissions and statements are lies. In his national address in Oct. 2002, Bush directly contradicted the CIA's conclusion that Iraq would not attack the US. He told the US people the direct opposite.
How on earth is that not a lie?
Do you want me to post 50 more utterances of Bush and company lying their asses off or will you admit the truth?
The intel you and Bush rely on was 10 years old at the time. The inspectors were on the ground doing a good job. Read some of Blix's testimony and statements. Read about the access the WMD inspectors were ultimately given.
"Iraq has been helpful on process. We distinguish between cooperation on process and cooperation on substance. We have noted repeatedly that access has been given to all sites we've wanted to see and this has been prompt in all cases. Not only not just opening doors but also answering, a lot of explaining etc at sites. The general statement would be that cooperation on process has been good." --Hans Blix
Of course I hate Bush. He needlessly ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of people.
Face it. Hussein had no ability to harm the US. Even if he had a multitude of chemical and biological weapons, he had no means of delivery.
The real question is why don't you hate Bush as well?
Do you think the killing of all those men, women and kids was necessary b/c of one man's political obstinancy (Hussein's)?
If you answer yes, then our discussion is over.
Hussein was a brutal, murderous, torturous dictator. How you have taken up HIS defense against our President who has done nothing illegal is the question. All the murder and torture conducted by Saddam somehow makes him better in your eyes than Bush who has done neither? Even if you argument held water (which it doesn't) they would be equal to you but your opinion goes to show how no level of reason or facts will influence your level of blind ignorance.
-
Hussein was a brutal, murderous, torturous dictator. How you have taken up HIS defense against our President who has done nothing illegal is the question. All the murder and torture conducted by Saddam somehow makes him better in your eyes than Bush who has done neither? Even if you argument held water (which it doesn't) they would be equal to you but your opinion goes to show how no level of reason or facts will influence your level of blind ignorance.
What? You're mischaracterizing the issue to score points. Nobody is defending Hussein. Discussing facts is not a defense.
Who cares what type of ruler Hussein was? How does Hussein's style of rule change Bush's criminal cuplability?
He was a shitty tyrant. Was he engaged in active genocide? Did he attack us? Did he attack an ally? Did he attack our property? No! So what exactly gives Bush the authority for a legally justifiable use of force in self-defense?
What? Bush didn't torture or kill? Oh boy. Check your facts again and restate that sentiment properly.
-
What? You're mischaracterizing the issue to score points. Nobody is defending Hussein. Discussing facts is not a defense.
Who cares what type of ruler Hussein was? How does Hussein's style of rule change Bush's criminal cuplability?
He was a shitty tyrant. Was he engaged in active genocide? Did he attack us? Did he attack an ally? Did he attack our property? No! So what exactly gives Bush the authority for a legally justifiable use of force in self-defense?
What? Bush didn't torture or kill? Oh boy. Check your facts again and restate that sentiment properly.
No, you're accusing Bush of the very thing he prevented.. more torture and murder from a tyrants regime. Being a sovereign nation isn't a license to commit atrocities and after the first gulf war failed to teach him a lesson and prevent him from becoming a threat to his neighbors and destabilize the region AGAIN we're supposed to depend on the UN to keep him in check? Horrible idea.
I think it's fascinating that you claim Bush is a criminal for violating UN resolutions (which he didn't do) and then completely ignore the repeated violations from Saddam himself. Furthermore, you can't explain why the UN failed to effectively act and follow through with force when Saddam committed the violations and then why you expect the most powerful nation on earth (and one not committing war crimes or genocide) to recognize the authority of an impotent and corrupt organization? Dear lord.. not to mention that WE are the bulk of the UN's might to begin with.
-
What cracks me up more then anything is some of you here who say with such authority that Bush lied about this or that, that he had the CIA do this or that, etc. Give me a break, you people speak as if you work in the Bush White House and have security clearance.
On the topic of this thread, Warren G. Harding, he was not one of America's shining moments. The most humorous statistical rumor about Harding, was that there was more alcohol in the White House while he was president then any other time in U.S. history. Why that's funny is because this was during prohibition.
On a more interesting Warren G. Harding note some of you will get a kick out of...Warren G. Harding is my Great, Great, Grandfather.
-
No, you're accusing Bush of the very thing he prevented.. more torture and murder from a tyrants regime. Being a sovereign nation isn't a license to commit atrocities and after the first gulf war failed to teach him a lesson and prevent him from becoming a threat to his neighbors and destabilize the region AGAIN we're supposed to depend on the UN to keep him in check? Horrible idea.
Bush's crimes and Hussein's crimes are two different things. It seems every country tortures people--even the USA (under Bush).
There is no legal justification for regime change for its own sake (i.e., just b/c we think it's the right thing to do). None.
There is no legal justification for attacking Iraq b/c Bush thought that Hussein had an intent to develop WMDS or attack the US and Israel.
It was Bush, not Hussein, who destabalized the middle east. It was Bush, not Hussein, that killed tens of thousands of Iraqis these past 5 years.
I think it's fascinating that you claim Bush is a criminal for violating UN resolutions (which he didn't do) and then completely ignore the repeated violations from Saddam himself. Furthermore, you can't explain why the UN failed to effectively act and follow through with force when Saddam committed the violations and then why you expect the most powerful nation on earth (and one not committing war crimes or genocide) to recognize the authority of an impotent and corrupt organization? Dear lord.. not to mention that WE are the bulk of the UN's might to begin with.
Bush violated 1441 and the US Constitution with the invasion of Iraq:
* United Nations Resolution 1441 (2002), an agreement that the Bush administration helped create, gave the Security Council sole power to punish Iraq for any "material breaches" of the resolution's provisions. Ignoring the Security Council's role, however, President Bush invaded Iraq contrary to the wishes of most of the council's members in clear disregard for the resolution's intent and chapters one, six and seven of the U.N. Charter as well. This means the president failed to abide by several international agreements that were binding upon the U.S. government and its officials.
* Domestically, Mr. Bush violated the U.S. Constitution's Article VI provisions that require its governmental officials, whether elected or appointed, to recognize international agreements the U.S. has ratified as the "supreme law of the land." http://www.spectacle.org/0804/tripp.html
Bush ignored the UN Security Council. Bush was bound by international law (1441) to follow the directives of the UN Security Council. It was Bush that went to the UN and asked it if the US could take the initiative on making Hussein comply with inspections. Then he violated the same resolution he was supposed to be enforcing.
The US is the bulk of the UN's power. That's why when Bush broke the law, he undercut the UN. The US is a founding member state of the UN and Bush damaged the institution.
If the UN is impotent, then that is largely due to the US (Bush's efforts).
-
What cracks me up more then anything is some of you here who say with such authority that Bush lied about this or that, that he had the CIA do this or that, etc. Give me a break, you people speak as if you work in the Bush White House and have security clearance.
We have Bush's public statements. We have the doctored white paper put out by the Bush people. We have the testimony of dozens of people showing Bush to be a liar. We have the facts of the WMD inspections. We have resolution 1441. We have the Downing Street memo.
What the hell else do you need?
...
On a more interesting Warren G. Harding note some of you will get a kick out of...Warren G. Harding is my Great, Great, Grandfather.
That figures.
-
Bush's crimes and Hussein's crimes are two different things. It seems every country tortures people--even the USA (under Bush).
There is no legal justification for regime change for its own sake (i.e., just b/c we think it's the right thing to do). None.
There is no legal justification for attacking Iraq b/c Bush thought that Hussein had an intent to develop WMDS or attack the US and Israel.
It was Bush, not Hussein, who destabalized the middle east. It was Bush, not Hussein, that killed tens of thousands of Iraqis these past 5 years.
Bush violated 1441 and the US Constitution with the invasion of Iraq:
* United Nations Resolution 1441 (2002), an agreement that the Bush administration helped create, gave the Security Council sole power to punish Iraq for any "material breaches" of the resolution's provisions. Ignoring the Security Council's role, however, President Bush invaded Iraq contrary to the wishes of most of the council's members in clear disregard for the resolution's intent and chapters one, six and seven of the U.N. Charter as well. This means the president failed to abide by several international agreements that were binding upon the U.S. government and its officials.
* Domestically, Mr. Bush violated the U.S. Constitution's Article VI provisions that require its governmental officials, whether elected or appointed, to recognize international agreements the U.S. has ratified as the "supreme law of the land." http://www.spectacle.org/0804/tripp.html
Bush ignored the UN Security Council. Bush was bound by international law (1441) to follow the directives of the UN Security Council. It was Bush that went to the UN and asked it if the US could take the initiative on making Hussein comply with inspections. Then he violated the same resolution he was supposed to be enforcing.
The US is the bulk of the UN's power. That's why when Bush broke the law, he undercut the UN. The US is a founding member state of the UN and Bush damaged the institution.
If the UN is impotent, then that is largely due to the US (Bush's efforts).
Please, our version of "torture" isn't even comparable to Saddams. And there's plenty of justification. If dong the "right" thing isn't than you could make the argument that no other US war in the 20th century was justified except that with Japan. It's nonsense and you only think that way to find as much ammunition against a prez you hate.. nothing more. You keep blaming Bush because you hate him, not because he is actually responsible for Saddams getting what he had coming.
Like I said, even if you make the argument that Bush did something illegal you can't explain why you didn't support action against some one who did far worse. Bush made an attempt to go through the UN but I certainly don't blame the man for not recognizing them as having any real authority when they (as usual) refused to back up words with actions. The UN is corrupt, Bush and the US mil are not. The UN is impotent, Bush and the US mil are not. If the US were in charge of the UN that might change but it's leadership has done nothing to show that it has any real power other than what countries "agree" to.
-
Please, our version of "torture" isn't even comparable to Saddams. And there's plenty of justification. If dong the "right" thing isn't than you could make the argument that no other US war in the 20th century was justified except that with Japan. It's nonsense and you only think that way to find as much ammunition against a prez you hate.. nothing more. You keep blaming Bush because you hate him, not because he is actually responsible for Saddams getting what he had coming.
I'm not comparing the degree of torture done by Bush or Hussein. Why are you doing that? It's evident from WWII that waterboarding is torture and a crime against humanity. Now you are pretty much saying that that was incorrect b/c the things Hussein did were worse.
I don't see it that way.
The Germans declared war on the US. That use of force was valid b/c we had war declared on us.
I blame Bush for the crimes in Iraq b/c, but for his order to invade the country, 100,000 people would be alive today.
That's not a reason of hate. It's a reason of cold, hard fact.
Like I said, even if you make the argument that Bush did something illegal you can't explain why you didn't support action against some one who did far worse. Bush made an attempt to go through the UN but I certainly don't blame the man for not recognizing them as having any real authority when they (as usual) refused to back up words with actions. The UN is corrupt, Bush and the US mil are not. The UN is impotent, Bush and the US mil are not. If the US were in charge of the UN that might change but it's leadership has done nothing to show that it has any real power other than what countries "agree" to.
Hussein was dictator of a sovereign country. You show me the legal authority for taking down a country's leader just b/c he was brutal. Why Iraq? Why not Egypt or Pakistan or any country that has a track record of human rights violations?
What do you mean "refused to back up words with actions?"
1441 was all about WMD inspections.
Were the inspectors in Iraq doing inspections and getting Iraqi cooperation to that end?
Absolutely.
So why did Bush order the attack in spite of Iraq's compliance with 1441?
Wasn't Bush enforcing 1441? That's why it was drafted. Bush went to the UN and asked enforce the inspections.
-
I'm not comparing the degree of torture done by Bush or Hussein. Why are you doing that? It's evident from WWII that waterboarding is torture and a crime against humanity. Now you are pretty much saying that that was incorrect b/c the things Hussein did were worse.
I don't see it that way.
The Germans declared war on the US. That use of force was valid b/c we had war declared on us.
I blame Bush for the crimes in Iraq b/c, but for his order to invade the country, 100,000 people would be alive today.
That's not a reason of hate. It's a reason of cold, hard fact.
Hussein was dictator of a sovereign country. You show me the legal authority for taking down a country's leader just b/c he was brutal. Why Iraq? Why not Egypt or Pakistan or any country that has a track record of human rights violations?
What do you mean "refused to back up words with actions?"
1441 was all about WMD inspections.
Were the inspectors in Iraq doing inspections and getting Iraqi cooperation to that end?
Absolutely.
So why did Bush order the attack in spite of Iraq's compliance with 1441?
Wasn't Bush enforcing 1441? That's why it was drafted. Bush went to the UN and asked enforce the inspections.
We all know you don't see it that way. You have established yourself on the extreme end of a completely emotional argument based on hatred for someone a lot more people in power are responsible for. Water-boarding is torture, ok. Have you even begun to look into the tortures of Saddam? They are VERY far apart. I don't hear you speaking out against that.
