Bush reveals source of intel on WMDs
POSTED BY: deadlockvictim
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 00:10
VIEWED: 9980
PAGE 1 of 2
"...it's a bit complicated, but it seems that Osama bin Laden is indeed, a cat in a hat.."
or
Write your own caption.......
(photo via AP)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Some people read War And Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story; some people read this, and unlock the secrets of the universe.
Plus, this book shows how you can break all the rules, and still come out looking good.
I love that message- it's like...redemption or something."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
.."thank ya'll for coming out today to the opening of the G.W. Bush Library...."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Dick doesn't know I took it yet- think he'll shoot me? Har har..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
cat in a hat.."
I note for the record that The Cat in the Hat is a great book, although I always liked Green Eggs and Ham.
But I suppose that when reading to a room full of young children...he COULD have read from the classified intellegence briefing or perhaps had it read to them by Bill Clinton, AlGore, John Kerry, or 90% of the intellgence folks around the world and from nearly every country that gave half a damn (not counting Barrack Obama or anybody taking Saddam's oil bribes). But those folks and that CIA stuff is kinda dry, so unless its naptime, I applaud the President sticking to the classics.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
…”now if ya’ll will settle down…Condi, could you dim the lights a little, thanks…. It’s been ten years since I was prezdent and with the help of Karl and Dick and my wife Condi, I have completed my memoirs… from which I would like to read to you now….. ahem,
“It was the best of times…. It was the worst of times…. Ok, it was the worst of times… anyway, I like green eggs…….& ham…..”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Now children, you all know that the title of this book is a codename for my Disinformation Czar...he also goes by the name 'Hero' on the internet...and in his spare time, he enjoys roasting dead animals..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's right, Bagdhad Bob! Why yes, those Kurdish men, women, and children ARE just taking a nap during the daytime, falling right where they were standing, laughing and living, only a few moments ago.
WMD ? Don't be absurd! Iraq never had any WMD, and never used them on anyone ! Honest !
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"All right- who's is this? Y'all know this is one of the books banned in 2009 after I became The Enduring Decider, don't ya? Now, I won't call the Mind Correctors if ya just fess up...."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AU, you had to be a fucking asshole, didn't you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
"Some people read War And Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story; some people read this, and unlock the secrets of the universe.
Plus, this book shows how you can break all the rules, and still come out looking good.
I love that message- it's like...redemption or something."
I didn't think they were suppose to publish pictures from the White House situation room?
As for AU's point, hey if using gas to kill off rebelling Kurdish is that wrong, then we should be tearing down all the statues of Winston Churchill, after all he did beat ole Saddam to that punch by a few decades
The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
That's right, Bagdhad Bob! Why yes, those Kurdish men, women, and children ARE just taking a nap during the daytime, falling right where they were standing, laughing and living, only a few moments ago.
WMD ? Don't be absurd! Iraq never had any WMD, and never used them on anyone ! Honest !
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
Au - I don't think there's a question that Saddam *DID* at one time possess weapons of mass destruction, or programs to build and/or acquire same. After all, we had iron-clad proof that he did - Rumsfeld still had the fucking RECEIPTS! He, Cheney, Reagan, and others had been the very ones who sold him such things, all the while declaring "We don't negotiate with terrorists".
The real question was, did he still have WMD programs ongoing in the days leading up to our invasion of Iraq, and that question has been unequivocally answered (by every intelligence agency in the world, as well as by our own armed forces) with a resounding "No!" Seems that the sanctions and conditions put in by Bush the First (who the hell ever thought HE'D turn out to the be smart one in the family, huh?!) were actually doing what they were supposed to be doing - keeping Saddam bottled up and contained.
Now, back to the caption contest:
"Heh-heh... I hope y'all will come see my new Lie-Berry. I heard they're gonna have lots of kewl books and stuff there. I still wanna see how 'My Pet Goat' ends... Heh-heh... Y'know what I mean? Anyway, me talking gooder ain't the issue - you do..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
With Bush holding The Cat In The Hat in front of the class, I'm wondering who was teaching whom? Last time I saw a photo of him with a book was on 9/11/2001, and the book was upside down...I know these photo ops are a tough grind, but can't they at least make an attempt to stage it properly. Does every single iota of everything he does always have to be totally f'kd up?....and speaking of that...did ya see Bush in Africa yesterday dancing with some native girls....quite hysterical...looked like Anthony Hopkins as Capt. Bligh dancing in The Bounty with topless women 'round him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
President Bush goes to an elementary school to talk about the war.
After his talk, he offers to answer questions. One little boy puts up his hand and the president asks him his name.
"I'm Billy, sir."
"And what's your question, Billy?"
"I have three questions, sir. Why did the US invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? And whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?"
Just then the bell rings for recess. Bush announces that they'll continue after recess.
When they return, Bush asks, "OK, where were we? Question time! Who has a question?"
Another little boy raises his hand. The president asks his name.
"I'm Steve, sir."
"And what's your question, Steve?"
