Bush Administration's latest excuse... - Page 5

reds4ever · May 28, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Every thread starts when I get to it.

You should run for President

Anyhow it's getting too late for all this. nite, nite all

Master Zen · May 28, 2003, 23:51

too late here too and as usual, not worth it

DinoDoc, since this thread started once you got here feel free to continue it as you wish...

reds4ever · May 28, 2003, 23:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
too late here too and as usual, not worth it

DinoDoc, since this thread started once you got here feel free to continue it as you wish...

DinoDoc · May 28, 2003, 23:56

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever
You should run for President

Thank you.

Quote:

DinoDoc, since this thread started once you got here feel free to continue it as you wish...

I was going to give a serious reply to your post before this one but if you're not interested...

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 09:01

"elijah mentioned 9/11 and I thought it was obvious that we were talking about Afghanistan"

Look how well that turned out. Id hardly say that striking Afghanistan was an effective act of self defence, considering it served to anger the same people who could potentially attack you. Did it destroy Al Qauda? Doesn't look like it. If anything, such foreign policy serves to polarise and anger them more. It would appear that if you are interested in stopping terrorism, that is exactly the response you dont want. You are not dealing with a conventional military that plays by the rules of conventional warfare. You are dealing with a largely civilian phenomenon that the military is ill equipped by its very nature, to stop.

Besides, I always assumed Afghanistan was a form of bloodletting to give America a sense of gratification after the wounded pride of 9/11. September 11th, 2001, as I have said many times before, GET OVER IT!!!

Sava · May 29, 2003, 09:16

It's so sad that so many people bought the Bushies' reasons for going to war. Saddam is bad, don't get me wrong. It wasn't ever about whether or not Saddam was bad. Tony Blair made that case effectively. He told his people what he believed. But with Castro, Quadafi, the Saudi gov't, Kimg Jong Il, etc; around... I don't think Saddam sticks out as someone that needed to be removed with such urgency. Bush lied... plain and simple. How incompetent do you have to be in order to lie to get people to agree with the removal of Saddam?

sheesh! Wolfowitz is a jag-bag... that's all I have to say about him and his American Enterprise Institute, new-world-order, 4ssholes!

18 months until we can rid our country of these lying, self-serving wh0res that somehow squeeked their way into office.

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 09:22

Is it true that the democrats actually got more votes than the republicans??? If so, why do the electoral colleges have any power whatsoever?

I dont like Saddam either, as a libertarian, he is everything that I fight against. However, my views, like the Americans on him are subjective, but I for one like to think that I have the objectivity to step back, view the big picture, and recognise the flaw of forcing my point of view on someone else. That is after what war is... the imposition of will.

Jac de Molay · May 29, 2003, 09:22

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
Besides, I always assumed Afghanistan was a form of bloodletting to give America a sense of gratification after the wounded pride of 9/11. September 11th, 2001, as I have said many times before, GET OVER IT!!!

Well, the main source, the wellspring so to speak, of al-qaeda operations was in afghanistan, so I supported the invasion. Something had to be done.

As for Iraq, I'm not surprised we were lied to. The administration has used 9/11 for all kinds of purposes- including the next Rep convention. I find it most interesting that the media has backed off on the ultimate question -- Where's the Stuff?

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 09:27

"Well, the main source, the wellspring so to speak, of al-qaeda operations was in afghanistan, so I supported the invasion. Something had to be done"

In principle perhaps, but not in practice, didnt really serve any purpose. A few people were captured, a few cells destroyed, a few training camps destroyed. Meantime America gets greater influence in that region, close to the central asian oil fields and china.

If they really wanted to stop the terrorism, theyd change their foreign policy, and have a more concerted, long term, low profile intelligence op.

Sava · May 29, 2003, 09:37

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
Is it true that the democrats actually got more votes than the republicans??? If so, why do the electoral colleges have any power whatsoever?

Yes... even in Florida, where the recount was stopped, Gore came out 50,000 votes ahead. Funny how that happened in the state where Jeb Bush is governor. Overall, Gore got close to a million more votes. But that's water under the bridge now.

Quote:

I dont like Saddam either, as a libertarian, he is everything that I fight against. However, my views, like the Americans on him are subjective, but I for one like to think that I have the objectivity to step back, view the big picture, and recognise the flaw of forcing my point of view on someone else. That is after what war is... the imposition of will.

Yes. I wouldn't be so up in arms against the war if it truly was about liberation. But Bush cares more about passing on pork and wasting taxpayer money than any moral cause. Iraq was planned well in advance of him even taking office, let alone 9-11. The most outrageous load of crap he sold the American people was equating 9-11 with Saddam. Most polls around the US showed that the majority of people think Saddam directly was responsible for 9-11. Democracy cannot function in the face of such ignorance.

oedo · May 29, 2003, 09:38

Quote:

If they really wanted to stop the terrorism, theyd change their foreign policy, and have a more concerted, long term, low profile intelligence op.

the Bush admin profits from terrorism. terrorism gives them any argument to do whatever serves their needs.