And how many of those 100,000 were combatants? How many were civilians killed by combatants? You always fail to make the distinction because it destroys your argument. Terrorists flocked to Iraq to kill US soldiers and we were slaughtering them for years. Sounds like a pretty massive enemy body count is a good thing.
And I'm referring to all the other violations Saddam committed. Why wasn't he punished for them? Why did the UN sit there and count how many times this guy shot at allied patrols, etc. instead of using force in the first place? The UN is so worthless no wonder Bush said "to hell with it." Saddam should have been killed ten years ago. Acts of war apparently don't matter to the UN.
-
We all know you don't see it that way. You have established yourself on the extreme end of a completely emotional argument based on hatred for someone a lot more people in power are responsible for. Water-boarding is torture, ok. Have you even begun to look into the tortures of Saddam? They are VERY far apart. I don't hear you speaking out against that.
Unlike you, I don't condone torture by anyone.
And how many of those 100,000 were combatants? How many were civilians killed by combatants? You always fail to make the distinction because it destroys your argument. Terrorists flocked to Iraq to kill US soldiers and we were slaughtering them for years. Sounds like a pretty massive enemy body count is a good thing.
Terrorists did not and have not flocked to Iraq to kill americans.
Are they Enemy combatants or Iraqi citizens trying to repel a murderous destructive invasion? How many civilians do you think died in this unnecessary war?
And I'm referring to all the other violations Saddam committed. Why wasn't he punished for them? Why did the UN sit there and count how many times this guy shot at allied patrols, etc. instead of using force in the first place? The UN is so worthless no wonder Bush said "to hell with it." Saddam should have been killed ten years ago. Acts of war apparently don't matter to the UN.
The US implemented an embargo that devastated Iraq financially and resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2 million people.
Isn't that enough death for you? You think there should've been a whole lot more?
I think if you had to meet some of these murdered people, you might have a different view...not so ruthlessly cavalier.
Gee, what acts of war are you referring to?
-
Unlike you, I don't condone torture by anyone.
Terrorists did not and have not flocked to Iraq to kill americans.
Are they Enemy combatants or Iraqi citizens trying to repel a murderous destructive invasion? How many civilians do you think died in this unnecessary war?
The US implemented an embargo that devastated Iraq financially and resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2 million people.
Isn't that enough death for you? You think there should've been a whole lot more?
I think if you had to meet some of these murdered people, you might have a different view...not so ruthlessly cavalier.
Gee, what acts of war are you referring to?
Who said I condoned torture? You're not showing much objectivity if you think Bush is so evil for committing a very minimal and mild form of it and Saddam should have just been left to continue committing the worst crimes against humanity since vietnam or WW2.
You actually think all those Iraqi dead were just citizens who took up arms against the US???? ah HAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH AHAAH!!!!!!!!!!! WOW
And I'd like to see where this embargo somehow killed 2 million people. Is Saddam not responsible for bringing such conditions upon his own people? Even IF this is true an embargo is a cowardly hand to play when considering his actively violent and ruthless nature. Shooting at allied war planes on active patrols we've had since 91 is an act of war when we we're not shooting first.
-
Who said I condoned torture? You're not showing much objectivity if you think Bush is so evil for committing a very minimal and mild form of it and Saddam should have just been left to continue committing the worst crimes against humanity since vietnam or WW2.
I believe you are one of the "waterboarding is not torture" crowd? Right?
You actually think all those Iraqi dead were just citizens who took up arms against the US???? ah HAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH AHAAH!!!!!!!!!!! WOW
If only 2% of the attacks on soldiers in Iraq is attributable to AQ ties, then who is the other 98%?
According to both the July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate and the Defense Intelligence Agency reports AQI accounted for 15 percent of attacks in Iraq. However, the Congressional Research Service noted in its September 2007 report that attacks from al-Qaeda are less than two percent of the violence in Iraq and criticized the Bush administration’s statistics, noting that its false reporting of insurgency attacks as AQI attacks has increased since the "surge" operations began
This is why you ask questions...to learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
And I'd like to see where this embargo somehow killed 2 million people. Is Saddam not responsible for bringing such conditions upon his own people? Even IF this is true an embargo is a cowardly hand to play when considering his actively violent and ruthless nature. Shooting at allied war planes on active patrols we've had since 91 is an act of war when we we're not shooting first.
1) As of March 2003 (just prior to the war), between 1.7 and 2 million Iraqi civilians have died due to malnutrition and disease, about 700,000 of them are children. Health Ministry documents under-5 and over-50 deaths due to disease and/or malnutrition at 1.7 million. If over-5 and under-50 age sectors are added, which is well over 500,000 deaths, that makes the total number of deaths over 2 million. Estimates of deaths due to the 2003 war range from 10,000 to 100,000. http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX6968-IraqEmbargo.htm
Shooting at the no-fly zone planes is not an act of war b/c the US implemented the no-fly zones without any authority at all.
Was it a good idea for Bush to want to paint these planes to masquerade them as UN humanitarian planes so that any bullet fired by Iraq would be an act of war?
Should we wipe out these countries too?:
Eight countries were judged by New York-based Freedom House to have the most repressive regimes. They were Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
The organization also placed the territories of Chechnya and Tibet into the lowest category because the group says their "inhabitants suffer intense repression."
http://www.10news.com/news/16176848/detail.html?rss=sand&psp=nationalnews
-
I believe you are one of the "waterboarding is not torture" crowd? Right?
If only 2% of the attacks on soldiers in Iraq is attributable to AQ ties, then who is the other 98%?
According to both the July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate and the Defense Intelligence Agency reports AQI accounted for 15 percent of attacks in Iraq. However, the Congressional Research Service noted in its September 2007 report that attacks from al-Qaeda are less than two percent of the violence in Iraq and criticized the Bush administration’s statistics, noting that its false reporting of insurgency attacks as AQI attacks has increased since the "surge" operations began
This is why you ask questions...to learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
1) As of March 2003 (just prior to the war), between 1.7 and 2 million Iraqi civilians have died due to malnutrition and disease, about 700,000 of them are children. Health Ministry documents under-5 and over-50 deaths due to disease and/or malnutrition at 1.7 million. If over-5 and under-50 age sectors are added, which is well over 500,000 deaths, that makes the total number of deaths over 2 million. Estimates of deaths due to the 2003 war range from 10,000 to 100,000. http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX6968-IraqEmbargo.htm
Shooting at the no-fly zone planes is not an act of war b/c the US implemented the no-fly zones without any authority at all.
Was it a good idea for Bush to want to paint these planes to masquerade them as UN humanitarian planes so that any bullet fired by Iraq would be an act of war?
Should we wipe out these countries too?:
Eight countries were judged by New York-based Freedom House to have the most repressive regimes. They were Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
The organization also placed the territories of Chechnya and Tibet into the lowest category because the group says their "inhabitants suffer intense repression."
http://www.10news.com/news/16176848/detail.html?rss=sand&psp=nationalnews
Waterboarding is torture but certainly not anything close to Saddams methods which you apparently have no problem with.
There are other terrorist groups and single acts of terrorism outside of AQ. You're making a massive assumption that these people are just citizens defending their country. We're not talking about AQ causing violence in Iraq, we are referring to AQ AMONG OTHERS behind attacks directed at American soldiers. That 2% of the overall violence could be 50% of the violence towards allied forces. So much of the violence in Iraq is infighting.
So it's our fault that Saddam was our enemy and warranted an embargo? I think not. And I think Iraq's surrender after the first gulf war more than constituted our authority for no-fly zones, smart guy. As for Libya, Burma, NK, and Somalia and Sudan.. absolutely. Then again, if they are a lost cause unlike Iraq than there is no point. The others are debatable.
-
Gotta love the it's-not-torture-when-WE-do-it crowd.
That is blind love.
-
Gotta love the it's-not-torture-when-WE-do-it crowd.
That is blind love.
I just said it was torture, moron.
-
Waterboarding is torture but certainly not anything close to Saddams methods which you apparently have no problem with.
Yes. You make perfect sense. I oppose Bush and the republican's brand of torture yet I support the nebulous torture you attribute to Hussein. Elementary BB. I'm busted.
There are other terrorist groups and single acts of terrorism outside of AQ. You're making a massive assumption that these people are just citizens defending their country. We're not talking about AQ causing violence in Iraq, we are referring to AQ AMONG OTHERS behind attacks directed at American soldiers. That 2% of the overall violence could be 50% of the violence towards allied forces. So much of the violence in Iraq is infighting.
Right. You also forgot the cash payouts by uncle sam to Sunni aligned AQ fighters. AQ is not and was not a force in Iraq.
Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says
The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.
The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.
The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."
Although other groups, like the September 11 commission, have concluded that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Pentagon was able to analyze much more information.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
Lies beget lies...rationalizations role like rain down a windshield. What were preposterous right wing pre-war claims of Iraq's horrible threat to the US from WMDs and Al Qaeda links became accepted myth amongst the pro-war crowd.
So it's our fault that Saddam was our enemy and warranted an embargo? I think not. And I think Iraq's surrender after the first gulf war more than constituted our authority for no-fly zones, smart guy. As for Libya, Burma, NK, and Somalia and Sudan.. absolutely. Then again, if they are a lost cause unlike Iraq than there is no point. The others are debatable.
So we just didn't kill enough Iraqis with the embargo, we absolutely had to invade Iraq to kill more to show that damn Hussein that he can't play games with us.
Under the terms of surrender from the first gulf invasion, where does it say that the US can impose no-fly zones?
-
Yes. You make perfect sense. I oppose Bush and the republican's brand of torture yet I support the nebulous torture you attribute to Hussein. Elementary BB. I'm busted.
Right. You also forgot the cash payouts by uncle sam to Sunni aligned AQ fighters. AQ is not and was not a force in Iraq.
Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says
The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.
The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.
The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."
Although other groups, like the September 11 commission, have concluded that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Pentagon was able to analyze much more information.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
Lies beget lies...rationalizations role like rain down a windshield. What were preposterous right wing pre-war claims of Iraq's horrible threat to the US from WMDs and Al Qaeda links became accepted myth amongst the pro-war crowd.
So we just didn't kill enough Iraqis with the embargo, we absolutely had to invade Iraq to kill more to show that damn Hussein that he can't play games with us.
Under the terms of surrender from the first gulf invasion, where does it say that the US can impose no-fly zones?
You certainly paint that picture running around getbig with your insane "bush is evil" agenda yet I haven't heard one drop of water from you about the other guy. Typical lib.. only has moral dilemmas when it suits your cause.
I was referring to AQ in Iraq AFTER the invasion, dumbass.. but you already knew that.
Um.. well I don't usually have to read the terms of surrender word for word after we win a war but we certainly have the upper hand to impose such conditions after decimating Saddams forces after 100 hours and we can certainly expect that those conditions will be honored and hold them accountable when they are not. Obviously the embargo didn't stop Saddam from doing whatever he wanted but liberals never seem to learn that negotiations only go so far with so many people. For everyone else there is forced compliance.
-
You certainly paint that picture running around getbig with your insane "bush is evil" agenda yet I haven't heard one drop of water from you about the other guy. Typical lib.. only has moral dilemmas when it suits your cause.
Of what relevance is Hussein's rule to Bush's criminality?
You want to join hands with everyone and chant, "Hussein was a butcher too..." Will that assuage your guilt over the senseless slaughter of Iraqi people? Does that make George Bush a hero...as well as you pro-war types?
It doesn't.
I was referring to AQ in Iraq AFTER the invasion, dumbass.. but you already knew that.
As usual, you miss the point. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq beforehand and it's not really there now, is it? It's still the civil war that we started with the invasion. "Why Iraq is flypaper for terrorists" says the pro-war sycophant. "Better to fight them over there than here in the states" pipes up another pro-war buffoon. Both arguments are baseless propaganda.
But you already knew that.
There is no central front in the war on terror in Iraq....unless you count the US's invasion itself(we did attack civilians and civilian infrastructure). This is another myth that you pro-war rightwingers keep telling yourselves: "We really are doing good there...the invasion may have happened for other reasons....but ultimately we are a force for good in Iraq!"
How close am I to the truth with that desperate rationalization?
Um.. well I don't usually have to read the terms of surrender word for word after we win a war but we certainly have the upper hand to impose such conditions after decimating Saddams forces after 100 hours and we can certainly expect that those conditions will be honored and hold them accountable when they are not. Obviously the embargo didn't stop Saddam from doing whatever he wanted but liberals never seem to learn that negotiations only go so far with so many people. For everyone else there is forced compliance.
What you typed makes no sense. You think the US has license to do whatever it pleases...there is no law...there is no accountability. That's so sad that you would think that.
Put down the pom pons.
Take the sparklers out of your teeth.
Stop the cartwheels. And take off your giant foam 'We're #1' hand. The cheering is over.
Iraq was not a threat. It never was. It had no ties to Al Qaeda.