"I have five questions, sir. Why did the US invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? Whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Why did the recess bell go off twenty minutes early? And what the fuck happened to Billy?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
\Today’s review will be presented by former president and literary gourmand George Bush. Mr. Bush –
“A deeply haunting and thought-provoking novel that is a must read for both science fiction enthusiasts and all who struggle to understand the rich complexities of our human nature.
In a unique form of style, not quite novel and not quite play, the author offers a “mind-play” for the reader to envision the acts as they occur. This style is fluid and refreshing to this reader, while others may find it hard to follow. His writing is crisp and precise, evoking the images to appear in the mind’s eye, the emotion to choke the throat. A very well done piece of work! And them is some real purty pictures, too.”
edit to add: (off mic) "hey Condi, get a move on girl... we's got to be at that HEB parking lot by 4:30"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
This is a BOOK... and it's not the only one I've read.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
Is this the actual photo taken during Bush's first security briefing titled "Osama Bin Laden determined to fly planes into World Trade Center"? If so, are the FBI field reports of Muslim men taking flying lessons without landing training hidden somewhere between Thing #1 and Thing #2?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
are the FBI field reports of Muslim men taking flying lessons without landing training hidden somewhere between Thing #1 and Thing #2?
Oh, the things that you'll do!
Make that war go away!
Tell the Prez with a goal
You do not want to play.
He should not be declaring
WMD's are about,
He should not start a war
When your Congress is out!
Seussisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And if you read this book, like I do, you can be Prezdent someday.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And if you read this book, like I do, you can be Prezdent someday.
Signy,
you spelled President wrong but besides that, I could not agree more with your caption.
Dr. Suess has played a vital role in the development of millions of children around the world. I'll bet Bush is not the first, nor the last President to read and enjoy this cherished classic.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
AU, you had to be a fucking asshole, didn't you?
Oh, I'm ever so sorry. Was reality too much a slap in the face for you ? Where's the witty, funny signature you're so famous for, like 'deadisall', or 'gaspingforairwhilelungsburnisall' ???
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Au - I don't think there's a question that Saddam *DID* at one time possess weapons of mass destruction, or programs to build and/or acquire same. After all, we had iron-clad proof that he did - Rumsfeld still had the fucking RECEIPTS! He, Cheney, Reagan, and others had been the very ones who sold him such things, all the while declaring "We don't negotiate with terrorists".
The real question was, did he still have WMD programs ongoing in the days leading up to our invasion of Iraq, and that question has been unequivocally answered (by every intelligence agency in the world, as well as by our own armed forces) with a resounding "No!" Seems that the sanctions and conditions put in by Bush the First (who the hell ever thought HE'D turn out to the be smart one in the family, huh?!) were actually doing what they were supposed to be doing - keeping Saddam bottled up and contained.
Wrong. the answer was YES, and he was going to restart it as soon as we left him alone. The sanctions were FAILING ,as proven by the UN's food for oil scandal. Remember all those photos and reports of little children dying because of the Evil United State's tight grip on Iraq? It was all BULLSHIT, because 1/2 of Europe and Iraq, along w/the U.N. were trading under the table and LETTING the children starve and go w/ out their medicines. The U.S. was RIGHT to force Saddam's hand, because containment was a hoax.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
although I always liked Green Eggs and Ham.
I always heard Green Eggs and Ham was Communist propaganda. Didn't seem to work to well on you Hero.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Don't apologize, just stop being an assholeisall
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh, I'm ever so sorry.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Don't apologize, just stop being an assholeisall
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh, I'm ever so sorry.
I'll never stop dealing in facts. Deal w/ it.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'll never stop dealing in factoids. Deal w/ it.
Scared little man.
Dealing with it Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
See? There you go again, avoiding reality. Seems like of the two, you're the scared one.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are the one that needs things to be a certain way- I was prepared for them to find WMD's once upon a time, you can't let go of the NEED for the justification for war. You are the one scared of the endless terrorist threat to life & limb in America. You are the one believing what you are told by them that want iron-fisted control. You are the one with glue all over you.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
See? There you go again, avoiding reality. Seems like of the two, you're the scared one.
And I'm rubber
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Heh heh. What ever gets you through the night, lil man. 
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Wrong. the answer was YES
And furthermore, Saddam had made such great strides in WMD development that he made them INVISIBLE! Yes, INVISIBLE!
That's why Hans Blix, David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and those two hundred-thousand-plus USA military personnel and contractors to this very day have not found hide nor hair of them!
Oh, Saddam was very crafty indeed. He hid WMD so well even HE couldn't find them! That's why he couldn't use them to save his career!
That's what happens to invisible WMDs...
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That Saddam-I-am!
Than Saddam-I-am!
I do not like that Saddam-I-am!
I do not like VX and Sarin!
I will see them in a boat.
And I will see them in a moat.
I will see them here and there.
I will see them everywhere!