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 09:40

Agreed. If I am correct, there wasnt a single Iraqi hijacker on the 9/11 flights!!! I believe that Saddam Hussein hated Al-Quada in the first place... they had no love for each. Selling lies, propaganda and simplistic rubbish wrapped up in the flag is not good enough in this day and age imo.

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 09:41

Its in the Americans interest to keep the Middle East unstable. Where do you think the arms industry makes an absolute killing, so to speak?

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 09:44

Oedo's sig:

"It was amazing I won. I was running against peace and prosperity and incumbency.

George W. Bush, speaking with the Swedish Prime Minister, unaware that live cameras were rolling"

Sava · May 29, 2003, 09:46

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
Agreed. If I am correct, there wasnt a single Iraqi hijacker on the 9/11 flights!!! I believe that Saddam Hussein hated Al-Quada in the first place... they had no love for each. Selling lies, propaganda and simplistic rubbish wrapped up in the flag is not good enough in this day and age imo.

Yup, And that's why I'm so upset. I'm actually more disappointed in Bush's ineptitude politically. From a political POV, mustering support for removing a tyranical, murderous dictator should be easy. Blair did it. But Bush had to lie.

And in terms of the war and getting world-wide support... Bush should have agreed with France's little reported "alternative". Which was to put in 50,000 UN troops to take over inspection. That would have no doubt given the US the solid UN support it needed to legitimize it's war. Again... another political blunder. But in retrospect, this would have been a bad idea for Bush because it seems as if there weren't any weapons to find anyways!

oedo- Bush doesn't necessarily "profit" from terror. But you are on the right track. In the American Enterprise Institute's published 2000 report on MidEast "reform". They mentioned the benefit of a domestic terror-act to their political agenda.

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 09:53

Hillary Clinton for President 2008!!! Like to see her with some female intern

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 09:53

Actually, not sure thats such a bad idea!! Think America could use the female touch, as opposed to riding around in tanks all the time.

oedo · May 29, 2003, 09:55

Sava: http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/6...tunityAges.htm

there are countless links about this issue, if you care to take a look:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&i...G=Google+Suche

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 09:59

Just seen the link. Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the death of American democracy.

GePap · May 29, 2003, 10:00

The notion that it was done for beaurocratic reasons is absurd, and another outright lie. WMD and ties to Al qaeda were chosen because that was the only way to make the case to the American people that Iraq was a direct threat to the US. Yesterday in ahrdball they showed a poll taken March 20, for the reason people backed the war: 27% said regime change was most important, 48% said removal of WMD's. The only way the Admin. could have built the type of public support they did was to paint Saddam as a direct threat (hence the inclusion in the Axis of evil, whic had to be about more than just being a dictator).

The sad part is that the People, the same that didn;t really care about liberation, now accept that liberation wasd always what they hoped for, and if the info. on WMD's was incorrect, well, harmless lie.... I wonder how mnay more "harmless" lie from this admin., or just from future governments will the people of the US allow.

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 10:02

GePap: Are we both smelling the same thing? Are we smelling the foul odour of desparation among the Americans to keep this war justified?

oedo · May 29, 2003, 10:02

take it easy, elijah! yet they are only links. but this issue definetly needs more investigation than it got up to now.

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 10:05

"take it easy, elijah"

Awww, but its fun to be melodramatic!!

Sava · May 29, 2003, 10:11

nice link oedo...

I think most people don't want to admit to themselves that their government isn't a bastion of freedom and democracy. It's so easy to ignore the facts and go on with their lives like nothing is wrong.

I can't say that I blame the sheepish masses. It's hard to compete with TV. And the American media is a powerful machine of misinformation.

orange · May 29, 2003, 10:12

Quote:

...can't stand that stupid son of b*tch.

Son of *****!! I kill you!!

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 10:13

I sincerely hope this situation is rectified soon. Any ideas?

Sava · May 29, 2003, 10:18

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
I sincerely hope this situation is rectified soon. Any ideas?

yeah... 18 months... next election. That's the only "legal" way. I still think it's hilarious that Clinton got put through the impeachment process for lying about sex. Yet, Bush is lying about war, WMD, terrorism, etc; all more important than sex; yet there is no public outrage.

Whaleboy · May 29, 2003, 10:21

Apparently having "relations" with an intern is worse than scr3wing humanity!

Sava · May 29, 2003, 10:23

now you're getting it!

DinoDoc · May 29, 2003, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
Look how well that turned out.

Pretty well, all things considered. More can and should be done however.

Quote:

Id hardly say that striking Afghanistan was an effective act of self defence, considering it served to anger the same people who could potentially attack you.

The people that wanted to attack us were already angry. Do you suggest that the police shouldn't cracdown on criminal organizations because it might make them angry?

Quote:

Besides, I always assumed Afghanistan was a form of bloodletting to give America a sense of gratification after the wounded pride of 9/11.

What does that have to do with the notion of self defense as it is enshrined in international law? Turning the other cheek, a laudible notion as it is, is an unworkable utopian ideal in the international realm.