It was minding its own business until George W. Bush ordered the attack.
100,000+ dead and a country devastated. That's your legacy.
Don't you feel a little better now that you're not a pro-war cheerleader any more?
The lies and rationalizations are put to bed.
Admit the mistake ...your mistake as well.
-
the wars were started to set up bases (saudis kicking us out in a decade, and we need a place to set up missiles), gain control of oil (US firms own 80 percent of Iraqi oil forever) and to make the military firms rich.
-
Of what relevance is Hussein's rule to Bush's criminality?
You want to join hands with everyone and chant, "Hussein was a butcher too..." Will that assuage your guilt over the senseless slaughter of Iraqi people? Does that make George Bush a hero...as well as you pro-war types?
It doesn't.
As usual, you miss the point. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq beforehand and it's not really there now, is it? It's still the civil war that we started with the invasion. "Why Iraq is flypaper for terrorists" says the pro-war sycophant. "Better to fight them over there than here in the states" pipes up another pro-war buffoon. Both arguments are baseless propaganda.
But you already knew that.
There is no central front in the war on terror in Iraq....unless you count the US's invasion itself(we did attack civilians and civilian infrastructure). This is another myth that you pro-war rightwingers keep telling yourselves: "We really are doing good there...the invasion may have happened for other reasons....but ultimately we are a force for good in Iraq!"
How close am I to the truth with that desperate rationalization?
What you typed makes no sense. You think the US has license to do whatever it pleases...there is no law...there is no accountability. That's so sad that you would think that.
Put down the pom pons.
Take the sparklers out of your teeth.
Stop the cartwheels. And take off your giant foam 'We're #1' hand. The cheering is over.
Iraq was not a threat. It never was. It had no ties to Al Qaeda.
It was minding its own business until George W. Bush ordered the attack.
100,000+ dead and a country devastated. That's your legacy.
Don't you feel a little better now that you're not a pro-war cheerleader any more?
The lies and rationalizations are put to bed.
Admit the mistake ...your mistake as well.
Bush is no more guilty of a crime than every democrat in congress, people you undoubtedly voted for. 30 years from now you'll still be clinging to this myth so it's time you start re-examining your priorities. If the UN can't/won't enforce it's resolutions than we will and since we're ones enforcing it than we're pretty much the authority. The point is your hypocrisy. You refuse to examine both sides as long as it doesn't serve your exaggerated and absurd points. Once again, typical. We don't target civilians we target combatants so saying we were slaughtering innocent people is pure nonsense. If they weren't shooting at us we weren't shooting back. That doesn't sound like genocide to me but since your hatred makes you believe whatever you want it is pointless to try and convince a drone.
Now we're leaving and all those civilians we apparently hated so much are getting a better, safer, and free country back to their control. We've dispatched one of the worst tyrants of the 20th century, rebuilt a nation and set millions free from a murderous, torturous and oppressive regime all the while improving our national security and those of our allies and stabilizing the region. Yes, we're just plain evil aren't we, lol.
Of course there isn't much AQ left in Iraq.. we've made sure of it, dummy. ;D
And as long as loving my country makes self-loathing losers like you angry than I'll keep the sparklers lit. We're at the game cheering our winning team while your at home crying about why people care about sports remembering all the times you were picked last to play. Despite the marginalized opinions of a few ignorant clowns the world is a better place with that psychopath dead and we have Dubya to thank for it.
-
Bush is no more guilty of a crime than every democrat in congress, people you undoubtedly voted for.
Bush lied to secure the consent of the Congress and the American people. He lied about the WMDs, Iraq's ties to AQ and the threat posed by Iraq to the US (that's still laughable every time I type it).
It is boilerplate law that lies/fraud kills consent. The democrats and the Congress are not 'guilty' since Bush got their consent through lies.
Only the Bush adiminstration is culpable.
30 years from now you'll still be clinging to this myth so it's time you start re-examining your priorities. If the UN can't/won't enforce it's resolutions than we will and since we're ones enforcing it than we're pretty much the authority.
The US does not unilaterally make up international law as it goes along. It was Bush that ran to the UN asking to enforce the inspections.
"My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. " --Bush in 2002
1441 was drafted and Bush violated that by ignoring the will of the UN Security Council.
The point is your hypocrisy. You refuse to examine both sides as long as it doesn't serve your exaggerated and absurd points. Once again, typical. We don't target civilians we target combatants so saying we were slaughtering innocent people is pure nonsense. If they weren't shooting at us we weren't shooting back. That doesn't sound like genocide to me but since your hatred makes you believe whatever you want it is pointless to try and convince a drone.
What purpose is served by examing both sides? Both sides of what? Bush ordered the attack. There was no claim of justifiable use of force. Just what the hell are you looking for on the Hussein side of your equation?
How does the fact that Hussein was a bad guy justify Bush's murderous lawlessness?
Now we're leaving and all those civilians we apparently hated so much are getting a better, safer, and free country back to their control. We've dispatched one of the worst tyrants of the 20th century, rebuilt a nation and set millions free from a murderous, torturous and oppressive regime all the while improving our national security and those of our allies and stabilizing the region. Yes, we're just plain evil aren't we, lol.
Oh I just shit my pants in patriotic verve. I think that's the brown foam residue attendant to the trots--patriotic verve.
We killed 100,000 plus, tortured more and detained more indefinitely without charges.
...
You know, you're right. Maybe we should compare our 'compassionate act' with Hussein's brutality.
Of course there isn't much AQ left in Iraq.. we've made sure of it, dummy. ;D
More self-deception. Is that the script for this month? There's no AQ b/c we did a damn good job of battling terrorists in Iraq.
And as long as loving my country makes self-loathing losers like you angry than I'll keep the sparklers lit. We're at the game cheering our winning team while your at home crying about why people care about sports remembering all the times you were picked last to play. Despite the marginalized opinions of a few ignorant clowns the world is a better place with that psychopath dead and we have Dubya to thank for it.
How old are you? 18...19. What the fuck is with your 'picked last' spiel? I'm a grown man. High school is for children.
Thank W? For what, for the 4500 dead americans, the 40,000 wounded, 100,000-700,000 dead Iraqis and the 700 billion of our tax dollars pissed away.
You admire some very sick people. Diseased humans.
-
Bush lied to secure the consent of the Congress and the American people. He lied about the WMDs, Iraq's ties to AQ and the threat posed by Iraq to the US (that's still laughable every time I type it).
It is boilerplate law that lies/fraud kills consent. The democrats and the Congress are not 'guilty' since Bush got their consent through lies.
Only the Bush adiminstration is culpable.
The US does not unilaterally make up international law as it goes along. It was Bush that ran to the UN asking to enforce the inspections.
"My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. " --Bush in 2002
1441 was drafted and Bush violated that by ignoring the will of the UN Security Council.
What purpose is served by examing both sides? Both sides of what? Bush ordered the attack. There was no claim of justifiable use of force. Just what the hell are you looking for on the Hussein side of your equation?
How does the fact that Hussein was a bad guy justify Bush's murderous lawlessness?
Oh I just shit my pants in patriotic verve. I think that's the brown foam residue attendant to the trots--patriotic verve.
We killed 100,000 plus, tortured more and detained more indefinitely without charges.
...
You know, you're right. Maybe we should compare our 'compassionate act' with Hussein's brutality.
More self-deception. Is that the script for this month? There's no AQ b/c we did a damn good job of battling terrorists in Iraq.
How old are you? 18...19. What the fuck is with your 'picked last' spiel? I'm a grown man. High school is for children.
Thank W? For what, for the 4500 dead americans, the 40,000 wounded, 100,000-700,000 dead Iraqis and the 700 billion of our tax dollars pissed away.
You admire some very sick people. Diseased humans.
Don't feed me that BS.. congress has access to the same intel the prez does.
Bush made attempts to work with the UN but was not limited to their inaction. Call it a formality, he tried but in the end they weren't really an authority and never have been. How many times do you go back to the lawyer that takes your money but doesn't win suits? You either find a new one or go to law school and do it yourself. We decide the what's in the US's best interests, not the UN.
You think Bush should be in prison for crimes, correct? Well ask yourself.. what crimes had Saddam committed? Now, what should his punishment be? Is the UN willing to follow through? NOPE. Wasn't going to happen so Bush did the world a favor imposing punishment for crimes that otherwise would go unanswered by the UN. The UN is a figurehead of authority. Nations abide because of agreements not any actual threat of enforcement. The US has consistently BEEN that enforcement.
Answer me honestly.. How many of those 100,000 took up arms against allied forces? And how many of those that didn't take up arms against us were shot, stabbed, or obliterated by allied forces? Please answer this.
You have the mentality of every hard left, zero-backbone, bleeding heart, hypocritical marxist trying to undermine anyone who represents what this country was meant to me.
-
Don't feed me that BS.. congress has access to the same intel the prez does.
That's terrific.
And how does that lessen Bush's active fraud in lying to the Congress and Country?
It doesn't.
Maybe we'd better look at Hussein's crimes to exculpate Bush!
Bush made attempts to work with the UN but was not limited to their inaction. Call it a formality, he tried but in the end they weren't really an authority and never have been. How many times do you go back to the lawyer that takes your money but doesn't win suits? You either find a new one or go to law school and do it yourself. We decide the what's in the US's best interests, not the UN.
A formality? I call it international law.
So, essentially, you're saying that international law does not exist. The UN means nothing. And the US can attack whomever it pleases irrespective of facts and without regard for other sovereign nations.
You think Bush should be in prison for crimes, correct? Well ask yourself.. what crimes had Saddam committed? Now, what should his punishment be? Is the UN willing to follow through? NOPE. Wasn't going to happen so Bush did the world a favor imposing punishment for crimes that otherwise would go unanswered by the UN. The UN is a figurehead of authority. Nations abide because of agreements not any actual threat of enforcement. The US has consistently BEEN that enforcement.
Ok, I'll play. Hussein was a badddd (4ds) man. B/c of his badness, the UN imposed sanctions which killed millions of Iraqis. Isn't that enough for you?
So you think that the capture of Hussein was worth the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq, the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the deaths of 4,000 americans, the wounding of 40,000 americans and the displacement of 4 million Iraqis?
It just doesn't add up under any cost/benefit analysis.
Answer me honestly.. How many of those 100,000 took up arms against allied forces? And how many of those that didn't take up arms against us were shot, stabbed, or obliterated by allied forces? Please answer this.
If I were an Iraqi civilian, I would take up arms against any invading force. To me, it's perfectly understandable to attack the attackers.
You have the mentality of every hard left, zero-backbone, bleeding heart, hypocritical marxist trying to undermine anyone who represents what this country was meant to me.
Good.
You're starting to learn.
'bleeding heart' comes from the bleeding heart of christ. I still haven't understood why you throw hypocrisy in there. I've been pretty consistent with my views.
Bush is a bellicose fascist. He attacked a prone country without legal justification. He's a fucking mass murderer deserving of charges of treason and crimes against humanity. He decided regime change was a good thing. That's just not good enough for me.
To you though, he caught a bad man and helped a country to some sort of democracy. It doesn't matter the cost, the legal justification or the morality of the entire occurrence, he ultimately did a good thing.
That, I don't understand.
-
That's terrific.
And how does that lessen Bush's active fraud in lying to the Congress and Country?
It doesn't.
Maybe we'd better look at Hussein's crimes to exculpate Bush!
A formality? I call it international law.
So, essentially, you're saying that international law does not exist. The UN means nothing. And the US can attack whomever it pleases irrespective of facts and without regard for other sovereign nations.
Ok, I'll play. Hussein was a badddd (4ds) man. B/c of his badness, the UN imposed sanctions which killed millions of Iraqis. Isn't that enough for you?
So you think that the capture of Hussein was worth the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq, the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the deaths of 4,000 americans, the wounding of 40,000 americans and the displacement of 4 million Iraqis?
It just doesn't add up under any cost/benefit analysis.
If I were an Iraqi civilian, I would take up arms against any invading force. To me, it's perfectly understandable to attack the attackers.
Good.
You're starting to learn.
'bleeding heart' comes from the bleeding heart of christ. I still haven't understood why you throw hypocrisy in there. I've been pretty consistent with my views.
Bush is a bellicose fascist. He attacked a prone country without legal justification. He's a fucking mass murderer deserving of charges of treason and crimes against humanity. He decided regime change was a good thing. That's just not good enough for me.
To you though, he caught a bad man and helped a country to some sort of democracy. It doesn't matter the cost, the legal justification or the morality of the entire occurrence, he ultimately did a good thing.
That, I don't understand.
Uh.. If he lied then either every other congressman also lied including everyone on your side of the isle, big guy. International law is a great ideal when all the countries agree to follow the rules. Iraq violated the worst ones over and over and I doubt a peep was coming out of any shit stains like yourself. When the UN made it obvious that they won't be enforcing those rules any time soon Bush decided that as the only real backbone of the UN he would. I applaud him for his will to act and generations of Iraqis who don't have to live under Saddam will as well. I wonder how many millions will vote in the next Iraqi election... hmmmm.
I think the capture of Hussein AND the FOLLOW THROUGH (read slowly, your side rarely gets that one) to ensure that he won't be replaced by someone worse is worth the deaths of thousands of our enemies abroad and the lowest allied casualties of any war that we have fought. The money can be paid off eventually as Obongo is willing to prove by proposing some 4 trillion (a bit more than 700 bil) and the largest increase in spending in world history. Debt only becomes bad debt when it will not be paid (like irresponsible homeowners and the failing gov't enterprises that give them home loans).
Now I'm not christian but I doubt you are a religious man. Maybe you should leave the subject of Jesus or "morals" alone since you about as far from faith or morality as a turd in a trash bag. Your "bleeding heart" comes from your belief that everyone is a victim and a lack of accountability, unless you don't like someone's political views. In that case they can burn at the stake, right? Your "consistency" (i have to laugh at that one) isn't a good thing if your an ass backwards ignoramus with anti-American agenda.
If that's not good enough for you so be it. I am thankful you are not in charge and never will be. Someone like you shouldn't run a lemonade stand.
-
Oh and while your at it answer the questions I asked.
-
Uh.. If he lied then either every other congressman also lied including everyone on your side of the isle, big guy.
Not true. I can list the lies of Bush if you like.
International law is a great ideal when all the countries agree to follow the rules. Iraq violated the worst ones over and over and I doubt a peep was coming out of any shit stains like yourself. When the UN made it obvious that they won't be enforcing those rules any time soon Bush decided that as the only real backbone of the UN he would. I applaud him for his will to act and generations of Iraqis who don't have to live under Saddam will as well. I wonder how many millions will vote in the next Iraqi election... hmmmm.
Bullshit. That's a nice story but rightwing losers like yourself invent tales to fit your pathetic ass-sucking sycophantic fantasies. Your recitation of 'facts' is pure nonsense.
You tell it like it ain't.
I think the capture of Hussein AND the FOLLOW THROUGH (read slowly, your side rarely gets that one) to ensure that he won't be replaced by someone worse is worth the deaths of thousands of our enemies abroad and the lowest allied casualties of any war that we have fought. The money can be paid off eventually as Obongo is willing to prove by proposing some 4 trillion (a bit more than 700 bil) and the largest increase in spending in world history. Debt only becomes bad debt when it will not be paid (like irresponsible homeowners and the failing gov't enterprises that give them home loans).
'Obongo'...shoot, you sure are funny. And you're a racist on top of your fascism as well. How does it feel to be so wrong about so many things all of the time? I want a losers opinion so I'm asking you.
Read this slowly MENSA, Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US. Who gives a fuck who's ruling that desert shithole. Oh wait, here comes Brixton Bulldog claiming the US is the policeman of the world.
Debt becomes bad debt when it is debt done for the wrong reason Brainiac. 600+ billion borrowed to slaughter 100,000 Iraqis is Bad Debt.
You did not do them any favors by liberating them from their lives. Do you understand that Einstein?
Now I'm not christian but I doubt you are a religious man. Maybe you should leave the subject of Jesus or "morals" alone since you about as far from faith or morality as a turd in a trash bag. Your "bleeding heart" comes from your belief that everyone is a victim and a lack of accountability, unless you don't like someone's political views. In that case they can burn at the stake, right? Your "consistency" (i have to laugh at that one) isn't a good thing if your an ass backwards ignoramus with anti-American agenda.
Hey MENSA, I see you're applying your same grasp of facts to religion that you did to Adam Smith. Yesssss.
I would comment on your quote but it's garble. Turd in a trash bag? Who are you, the voice of experience? I did manage to make out your weak accusation of 'anti-american'...Yes, I am anti-american when nazi-like fascists, such as yourself, think that wiping out 100,000+ people is really a good thing and that irrespective of the lies told to get us into Iraq, we really are a force for good. It's thanksgiving. Goebbels, Goebbels, Goebbels.
If that's not good enough for you so be it. I am thankful you are not in charge and never will be. Someone like you shouldn't run a lemonade stand.
Don't worry, I would never hire someone like you. I wouldn't trust you with a fucking mop or broom let alone a computer.
-
Not true. I can list the lies of Bush if you like.
Bullshit. That's a nice story but rightwing losers like yourself invent tales to fit your pathetic ass-sucking sycophantic fantasies. Your recitation of 'facts' is pure nonsense.
You tell it like it ain't.
'Obongo'...shoot, you sure are funny. And you're a racist on top of your fascism as well. How does it feel to be so wrong about so many things all of the time? I want a losers opinion so I'm asking you.
Read this slowly MENSA, Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US. Who gives a fuck who's ruling that desert shithole. Oh wait, here comes Brixton Bulldog claiming the US is the policeman of the world.
Debt becomes bad debt when it is debt done for the wrong reason Brainiac. 600+ billion borrowed to slaughter 100,000 Iraqis is Bad Debt.
You did not do them any favors by liberating them from their lives. Do you understand that Einstein?
Hey MENSA, I see you're applying your same grasp of facts to religion that you did to Adam Smith. Yesssss.
I would comment on your quote but it's garble. Turd in a trash bag? Who are you, the voice of experience? I did manage to make out your weak accusation of 'anti-american'...Yes, I am anti-american when nazi-like fascists, such as yourself, think that wiping out 100,000+ people is really a good thing and that irrespective of the lies told to get us into Iraq, we really are a force for good. It's thanksgiving. Goebbels, Goebbels, Goebbels.
Don't worry, I would never hire someone like you. I wouldn't trust you with a fucking mop or broom let alone a computer.
Melting down again I see. Maybe you're still getting picked on even after high school and that's why you're like this.
Bush is no more responsible than everyone else in Congress who had access to the same intel and APPARENTLY drew the same conclusions he did.. along with every European intel agency. Still having a hard time swallowing that one, eh Einstein?
Funny how Bush does something about one of the worst regimes this century and you say "who gives a fuck" but when we don't do anything (Darfur, etc) you clowns kick and scream that we aren't doing anything. You know why? Because you would blow libs like Obama in a heartbeat regardless of what they do. It's not about the conflict or the action, it's about who's in charge. You don't like him so he can't do anything right. If you "don't give a fuck" about what's going on over there than why hate so much? You don't like the military anyway so it can only mean you're just looking for ammo against another "eevvviiiillllll" conservative, lol. Laughable.
600 billion didn't go to murder and torture civilians so if allied forces destroyed 100,000+ than I can only assume they were shooting at/bombing us first. So we killed a lot of bad guys.. GREAT!! No qualms with that so I'm not going to complain. As for the civilians it is unfortunate but it's a symptom of every conflict since the beginning of man. Since most of it is due to infighting we don't have much control over that. The only reason morons like you call it bad debt is who incurred it, nothing more. If it's gets paid off then I guess it's not so bad is it?
You are anti-american, fine. I'm not and being that way doesn't make me a "nazi." Being Jewish doesn't flow too well with nazism if you haven't noticed. And now I'm also a racist because I called him Obongo?!?!? ;D Hilarious. Are you ready to answer those questions yet? ::)
-
Melting down again I see. Maybe you're still getting picked on even after high school and that's why you're like this.
Yes, I am melting down.
Bush is no more responsible than everyone else in Congress who had access to the same intel and APPARENTLY drew the same conclusions he did.. along with every European intel agency. Still having a hard time swallowing that one, eh Einstein?
Wrongo Mary Lou. Bush the leader lied about the WMDs, he MANUFACTURED false intelligence and he even lied the other day again about the invasion. Chew on this and tell me it's not a lie: According to the text of the ABC News interview, which was released Dec. 1, Gibson asked Bush, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?”
Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”
Of course, the historical record is clear: Hussein did let U.N. arms inspectors into Iraq in the fall of 2002 to search any site of their choosing. Their travels around Iraq in white vans were recorded daily by the international news media, as they found no evidence that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, even at sites targeted by U.S. intelligence.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/120108c.html
Funny how Bush does something about one of the worst regimes this century and you say "who gives a fuck" but when we don't do anything (Darfur, etc) you clowns kick and scream that we aren't doing anything. You know why? Because you would blow libs like Obama in a heartbeat regardless of what they do. It's not about the conflict or the action, it's about who's in charge. You don't like him so he can't do anything right. If you "don't give a fuck" about what's going on over there than why hate so much? You don't like the military anyway so it can only mean you're just looking for ammo against another "eevvviiiillllll" conservative, lol. Laughable.
You spin more than drunken contortionist. Your weak argument is par for you. Paraphrase: Hussein was a bad man so he deserved what he got. What are you, six years old?
600 billion didn't go to murder and torture civilians so if allied forces destroyed 100,000+ than I can only assume they were shooting at/bombing us first. So we killed a lot of bad guys.. GREAT!! No qualms with that so I'm not going to complain. As for the civilians it is unfortunate but it's a symptom of every conflict since the beginning of man. Since most of it is due to infighting we don't have much control over that. The only reason morons like you call it bad debt is who incurred it, nothing more. If it's gets paid off then I guess it's not so bad is it?
Shooting at us first? You mean after Bush ordered the attack of the IRaqi people? Even your spin is incoherent.
You are anti-american, fine. I'm not and being that way doesn't make me a "nazi." Being Jewish doesn't flow too well with nazism if you haven't noticed. And now I'm also a racist because I called him Obongo?!?!? ;D Hilarious. Are you ready to answer those questions yet? ::)
It's funny how everyone holding Nazi-like views is suddenly a Jew and a victim. hahahaha. Typical rightwing victimization. You're a victim eliciting sympathy and pity.
-
Yes, I am melting down.
Wrongo Mary Lou. Bush the leader lied about the WMDs, he MANUFACTURED false intelligence and he even lied the other day again about the invasion. Chew on this and tell me it's not a lie: According to the text of the ABC News interview, which was released Dec. 1, Gibson asked Bush, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?”
Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”
Of course, the historical record is clear: Hussein did let U.N. arms inspectors into Iraq in the fall of 2002 to search any site of their choosing. Their travels around Iraq in white vans were recorded daily by the international news media, as they found no evidence that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, even at sites targeted by U.S. intelligence.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/120108c.html
You spin more than drunken contortionist. Your weak argument is par for you. Paraphrase: Hussein was a bad man so he deserved what he got. What are you, six years old?
Shooting at us first? You mean after Bush ordered the attack of the IRaqi people? Even your spin is incoherent.
It's funny how everyone holding Nazi-like views is suddenly a Jew and a victim. hahahaha. Typical rightwing victimization. You're a victim eliciting sympathy and pity.
How is it a lie if Saddam had been picking and choosing when and what he was going to let inspectors see for years? You can't not comply for ten years and then right before the US starts getting really pissed all of a sudden comply and expect to not be held accountable. Saddam had a pattern of deceit and subversion, period.
Now you resort to putting words in my mouth to belittle an argument that totally undermines yours? Whatever.. I guess some sheep can't accept or admit the truth even when it's put right in front of you. Of course I'm not referring to after the invasion you dunce.. he was shooting at allied patrols since 91.
I am a jew and have been my whole life. If the truth undermines your absurd platform than so be it.. wouldn't be the first time. ;D
-
How is it a lie if Saddam had been picking and choosing when and what he was going to let inspectors see for years?
Hussein was not picking and choosing the sites in 2002. We were. Here're the words of Blix himself:
"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.
"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."
You can't not comply for ten years and then right before the US starts getting really pissed all of a sudden comply and expect to not be held accountable. Saddam had a pattern of deceit and subversion, period.
Says who? You?
Knock that shit off right now. You value political one-upsmanship over the vast loss of life b/c you want to hold Hussein accountable?
That's insane.
Now you resort to putting words in my mouth to belittle an argument that totally undermines yours? Whatever.. I guess some sheep can't accept or admit the truth even when it's put right in front of you. Of course I'm not referring to after the invasion you dunce.. he was shooting at allied patrols since 91.
Where? In the illegal 'no-fly' zones established by the US? Let's see some of your facts.
I am a jew and have been my whole life. If the truth undermines your absurd platform than so be it.. wouldn't be the first time. ;D
Children play.
-
Hussein was not picking and choosing the sites in 2002. We were. Here're the words of Blix himself:
"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.
"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."
Says who? You?
Knock that shit off right now. You value political one-upsmanship over the vast loss of life b/c you want to hold Hussein accountable?
That's insane.
Where? In the illegal 'no-fly' zones established by the US? Let's see some of your facts.
Children play.
So the fact that he got to pick his sites eliminated the probability that Saddam was undermining the UN's efforts?!?! Ok ::) You have been claiming all our intel was ten years old yet the same intel is good enough to choose what sites are to be inspected?!?! Gawd, you're stupid.
These are from wiki and I'm sure they are not complete since wiki slants left (no surprise):
Operation Northern Watch continued to provide air security to the Kurdish population in the north. American and British aircraft continuously maintained the integrity of the NFZ, receiving anti-aircraft fire from Iraqi forces almost daily. The operation ran until its conclusion on May 1st, 2003.
Iraq challenged the no-fly zone beginning in December 1992 when a U.S. F-16 shot down a MiG which had locked on to it in the Southern no-fly zone.
In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox during December 1998, Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task
Their records indicate that in the first seven months of 2001, there had been 370 provocations on the part of Iraq. In the seven months from Oct. 2001 into May 2002, only 32 such provocations were recorded
Needless to say, the Iraqi government in turn, claimed the NFZ and the unprovoked attacks were illegal, and in response increased their futile efforts to shoot down an allied plane.
-
So the fact that he got to pick his sites eliminated the probability that Saddam was undermining the UN's efforts?!?! Ok ::) You have been claiming all our intel was ten years old yet the same intel is good enough to choose what sites are to be inspected?!?! Gawd, you're stupid.
What are you talking about?
Read the fucking reports filed by Blix you pinhead.
I made the statement to prove the matter that you were wrong about who was choosing the inspection spots and not to assert the truth of the matter stated.
But you are grasping for any straw you can b/c I've thoroughly and completely dominated this discussion. I don't usually say things like that but you have to wake up to your domination.
These are from wiki and I'm sure they are not complete since wiki slants left (no surprise):
I laugh at people like you.
Why?
...if you're not with me, then you're against me....nyaahhhhh
Reality, facts and now wikipedia slants left. Do you realize how sad your position looks?
Do you even pretend to aspire to any kind of even-handed approach to facts?
Do you have the ability to act like a man and admit when you're wrong?
Operation Northern Watch ...
Needless to say, the Iraqi government in turn, claimed the NFZ and the unprovoked attacks were illegal, and in response increased their futile efforts to shoot down an allied plane.
The no fly zones have no legal authority....just like the Iraq invasion.
-
We all know you don't see it that way. You have established yourself on the extreme end of a completely emotional argument based on hatred for someone a lot more people in power are responsible for. Water-boarding is torture, ok. Have you even begun to look into the tortures of Saddam? They are VERY far apart. I don't hear you speaking out against that.
And how many of those 100,000 were combatants? How many were civilians killed by combatants? You always fail to make the distinction because it destroys your argument. Terrorists flocked to Iraq to kill US soldiers and we were slaughtering them for years. Sounds like a pretty massive enemy body count is a good thing.
And I'm referring to all the other violations Saddam committed. Why wasn't he punished for them? Why did the UN sit there and count how many times this guy shot at allied patrols, etc. instead of using force in the first place? The UN is so worthless no wonder Bush said "to hell with it." Saddam should have been killed ten years ago. Acts of war apparently don't matter to the UN.
::)
-
What are you talking about?
Read the fucking reports filed by Blix you pinhead.
I made the statement to prove the matter that you were wrong about who was choosing the inspection spots and not to assert the truth of the matter stated.
But you are grasping for any straw you can b/c I've thoroughly and completely dominated this discussion. I don't usually say things like that but you have to wake up to your domination.
I laugh at people like you.
Why?
...if you're not with me, then you're against me....nyaahhhhh
Reality, facts and now wikipedia slants left. Do you realize how sad your position looks?
Do you even pretend to aspire to any kind of even-handed approach to facts?
Do you have the ability to act like a man and admit when you're wrong?
The no fly zones have no legal authority....just like the Iraq invasion.
When did I make any claims are to who was choosing the inspection sites!?!? I said Saddam had a pattern of denying access at his choosing and at random. Stop making shit up, pathetic liberal!
"Oh look how mad he gets when facts from wiki are used against him!!!" lol
I don't think you've dominated anything your entire life.. probably why you have proven yourself ignorant and cowardly throughout this thread. This post and most of your others are testament to that fact. You ignore that which creams your arguments and drone on the same rhetoric over and over. Not much insight, substance, or critical thinking.. just liberal talking points repeated again, and again, and again, and again. Epic fail.
And now no-fly zones don't have authority?!?!? So I guess every other condition imposed on every other country that has ever signed terms of surrender throughout the ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND is illegal too, right?!? ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH AHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus fuckin christ, dude ;D You're a joke.
PS. Still haven't gotten around to answering my questions I see. Well you haven't been able to confront anything I've posted yet so why should I ever expect it? ::)
-
When did I make any claims are to who was choosing the inspection sites!?!? I said Saddam had a pattern of denying access at his choosing and at random. Stop making shit up, pathetic liberal!
You've internalized a propagandistic narrative thrust on you by Bush and company. Hussein had weapons but he was moving them!..you say.
The Iraq Survey Groups own report denies your fantastic claim. Yet here you are pushing it b/c it's a piece of fantasy that fits your preconceived narrative for a righteous war.
....
I don't think you've dominated anything your entire life.. probably why you have proven yourself ignorant and cowardly throughout this thread. This post and most of your others are testament to that fact. You ignore that which creams your arguments and drone on the same rhetoric over and over. Not much insight, substance, or critical thinking.. just liberal talking points repeated again, and again, and again, and again. Epic fail.
It's 'testimony' and not 'testament'. Let's see, you say that these are liberal talking points:
*Bush's own statements of lies
*Bush's doctored white papers re Iraq's WMDs
*Blix's testimony re WMD inspection findings
*Iraq Survey Group's conclusions
*David Kay's statements on Iraq's alleged WMDs
*UN Resolutions (including 1441) flat out requiring the Security Council's consent to attack Iraq
How are those things liberal talking points?
Are those things anything like your narrative that Hussein moved the WMDs and hid them up his ass?
I'll help you on that one: No! I'm using evidence and facts and you are using propaganda. Unsupported talking points.
And now no-fly zones don't have authority?!?!? So I guess every other condition imposed on every other country that has ever signed terms of surrender throughout the ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND is illegal too, right?!? ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH AHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus fuckin christ, dude ;D You're a joke.
You're funny. Show me the legal authority for the establishment of no-fly zones in Iraq and I'll admit I'm wrong.
PS. Still haven't gotten around to answering my questions I see. Well you haven't been able to confront anything I've posted yet so why should I ever expect it? ::)
What the fuck question are you talking about?
-
The Iraq survey group didn't get to search the countries that the weapons were moved to why would I expect them to come to that conclusion? On that note David Kay apparently felt as Bush did about Iraq: Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
Also: By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support.
(so where were all those horrible conditions from the embargo if saddam was rendering them useless?)
And: Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Guess it's not a fantasy. I would love to see the look on your face when you realize your arguments fail more than the cancerous UAW if GM and Daimler Chrysler go under. ;D
And for the third time...
Answer me honestly.. How many of those 100,000 took up arms against allied forces? And how many of those that didn't take up arms against us were shot, stabbed, or obliterated by allied forces? Please answer this.
-
The Iraq survey group didn't get to search the countries that the weapons were moved to why would I expect them to come to that conclusion?
You do realize that your argument of "he moved the WMDs" has the same punch as OJ looking for the 'real' killers. It's a fantasy.
What makes you think that WMD inspectors can't determine if WMDs were moved from an inspected area?
On that note David Kay apparently felt as Bush did about Iraq: Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
The difference being that Kay played the good soldier, just like you are and just like Congress did, and went along with Bush's lies and suppositions however, when faced with the obvious facts yielded by the inspections, he admitted IRaq was disarmed.
Bush is still claiming that Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors into Iraq.
Now which person is still lying?
And since the inspections were turning up only minor violations, why did Bush order the invasion to disarm a disarmed country?
Why didn't Bush let the inspectors finish their inspections--what was the hurry?
If you answer one question this year, answer me that one.
Also: By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support.
(so where were all those horrible conditions from the embargo if saddam was rendering them useless?)
How did he mitigate the effects of the sanctions?
Did he bring the 1-2 million dead back to life?
And: Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Who are you, Kreskin? You're a mindreader now? Hussein was thinking X.
It's too bad that the legal inspections were based on actual WMDs and not divining the intentions of Saddam Hussein.
Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now?
Guess it's not a fantasy. I would love to see the look on your face when you realize your arguments fail more than the cancerous UAW if GM and Daimler Chrysler go under. ;D
Typical BB - no facts, just stories and mindreading and cheerleading.
And for the third time...
I've proven you wrong much more than 3 times. You can't even get that right.
-
You do realize that your argument of "he moved the WMDs" has the same punch as OJ looking for the 'real' killers. It's a fantasy.
What makes you think that WMD inspectors can't determine if WMDs were moved from an inspected area?
The difference being that Kay played the good soldier, just like you are and just like Congress did, and went along with Bush's lies and suppositions however, when faced with the obvious facts yielded by the inspections, he admitted IRaq was disarmed.
Bush is still claiming that Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors into Iraq.
Now which person is still lying?
And since the inspections were turning up only minor violations, why did Bush order the invasion to disarm a disarmed country?
Why didn't Bush let the inspectors finish their inspections--what was the hurry?
If you answer one question this year, answer me that one.
How did he mitigate the effects of the sanctions?
Did he bring the 1-2 million dead back to life?
Who are you, Kreskin? You're a mindreader now? Hussein was thinking X.
It's too bad that the legal inspections were based on actual WMDs and not divining the intentions of Saddam Hussein.
Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now?
Typical BB - no facts, just stories and mindreading and cheerleading.
I've proven you wrong much more than 3 times. You can't even get that right.
Weapons inspectors not having access to Syria and Jordan for one, smart guy. Kreskin?!? The quote was also from wiki, you retard! Try reading. Repeat until you get it.
If you can find the courage to answer either of the questions I've now asked you THREE FUCKING TIMES than you might have a let to stand on.
You're right. You have proven three things.
-You're a moron.
-You are too biased to be either objective or realistic.
-Your vendetta towards Bush is a losers cause which you enthusiastically use to push your baseless and absurd agenda, on GETBIG, lol. What a fucking loser. ;D
-
Weapons inspectors not having access to Syria and Jordan for one, smart guy. Kreskin?!? The quote was also from wiki, you retard! Try reading. Repeat until you get it.
If you can find the courage to answer either of the questions I've now asked you THREE FUCKING TIMES than you might have a let to stand on.
You're right. You have proven three things.
-You're a moron.
-You are too biased to be either objective or realistic.
-Your vendetta towards Bush is a losers cause which you enthusiastically use to push your baseless and absurd agenda, on GETBIG, lol. What a fucking loser. ;D
You are a coward. Rather than face the facts as they are, you hide behind your discredited propagandistic narratives.
You are a coward b/c you cannot admit you're wrong.
Why not have WMD inspectors look on mars too for your missing WMDs? Or were the weapons spirited away on the backs of unicorns to Middle Earth?
Answer this question: And since the inspections were turning up only minor violations, why did Bush order the invasion to disarm a disarmed country?
Why didn't Bush let the inspectors finish their inspections--what was the hurry?
I don't think you have the balls to answer that.
Spare the GB public your rantings about Syria and Jordan and answer the question. (Otherwise I'll have to drop you and your nonsensical response---Bush attacked Iraq b/c Jordan and Syria had the WMDS...duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)
What's your fuckin problem Jack? What is this question you've asked 3 time?
-
You are a coward. Rather than face the facts as they are, you hide behind your discredited propagandistic narratives.
You are a coward b/c you cannot admit you're wrong.
Why not have WMD inspectors look on mars too for your missing WMDs? Or were the weapons spirited away on the backs of unicorns to Middle Earth?
I don't think you have the balls to answer that.
Spare the GB public your rantings about Syria and Jordan and answer the question. (Otherwise I'll have to drop you and your nonsensical response---Bush attacked Iraq b/c Jordan and Syria had the WMDS...duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)
What's your fuckin problem Jack? What is this question you've asked 3 time?
The hypocrisy never stops. You have run away from every fact I've given. You have refused to admit your baseless hatred and absurd crusade. And you call me a coward? You may divert with (bad) jokes all you want. The fact is there is still a lot of classified regarding what went on leading up to the war. Wouldn't matter, though.. people like you don't let go of your concocted fantasies no matter what's put in front of you.
Pot meet kettle. ;D
4th time:
Answer me honestly.. How many of those 100,000 took up arms against allied forces? And how many of those that didn't take up arms against us were shot, stabbed, or obliterated by allied forces? Please answer this.
-
The hypocrisy never stops. You have run away from every fact I've given. You have refused to admit your baseless hatred and absurd crusade. And you call me a coward? You may divert with (bad) jokes all you want. The fact is there is still a lot of classified regarding what went on leading up to the war. Wouldn't matter, though.. people like you don't let go of your concocted fantasies no matter what's put in front of you.
Pot meet kettle. ;D
4th time:
Here comes the SECRET EVIDENCE that will make Hussein into a real threat to the USA.
More bullshit from a guy who lost every facet of this discussion.
Bush created a threat in Iraq where none existed.
Bush lied and manufactured 'proof' that a thirdworld shithole country was an imminent threat to the US"s very existence.
Bush ordered the deaths of 150,000 Iraqis as a means of disarming a disarmed country.
They didn't have the weapons, the WMD inspectors were showing that IRaq was disarmed and Bush ordered the invasion anyways.
Why? If Syria or Jordan or Mars had the WMDs, as you allege, why didn't he deal with those country's directly?
Why? B/c he and you are both lying to preserve your fallacious narrative that Iraq had WMDS and was a threat to the US.
Answer me honestly.. How many of those 100,000 took up arms against allied forces? And how many of those that didn't take up arms against us were shot, stabbed, or obliterated by allied forces? Please answer this.
I hope all of the 150,000 to six million killed took up arms against the invading coalition forces. The Iraqi citizens were in the right and we were in the wrong. They were acting in self defense and we became murderers.
That's a hard pill to swallow but it's the truth.
And as for exact proof of whether the allied(sic) forces actually killed any Iraqis, I say to you, "Go fuck yourself."
But for Bush's order to attack Iraq, those Iraqis are still alive today.
They didn't deserve death, torture and the dissolution of their country...not our country, their country.
-
Bush ordered the deaths of 150,000 Iraqis as a means of disarming a disarmed country.
And as for exact proof of whether the allied(sic) forces actually killed any Iraqis, I say to you, "Go fuck yourself."
This is why you will lose every debate you engage in and no one will take you seriously. When you speak you spout nonsense like this and use the same idiot response to effectively NOT answer questions. Combine that with no understanding of the military, or national security and you have another raving liberal who will spend the rest of his life crying about things he won't understand on Getbig and spewing baseless hatred for those he consistently blames for everything under the sun.
Those Iraqis WE slaughtered we're our enemies and acted as such by blowing up allied troops and shooting at convoys and sniping soldiers at checkpoints, etc. We're not talking about Abdul the baker doing his patriotic duty to defend his homeland here, numnuts.
Every allied nation came to the same conclusions the US did.. he had weapons, he was pursuing developing more, and he planned on using them against his own people and his enemies within reach. Even without having a clearance it is easy to determine what he did have was moved to Syria and Jordan just prior to allied forces invading. That doesn't mean we somehow thought we were going after those countries by way of Iraq so I don't know how you're not getting this. Read slowly.. Being moved at the last second by Saddam before an invasion isn't the same as those countries having them in the first place.
Bush is no more guilty than our allies and every member of congress who was privy to the same intel and VOTED for the war. Intel whose capabilities were undercut by another liberal, Clinton, who gutted the CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. No wonder there was an intel failure. You voted for these people, not me.
Iraq was a threat to every one of his declared enemies, especially the surrounding nations. He routinely fired on allied forces on patrols in existence since his generals signed the terms of surrender in 91. He routinely violated UN resolutions which were supposed to have consequences. Of course, the UN did nothing. What a surprise.
We don't murder or torture civilians, something Saddam was notorious for. The world and Iraq, especially, are better off with him gone. We've not only won the war but we've suffered the fewest casualties of any war in American history.
But in your world the facts don't matter. Saddam was harmless and innocent of any wrongdoing. Bush is solely responsible for the the war no matter who stood with him or bears responsibility and the US murdered and tortured only innocent Iraqis on their way to prayer, right?
-
This is why you will lose every debate you engage in and no one will take you seriously. When you speak you spout nonsense like this and use the same idiot response to effectively NOT answer questions.
...on the contrary, Decker's posts are both informative and intelligent.
The only posters on this board who take exception to his posts are the braindead rednecks who would gladly vote for Bill O'Reilly; Sarah Palin or perhaps more ironically Steven Colbert.
Decker's a good guy... you guys just hate him 'cos he's smart and understands stuff.
The Luke
-
...on the contrary, Decker's posts are both informative and intelligent.
The only posters on this board who take exception to his posts are the braindead rednecks who would gladly vote for Bill O'Reilly; Sarah Palin or perhaps more ironically Steven Colbert.
Decker's a good guy... you guys just hate him 'cos he's smart and understands stuff.
The Luke
Oh look, another moron.
Yep, every conservative is a redneck. Sure ::)
-
Yep, every conservative is a redneck. Sure ::)
...half your party supports a Palin 2012 presidential bid. Need I say more?
The Luke
-
Oh look, another moron.
Yep, every conservative is a redneck. Sure ::)
Oh come on, you know it's true. And every liberal is a highly educated intellectual.
Here's the proof:
-
...half your party supports a Palin 2012 presidential bid. Need I say more?
The Luke
I also support Palin and I am not a redneck. Our vp pick was more qualified to be prez than Obama himself so it's certainly a logical choice.
Oh come on, you know it's true. And every liberal is a highly educated intellectual.
Here's the proof:
Thank you for proving me right.. again. ;D
-
I also support Palin and I am not a redneck. Our vp pick was more qualified to be prez than Obama himself so it's certainly a logical choice.
That's ridiculous... She's a buffoon.
Sure, she is a governor... She is an idiot governor though.
Since her VP nomination, her approval rating in her OWN state has dropped... What does that tell you?
-
This is why you will lose every debate you engage in and no one will take you seriously. When you speak you spout nonsense like this and use the same idiot response to effectively NOT answer questions. Combine that with no understanding of the military, or national security and you have another raving liberal who will spend the rest of his life crying about things he won't understand on Getbig and spewing baseless hatred for those he consistently blames for everything under the sun.
Those Iraqis WE slaughtered we're our enemies and acted as such by blowing up allied troops and shooting at convoys and sniping soldiers at checkpoints, etc. We're not talking about Abdul the baker doing his patriotic duty to defend his homeland here, numnuts.
The Iraqis had a much more viable claim to acting in self defense than we did when they defended themselves from the illegal invasion.
Do you see that?
Do you understand what justifiable self defense is?
A attacks B with no legal justification and B exerts force to defend himself from A's attack.
See, A is America and B is Iraq (I should have used an "I", I don't want that tripping you up).
Every allied nation came to the same conclusions the US did.. he had weapons, he was pursuing developing more, and he planned on using them against his own people and his enemies within reach. Even without having a clearance it is easy to determine what he did have was moved to Syria and Jordan just prior to allied forces invading. That doesn't mean we somehow thought we were going after those countries by way of Iraq so I don't know how you're not getting this. Read slowly.. Being moved at the last second by Saddam before an invasion isn't the same as those countries having them in the first place.
What do you think of these ideas:
*You are either with us or against us.
*The UN does not dictate how the US can defend itself.
Here's where your bullshit theory collapses. If Hussein moved WMDs to Syria and Jordan, why didn't Bush order the invasion of those countries?
If Syria and Jordan are harboring Hussein's WMDs, which could be used against the US at any time, why didn't Bush go after them? I mean it's a textbook definition of 'accomplice.'
If Syria and Jordan were 'with' Hussein, then they were by definition, against us.
How do you justify that?
Bush is no more guilty than our allies and every member of congress who was privy to the same intel and VOTED for the war. Intel whose capabilities were undercut by another liberal, Clinton, who gutted the CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. No wonder there was an intel failure. You voted for these people, not me.
Nobody but Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq COUNTER TO THE INSPECTION FINDINGS OF THE INSPECTORS. Bush stated he would base his decision to attack the country on the latest intel. The latest intel showed Iraq had no WMDs and was not threat to the US. I can show you those documents. I can show you Bush's statements. I can also show you Bush's lies and the doctored white paper.
So your 'faulty intel' excuse crumbles. You would be correct if the 10 year old intel governed the matter. But it didn't. That was not the latest best evidence of Iraq's situation.
Do you see that now?
Iraq was a threat to every one of his declared enemies, especially the surrounding nations. He routinely fired on allied forces on patrols in existence since his generals signed the terms of surrender in 91. He routinely violated UN resolutions which were supposed to have consequences. Of course, the UN did nothing. What a surprise.
How was Iraq a threat to the US if it had no WMDs? The latest intel showed that Iraq had no WMDS.
Where does this threat come from? I've already dispatched your excuse that Hussein was shooting at planes.
And my oh my, isn't that a justification for slaughtering 150,000 human beings anyways?
We don't murder or torture civilians, something Saddam was notorious for. The world and Iraq, especially, are better off with him gone. We've not only won the war but we've suffered the fewest casualties of any war in American history.
We did torture under Bush. That fact is incontrovertible.
Still, the official U.S. denials of torture continued until earlier this month when Bush acknowledged in an interview with ABC-TV that he knew about and approved “enhanced interrogation” of detainees, including “waterboarding” or simulated drowning.
“As a matter of fact,” Bush added, “I told the country we did that. And I told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it.” The president added, “I didn’t have any problems at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheik Mohammed knew.”
But in your world the facts don't matter. Saddam was harmless and innocent of any wrongdoing. Bush is solely responsible for the the war no matter who stood with him or bears responsibility and the US murdered and tortured only innocent Iraqis on their way to prayer, right?
You provide no facts. You provide jaded conclusions without factual support--'the wmds were transported away', 'even if Bush is responsible, so are a lot of other people...
Only Bush as commander in chief could have ordered the attack of Iraq.
The latest intel showed Iraq was not a threat nor did it have WMDs.
Bush ordered the attack anyways killing over 150,000 innocent people.
He's a mass murderer and you support him fully.
-
...on the contrary, Decker's posts are both informative and intelligent.
The only posters on this board who take exception to his posts are the braindead rednecks who would gladly vote for Bill O'Reilly; Sarah Palin or perhaps more ironically Steven Colbert.
Decker's a good guy... you guys just hate him 'cos he's smart and understands stuff.
The Luke
Thank you. I enjoy your posts as well.
-
That's ridiculous... She's a buffoon.
Sure, she is a governor... She is an idiot governor though.
Since her VP nomination, her approval rating in her OWN state has dropped... What does that tell you?
She's being maligned 24/7 by the media. They did the same thing to Bush and will do so to every prominent conservative. Fool buy into it, period.
-
She's being maligned 24/7 by the media. They did the same thing to Bush and will do so to every prominent conservative. Fool buy into it, period.
Come on... You really believe that?
You really are brain washed by the Neo-Cons if you do.
I watched 1 debate with her and from that debate, all true independent thinkers realized she had no business being at the national stage.
-
The Iraqis had a much more viable claim to acting in self defense than we did when they defended themselves from the illegal invasion.
Do you see that?
Do you understand what justifiable self defense is?
A attacks B with no legal justification and B exerts force to defend himself from A's attack.
See, A is America and B is Iraq (I should have used an "I", I don't want that tripping you up).
What do you think of these ideas:
*You are either with us or against us.
*The UN does not dictate how the US can defend itself.
Here's where your bullshit theory collapses. If Hussein moved WMDs to Syria and Jordan, why didn't Bush order the invasion of those countries?
If Syria and Jordan are harboring Hussein's WMDs, which could be used against the US at any time, why didn't Bush go after them? I mean it's a textbook definition of 'accomplice.'
If Syria and Jordan were 'with' Hussein, then they were by definition, against us.
How do you justify that?
Nobody but Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq COUNTER TO THE INSPECTION FINDINGS OF THE INSPECTORS. Bush stated he would base his decision to attack the country on the latest intel. The latest intel showed Iraq had no WMDs and was not threat to the US. I can show you those documents. I can show you Bush's statements. I can also show you Bush's lies and the doctored white paper.
So your 'faulty intel' excuse crumbles. You would be correct if the 10 year old intel governed the matter. But it didn't. That was not the latest best evidence of Iraq's situation.
Do you see that now?
How was Iraq a threat to the US if it had no WMDs? The latest intel showed that Iraq had no WMDS.
Where does this threat come from? I've already dispatched your excuse that Hussein was shooting at planes.
And my oh my, isn't that a justification for slaughtering 150,000 human beings anyways?
We did torture under Bush. That fact is incontrovertible.
Still, the official U.S. denials of torture continued until earlier this month when Bush acknowledged in an interview with ABC-TV that he knew about and approved “enhanced interrogation” of detainees, including “waterboarding” or simulated drowning.
“As a matter of fact,” Bush added, “I told the country we did that. And I told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it.” The president added, “I didn’t have any problems at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheik Mohammed knew.”
You provide no facts. You provide jaded conclusions without factual support--'the wmds were transported away', 'even if Bush is responsible, so are a lot of other people...
Only Bush as commander in chief could have ordered the attack of Iraq.
The latest intel showed Iraq was not a threat nor did it have WMDs.
Bush ordered the attack anyways killing over 150,000 innocent people.
He's a mass murderer and you support him fully.
Is that why our troops were welcomed to Baghdad?!?!? Is that why 15 million voted in a free election?!?!? Yes, I'm sure your average peace loving Iraqi absolutely hates our guts.
Getting at the weapons and waging war against two new fronts IN ADDITION TO Iraq itself is ludicrous. We chose to strike at the heart of the problem in the first place. If not, we would only expect more of the same. Do you destroy an infection by treating symptoms or taking antibiotics? If this war was so costly than surely even you can agree we could only afford to attack one front. Syria may be a future issue itself.
I have given facts from wiki, a site you obviously trust, to show his aggression toward allied forces and terms violations. And let's not forget all the facts from this gem:
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 04, 2008, 14:22:08
Every intelligence agency from US to Britain to Germany to France to .. I could go on forever.. thought Saddam had more WMDs than were found. Saddam even admitted that after he destroyed or moved the bulk of what he had only a couple months before the invasion he aggressively played smoke and mirrors to make other countries think he did.
Oh look.. a fact!
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 04, 2008, 16:36:59
He's a politician and he's not going to just read intelligence reports aloud to the country. The Iraq war wasn't a mistake even though the media has made it seem so for 5 years.
Ooh.. a historical fact!
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 04, 2008, 17:06:08
Violated the UN cease-fire 17 times = NOT in check
Playing shadow games with weapons inspectors for years = NOT in check
Torturing and murdering civilians by the thousands = NOT in check
Sponsoring Terrorism = NOT in check
The point was to keep him from becoming a problem, which he was continually for over 20 years.
Even more facts!! Holy cow!!! ;D
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 05, 2008, 10:22:48
Still counting the insurgents with the civilians I'm sure. Illegal my foot.
Hmm.. yep, that's a fact too.
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 08, 2008, 13:46:15
Our enemy was communism than radical Islam. I don't condone human rights abuses but we fight bigger problems first and one at a time.
In fact, your loony side should be jumping for joy we went to Iraq. American soldiers have died and been wounded (since you hate the military and soldiers are somewhere between dog food and toilet water to you) and a murderous, fascist, torturous, and woman-hating regime has been brought to it's knees (not to mention they were all religious nuts and we all know how you feel about those religious types). ;D
More facts for ya!
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 11, 2008, 12:35:17
Isn't it interesting that, for years, inspectors were randomly denied access and upon returning to the same sites hours/days later were then ALLOWED access? I think even Decker could figure that one out.
Saddam hides weapons programs:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/10/iraq-031003-afps02.htm
See how many times Iraq fails to comply or cooperate:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron
Oh, look at all those facts!!!!
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 11, 2008, 21:12:41
You're right. It says nothing of "stockpiles." Of course that doesn't matter much since it was obvious weapons programs were being pursued and Saddam continually displayed a pattern of deception. Saddam fought inspectors every step of the way until he was FORCED to comply. Even then he attempted to undermine their efforts. Maybe you never asked yourself what that probably means but the rest of us have.
More facts..
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 12, 2008, 10:27:08
Once again, the UN is an impotent organization. Even with all their "efforts" Saddam still managed to destabilize the region and pursue weapons programs and torture and murder his own civilians etc, etc.
Iraqis dies because one element chose to attack US Soldiers in the form of insurgents, another element chose to use the war as a platform to launch civil violence and yet another were innocents in the crossfire.
And more..
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 13, 2008, 08:32:06
It's been an unstable period for the last 5 years but that's to be expected with the transition. Now that the violence is down 90% and we've pretty much won watch the levels of violence to go down even further.
This is getting repetitive..
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 13, 2008, 16:13:45
Americans weren't going into houses shooting women and children yet Saddam proved to be fully willing to do that.
Bored..
Quote from: Brixtonbulldog on November 13, 2008, 16:34:32
BSaddam caused more of what you see in that picture and would have continued to do so if not for GWB.
Good job, moron. ;D
Now are you ready to start answering questions for the fourth time or are you going to keep cowering like a little bitch?
;D
-
Is that why our troops were welcomed to Baghdad?!?!? Is that why 15 million voted in a free election?!?!? Yes, I'm sure your average peace loving Iraqi absolutely hates our guts.
I can see you take the bottom's view on relationships. BB's approach: Once your attacker has you beaten, on your knees, and subjugated, relax your sphincter muscle to make the experience more enjoyable.
Your foolishness knows no bounds. Your stats on voting mean nothing. Your reference to the welcoming of the troops is also irrelevant. Why even in this country we have sycophantic toadies that still support bush's mass murder of Iraqi citizens. Some of these bumbling supporters claim that the murders were justifiable self defense.
Remember the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue? That brought a tear to my eye. I mean the US went to all the trouble to fabricate the 'native groundswell' grateful for the US's murderous attack and yet the sham was exposed as a staged event.
The up close action video of the statue being destroyed is broadcast around the world as proof of a massive uprising. Still photos grabbed off of Reuters show a long-shot view of Fardus Square... it's empty save for the U.S. Marines, the International Press, and a small handful of Iraqis. There are no more than 200 people in the square at best. The Marines have the square sealed off and guarded by tanks. A U.S. mechanized vehicle is used to pull the statue of Saddam from it's base. The entire event is being hailed as an equivalent of the Berlin Wall falling... but even a quick glance of the long-shot photo shows something more akin to a carefully constructed media event tailored for the television cameras.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
Instead of being a man, you must play the recalcitrant child parroting the same tired debunked war propaganda.
Let's proceed.
Getting at the weapons and waging war against two new fronts IN ADDITION TO Iraq itself is ludicrous. We chose to strike at the heart of the problem in the first place. If not, we would only expect more of the same. Do you destroy an infection by treating symptoms or taking antibiotics? If this war was so costly than surely even you can agree we could only afford to attack one front. Syria may be a future issue itself.
What problem did we strike at? The inspectors couldn't find the WMDs. The Iraqis never attacked us.
Where exactly is the problem? What was the pressing problem?
The inspections were happening. Nobody was under threat of attack. Where's the problem that needed fixing?
Take your time. We'll wait.
Let me get this straight b/c you're all over the fucking map on this one. WMDs in the wrong hands is the most pressing security issue of our generation. BB and his SECRET INFORMATION 'confirms' that Syria and Jordan had Iraq's WMDs and PRESTO, it's just not economically feasible to go after them.
Everyone, read that paragraph again b/c it's beyond the pale of reasonable thought.
And now for some more fun!
Every intelligence agency from US to Britain to Germany to France to .. I could go on forever.. thought Saddam had more WMDs than were found. Saddam even admitted that after he destroyed or moved the bulk of what he had only a couple months before the invasion he aggressively played smoke and mirrors to make other countries think he did.
Oh look.. a fact!
Your fact is irrelevant. Why? B/c the best intel re Iraq's alleged WMDs was the findings of the Inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ SCOURING THE COUNTRY WITH UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS.
Your evidence was 10 years old. No good.
And now to destroy the "everyone thought Iraq had WMDs" myth.
“Everybody” did not “know” Saddam had WMD ready to use. The WMD America helped Saddam to acquire had long-since been destroyed, as the Hussein Kamel debriefing showed eight years earlier (and as was known to the CIA). Most of the rest of the intelligence had collapsed or was collapsing by early 2003, and all of these countries and the UN knew that and warned US officials about it. And the UK? That’s funny, Tony Blair’s own intel-PR shop had created the famous “WMD attack in 45 minutes”, and MI6 had cribbed a supposed fresh intelligence assessment on Iraq WMD directly off of the internet from a decade-old graduate student's paper.
It became known that the defectors and suppliers of the intelligence were frauds often turned out by Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, like Khidir Hamza, the person who was the basis for 1998 stories like “Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported”; and “Curveball”, the defector who formed the basis for scare-mongering stories about “Winnebagoes of Death” — mobile bioweapons labs — described extensively here in Deep Blade Journal.
What surprise! BB fell for more propaganda. You are the biggest cheerleader I have ever seen.
Now read this carefully:
The trigger for military action preferred by the British government, other allies, and at least some segments of the Bush administration, was a second U.N. resolution that would authorize an armed response. Other key U.N. Security Council members - including France, Germany, and Russia - argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would not approve a second resolution, the United States and Britain terminated their attempts to obtain it. Instead, they, along with other allies, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003 - a military campaign that quickly brought about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime and ultimately resulted in his capture.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
How's the "everyone believed Iraq had WMDs" argument working for you?
I just destroyed your fallacy. Who cares about 10 year old intel? I'll tell you: Sycophantic toads like BB use 10 year old intel and myths to show that the murderous Iraqi disaster was not only necessary but good too.
The rest of your 'facts' in the section you quoted are not relevant to Bush's mass murder are they.
I have given facts from wiki, a site you obviously trust, to show his aggression toward allied forces and terms violations. And let's not forget all the facts from this gem:
;D
I tire of slapping you around. But let's continue. Do you even know what a fact is? If Satan or better yet, the ACLU told you a fact would you believe him/it?
Now are you ready to start answering questions for the fourth time or are you going to keep cowering like a little bitch?
What shock. You have the reading comprehension of Bush.
You have nowhere left to run so you repeat a question I've answered. Do you think repeating answered questions makes you look like some foppish Bill Oreilly pretender asking the 'hard' questions.
Here's your oft-answered question: Answer me honestly.. How many of those 100,000 took up arms against allied forces?
It was within the legal right of the Iraqis to defend themselves from the illegal invasion of their homeland by Coalition forces ordered to attack by the mass murderer George W. Bush.
And how many of those that didn't take up arms against us were shot, stabbed, or obliterated by allied forces? Please answer this.
Bush is responsible for ALL THE DEATHS that resulted from the attack. But for the attack ordered by the mass murderer Bush, those Iraqis are still alive.
But that's a mildly complex response. So, as a matter of course, it went right over your head...for the 4th time.
An estimated 151,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the violence that has engulfed the country from the time of the US-led invasion until June 2006, according to the latest and largest study of deaths officially accepted by the Iraqi government.
The figures come from a household survey carried out by the World Health Organisation and the Iraqi health ministry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/10/iraq.iraqtimeline
Here're the death numbers of Iraqis murdered by Coalition forces from JUST the initial invasion:
For the major combat phase of the war from March–April 2003, Abu Dhabi TV reported on April 8, 2003 that Iraqi sources had claimed that 1,252 civilians had been killed and 5,103 had been wounded. The Iraq Body Count project, incorporating subsequent reports, has reported that by the end of the major combat phase up to April 30, 2003, 7,299 civilians had been killed, primarily by US air and ground forces.[62]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties
Is that enough death for you? I mean do you feel better about yourself now that you know this?
By the way, you still haven't shown the legal authority for the 'no-fly' zones.
We're waiting.
I'm also waiting for you to show everyone where the UN Security Council gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq.
-
I can see you take the bottom's view on relationships. BB's approach: Once your attacker has you beaten, on your knees, and subjugated, relax your sphincter muscle to make the experience more enjoyable.
Your foolishness knows no bounds. Your stats on voting mean nothing. Your reference to the welcoming of the troops is also irrelevant. Why even in this country we have sycophantic toadies that still support bush's mass murder of Iraqi citizens. Some of these bumbling supporters claim that the murders were justifiable self defense.
Remember the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue? That brought a tear to my eye. I mean the US went to all the trouble to fabricate the 'native groundswell' grateful for the US's murderous attack and yet the sham was exposed as a staged event.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
Instead of being a man, you must play the recalcitrant child parroting the same tired debunked war propaganda.
Let's proceed.
What problem did we strike at? The inspectors couldn't find the WMDs. The Iraqis never attacked us.
Where exactly is the problem? What was the pressing problem?
The inspections were happening. Nobody was under threat of attack. Where's the problem that needed fixing?
Take your time. We'll wait.
Let me get this straight b/c you're all over the fucking map on this one. WMDs in the wrong hands is the most pressing security issue of our generation. BB and his SECRET INFORMATION 'confirms' that Syria and Jordan had Iraq's WMDs and PRESTO, it's just not economically feasible to go after them.
Everyone, read that paragraph again b/c it's beyond the pale of reasonable thought.
And now for some more fun!Your fact is irrelevant. Why? B/c the best intel re Iraq's alleged WMDs was the findings of the Inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ SCOURING THE COUNTRY WITH UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS.
Your evidence was 10 years old. No good.
And now to destroy the "everyone thought Iraq had WMDs" myth.
What surprise! BB fell for more propaganda. You are the biggest cheerleader I have ever seen.
Now read this carefully:
How's the "everyone believed Iraq had WMDs" argument working for you?
I just destroyed your fallacy. Who cares about 10 year old intel? I'll tell you: Sycophantic toads like BB use 10 year old intel and myths to show that the murderous Iraqi disaster was not only necessary but good too.
The rest of your 'facts' in the section you quoted are not relevant to Bush's mass murder are they.
I tire of slapping you around. But let's continue. Do you even know what a fact is? If Satan or better yet, the ACLU told you a fact would you believe him/it?
What shock. You have the reading comprehension of Bush.
You have nowhere left to run so you repeat a question I've answered. Do you think repeating answered questions makes you look like some foppish Bill Oreilly pretender asking the 'hard' questions.
Here's your oft-answered question: It was within the legal right of the Iraqis to defend themselves from the illegal invasion of their homeland by Coalition forces ordered to attack by the mass murderer George W. Bush.
Bush is responsible for ALL THE DEATHS that resulted from the attack. But for the attack ordered by the mass murderer Bush, those Iraqis are still alive.
But that's a mildly complex response. So, as a matter of course, it went right over your head...for the 4th time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/10/iraq.iraqtimeline
Here're the death numbers of Iraqis murdered by Coalition forces from JUST the initial invasion:
For the major combat phase of the war from March–April 2003, Abu Dhabi TV reported on April 8, 2003 that Iraqi sources had claimed that 1,252 civilians had been killed and 5,103 had been wounded. The Iraq Body Count project, incorporating subsequent reports, has reported that by the end of the major combat phase up to April 30, 2003, 7,299 civilians had been killed, primarily by US air and ground forces.[62]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties
Is that enough death for you? I mean do you feel better about yourself now that you know this?
By the way, you still haven't shown the legal authority for the 'no-fly' zones.
We're waiting.
I'm also waiting for you to show everyone where the UN Security Council gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq.
You just can't stop stepping in it, can you? Ok, I guess I have time to expose your idiocy one more time.
So when I give facts now they are irrelevant?!? lol.. typical. Intel failures or no that WAS the intel thanks to people you voted for, liberal dems like yourself. (Remember, the SAME people who voted for the war in the first place. The same people with access to the SAME intel and came to the SAME conclusions as Bush. The same people who for the mostpart continue to fund the war.) But no, in your twisted crusade it had to be Dubya. I'm still waiting for an impeachment buddy. ;D
Once again I am forced to repeat myself for the doofus you are. WMD's being moved to Syria and Jordan BY IRAQ is not the same as those countries just "having" them in the first place. It was on Saddams hands and a calculated move. And since when was Saddam NOT a problem? He should have been deposed years ago. Do we let one of the worst dictators just slide? Should we have backed off so he could, once again, start srewing with inspectors and subverting their efforts?? That was his pattern.. US gets serious, he starts cooperating. The moment the UN takes over or we step back he's back at his shenanigans again. I suppose you think "Oh well let's just give him a another chance or two" after he'd already blown through a dozen or so. How many UN resolutions does he have to violate before.. someone.. does.. anything? . . . How many acts of war does he need to commit before we, ahem, "give him the boot?" Do we let him pursue weapons capabilities?? Do we wait until he pulls another 91 or worse?? Now we're trying to keep Iran out of the Nuclear fold and you would have rather have us dealing with an equally threatening and hostile Iraq?? I can see you won't be leading a foreign affair subcommittee or meeting with world leaders anytime soon, thankfully.
All those countries agreed he had WMD's. It's a fact (although coming from me I'm sure you CHOOSE not to believe it.) Show me where I said they supported action by US forces??!? Did I?!? Of course not. But in your fantasyland loose and obscure associations are plenty.
And let's say for the sake of argument that the Iraqi people had a "right to defend themselves" from our invasion. Than exactly what groups were blowing up civilians across the nation? Are you saying the people killing allied forces were defending themselves from our invasion and the same people who were deciding to slaughter each other for no reason? No, you moron. I will clarify.
Iraqi civilians didn't attack allied forces to "defend their nation" lol.. that one still makes me laugh. Terrorists, radical Islamic militants, groups killing to establish the next regime, etc. had the blood on their hands. These are the same people murdering troops and civilians alike. Oh no, but it can only be BUSH'S fault, right? hahahahaah, jesus.
The UN is not a world gov't. Frankly, the UN wouldn't even exist if it weren't for our support (and what a tragedy that would be considering they do SOOOOOOO much to keep world peace ::) Our NFZ's were just as legal as every term of surrender, concession, or spoil of war throughout the history of the world. Read that again since it didn't seem to stick the first 3 times I've said it. The surrendering country (and in this case, the aggressor) has to live with it, period.
You've tried and failed to blame a just war that we've won on one man who had the support of the very people you continue to support. Might as well blame yourself, genius.
You must really be miserable. Reality just can't reach you, can it? Bush isn't a mass murdering criminal. There will be no impeachment or criminal proceedings. USA won another war (yawn).. Killed another world-class A-hole.. on to the next line item. But I get it. Arguing with a blind and crusading drone is pointless. I can lead a fat guy to a treadmill but I can't...
So much for destroying any of my arguments, now aren't you late for a peace rally or does crying to Getbig 23hrs a day about how horrible it is to be an American take priority over your social life?
-
You just can't stop stepping in it, can you? Ok, I guess I have time to expose your idiocy one more time.
So when I give facts now they are irrelevant?!? lol.. typical. Intel failures or no that WAS the intel thanks to people you voted for, liberal dems like yourself. (Remember, the SAME people who voted for the war in the first place. The same people with access to the SAME intel and came to the SAME conclusions as Bush. The same people who for the mostpart continue to fund the war.) But no, in your twisted crusade it had to be Dubya. I'm still waiting for an impeachment buddy. ;D
I'm not sure what your point is b/c I'm having a difficult time making sense of your grammar.
Suffice it to say, there was mixed intel on some of the WMD points. Some for it. Some against it.
So why did Bush always claim the evidence was a slam dunk favoring WMDs in Iraq?
That's a lie of omission.
And for the purposes of whether Iraq had WMDs constituting a threat against the US, well, the inspections on the Ground in Iraq pretty much did away with that speculative conjecture, didn't they?
Once again I am forced to repeat myself for the doofus you are. WMD's being moved to Syria and Jordan BY IRAQ is not the same as those countries just "having" them in the first place.
Oh, so Syria and Jordan were just unaware of the WMDs that were moved enmasse into the respective countries.
Who secured those WMDs? Or are they still floating around? Isn't that one of the precepts of the War of Terror? Secure all WMDS so they don't fall into the hands of evil?
Coincidentally, you've just undercut your "Al Qaeda was in Iraq" argument. Think about it.
It was on Saddams hands and a calculated move. And since when was Saddam NOT a problem? He should have been deposed years ago. Do we let one of the worst dictators just slide?
First of all, you need a history lesson as to who was one of the worst dictators....Hussein was a pimp.
Should we have backed off so he could, once again, start srewing with inspectors and subverting their efforts?? That was his pattern.. US gets serious, he starts cooperating. The moment the UN takes over or we step back he's back at his shenanigans again. I suppose you think "Oh well let's just give him a another chance or two" after he'd already blown through a dozen or so. How many UN resolutions does he have to violate before.. someone.. does.. anything? . . . How many acts of war does he need to commit before we, ahem, "give him the boot?" Do we let him pursue weapons capabilities?? Do we wait until he pulls another 91 or worse?? Now we're trying to keep Iran out of the Nuclear fold and you would have rather have us dealing with an equally threatening and hostile Iraq?? I can see you won't be leading a foreign affair subcommittee or meeting with world leaders anytime soon, thankfully.
Hahahaha. How exactly was Hussein a threat to the US?
What acts of war? You mean the illegal impostion of illegal no fly zones over Iraq? That's an act of war. But that's not Hussein.
You use the same exact pre-emptive war justifications that Hitler used for invading Poland. Do you know that? You do now.
THe UN is a deliberative body comprised of many countries. If the UN wanted to authorize an attack of Iraq it could have.
In your warped mind and universe, you think the speedbumps in life should be nuked. You're a raving fool.
All those countries agreed he had WMD's. It's a fact (although coming from me I'm sure you CHOOSE not to believe it.) Show me where I said they supported action by US forces??!? Did I?!? Of course not. But in your fantasyland loose and obscure associations are plenty.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say again but the intel you refer to was conflicted yet passed off as a slam dunk by Bush and his cohorts.
And as I've already pointed out, those doctored ESTIMATES were soundly crushed by the scientific findings of the WMD inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ SCOURING THE COUNTRY WITH UNNANOUNCED INSPECTIONS.
Do you see that now?
And let's say for the sake of argument that the Iraqi people had a "right to defend themselves" from our invasion. Than exactly what groups were blowing up civilians across the nation? Are you saying the people killing allied forces were defending themselves from our invasion and the same people who were deciding to slaughter each other for no reason? No, you moron. I will clarify.
Iraqi civilians didn't attack allied forces to "defend their nation" lol.. that one still makes me laugh. Terrorists, radical Islamic militants, groups killing to establish the next regime, etc. had the blood on their hands. These are the same people murdering troops and civilians alike. Oh no, but it can only be BUSH'S fault, right? hahahahaah, jesus.
Have you ever heard of the Sunnis and Shia people making up the Iraq population? I didn't think so. B/c your explanation borders on nonsense.
See, the Sunni and the Shia are incompatible on ethnic grounds. Hussein kept a lid on the nascent civil war.
The US's illegal invasion removed that stop-gap measure uncorking a civil war.
Not only did the US methodically slaughter civilians, it unleashed a civil war.
The US is responsible for all of those deaths b/c but for the illegal invasion, those people are still alive.
Did you get that?
The UN is not a world gov't. Frankly, the UN wouldn't even exist if it weren't for our support (and what a tragedy that would be considering they do SOOOOOOO much to keep world peace ::) Our NFZ's were just as legal as every term of surrender, concession, or spoil of war throughout the history of the world. Read that again since it didn't seem to stick the first 3 times I've said it. The surrendering country (and in this case, the aggressor) has to live with it, period.
As a founding member of the UN, I would say that it would not exist without our support. Which makes your position even more untenable. Your boy Bush blew off the UN and attacked IRaq without authorization, thus the whole illegal thing.
It's hard for the UN to maintain its mission of peace when cocksuckers like Bush keep undermining its authority. Do you see how that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for the UN's failure? Of course you don't.
Hulk knows smasssssssssh.
Victory in Iraq some 20 years ago is not license for the victors to do as they fucking please. The terms of surrender were the terms of surrender.
Hulk smassssssssssssssssh surrender.....
You've tried and failed to blame a just war that we've won on one man who had the support of the very people you continue to support. Might as well blame yourself, genius.
Yes, the 700,000 dead Iraqis continue to support Bush. Thank you Mr. President for killing us and raping our country!
You must really be miserable. Reality just can't reach you, can it? Bush isn't a mass murdering criminal. There will be no impeachment or criminal proceedings. USA won another war (yawn).. Killed another world-class A-hole.. on to the next line item. But I get it. Arguing with a blind and crusading drone is pointless. I can lead a fat guy to a treadmill but I can't...
But for Bush's order, 100s of thousands of Iraqis are still alive today.
Bush is a mass murderer and you support his Nazi-like destruction.
So much for destroying any of my arguments, now aren't you late for a peace rally or does crying to Getbig 23hrs a day about how horrible it is to be an American take priority over your social life?
I destroyed your arguments with proof, logic and consistency. Since those things are foreign to your 'Hulk Smash' approach, you don't even recognize when you've lost.
Trust me, you lost. Not just the arguments either, you've also given up any claim you may have to your humanity.
-
I have no idea if the thread is off topic now or not, i just read the first page
but
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Lyndon Johnson
4. Andrew Jackson
5. George W. Bush
6. Carter
7. TR
Best guy that never got to be president? Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater
-
Best guy that never got to be president? Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater
...Ralph Nader, greatest living American citizen. He has done more for the average American than anyone since Lincoln.
The Luke
-
Umm, look at what George W. Bush has done? He was far worse in terms of dictatorship with phone tapping, Gitmo, waterboarding, not letting Congress have key witnessess testify etc...
How do you feel now?
-
1) Obama
2) Carter
3) LBJ
-
1) Obama
2) Carter
3) LBJ
1.obama
2.obama
3.obama
dude is black remember
-
Obama
Carter
Nixon
-
1.obama
2.obama
3.obama
dude is black remember
That's true. Unfortunately, he wasn't elected President on three separate occasions, so he is disqualified from being named three times. I know that the concept of term limits and rules regarding who can be President is a bit abstract and difficult to comprehend. However, with some sustained studying and meditation, I think you will understand it in due time.
-
That's true. Unfortunately, he wasn't elected President on three separate occasions, so he is disqualified from being named three times. I know that the concept of term limits and rules regarding who can be President is a bit abstract and difficult to comprehend. However, with some sustained studying and meditation, I think you will understand it in due time.
you arent familiar with satire i see..
its like when you say somethi.. ahhh fuck it.. no use
-
1. Wilson
2. Obama
3. LBJ/Carter