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I so love this thread. It's just chock full of everything I have come to anticipate from all of our fine bunch of reubens here. It's kind of a warm kindness that at least this place, in the whole big world, makes sense to me. And judging by the intensity of the barbs, jabs, and outright vulgarity, it only seems possible to only get better, because I certainly don't see nuthin' in the world getting better. I'm a hard-core moderate now, not fringed out over anything anymore. I got a good life....I'm very lucky, and no matter who or what becomes of our future President & country, nothing short of Muslim terrorists setting off a nuke on the golf course where I live next to upsets me anymore.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That Saddam-I-am!
Than Saddam-I-am!
I do not like that Saddam-I-am!
I do not like VX and Sarin!
I will see them in a boat.
And I will see them in a moat.
I will see them here and there.
I will see them everywhere!
We rule, Signy!!!
Bwuahahahahaisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Meat guzzling biped. I fart in your general direction. The Matrix has you- WAKE UP and take the red pill. If we were swimming in the same pool, I would SO splash you. You're off my Christmas card list. Kneel before Zod, punk.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Heh heh. What ever gets you through the night, lil man.
There. I know that was nearly deserving of a banning, but I don't care, you deserved it!!!
Psycho Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
Wrong. the answer was YES
And furthermore, Saddam had made such great strides in WMD development that he made them INVISIBLE! Yes, INVISIBLE!
That's why Hans Blix, David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and those two hundred-thousand-plus USA military personnel and contractors to this very day have not found hide nor hair of them!
Oh, Saddam was very crafty indeed. He hid WMD so well even HE couldn't find them! That's why he couldn't use them to save his career!
That's what happens to invisible WMDs...
Saddam would have been proud to know you were on his side.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Meat guzzling biped. I fart in your general direction. The Matrix has you- WAKE UP and take the red pill. If we were swimming in the same pool, I would SO splash you. You're off my Christmas card list. Kneel before Zod, punk.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Heh heh. What ever gets you through the night, lil man.
There. I know that was nearly deserving of a banning, but I don't care, you deserved it!!!
Psycho Chrisisall
Is it drugs which gives you such wild delusions ? Seriously. what's the secret ?
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bah, your desperate attempts to remain relevant once all the lies you so firmly believed in are exposed for the fictions they are amuses me.
I for one, find his pathetic verbal flailing quite gratifying now that the pedastal of bullshit he was standing on to inflate his own ego and self importance has been kicked out from underneath him - it shows in clear detail just how much alike both radical ends of the political spectrum are, cause you know... at this point he sounds a bit like another extremist poster around here, doesn't he ?
So by all means, continue to squirm, flail and act like a three year old throwing a tantrum, show folks the true face behind the mask of logic and reason you put forth to cover hate, intolerance and downright sociopathic meanness.
The only difference between you, and those jihadis you claim so much to despise is your religion and ethnicity - and it bothers you to look in the dark mirror and see your own heart, doesn't it ?
Every further word you spill like a flood of raw sewage from that piehole of yours just condemns you further, reveals that which you have tried for so long to deny, that you are different from them.
Believe me, I am all for putting radical fanatic assholes in their place, but when one is cleaning houses, it's generally a good idea to start with their own.
As such, folks like you are a greater threat than a disorganised bumblefuck several thousand miles away, and should be addressed first.
Of course, at this point you're doing a pretty good job of addressing yourself, so.. by all means continue to do so.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You and a few others seem to take delight in poking fun at Bush, all the while ignoring the facts that Saddam did have and use WMD , on his own civilians. HE USED THEM. Never mind that he got them from France, Germany and yes, the USA, Saddam still used them on his own people. That alone is reason enough to take him down. Fast forward to the Iraq war 1, where a cease fire, not a treaty , stopped us from marching on Baghdad. In short, Iraq had to abide by certain rules, or face military action again. It failed to meet those requirements, U.N. or not, and the U.S. was well w/ in its rights to demand Iraq comply, or face the music.
Oh, but it's funny to laugh at Bush for holding a Cat in the Hat book? Fuck all of y'all who want to ignore the facts and carry on w/ your petty attacks. No one is squirming or flailing here, quite the opposite. I saw this lame ass thread and decided to shed the light of reality on it, and some here scurried and scampered away like rats on a kitchen floor.
To those who are offended, I'm sorry that reality doesn't conform w/ your well crafted paradigm of hating all things Bush, or all things United States but guess what, you're flat wrong, and some day you're going to have to face that fact. Today's as good a day as any.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You and a few others seem to take delight in poking fun at Bush, all the while ignoring the facts that Saddam did have and use WMD , on his own civilians. HE USED THEM. Never mind that he got them from France, Germany and yes, the USA, Saddam still used them on his own people. That alone is reason enough to take him down. Fast forward to the Iraq war 1, where a cease fire, not a treaty , stopped us from marching on Baghdad. In short, Iraq had to abide by certain rules, or face military action again. It failed to meet those requirements, U.N. or not, and the U.S. was well w/ in its rights to demand Iraq comply, or face the music.
I "take delight" in poking fun at Bush? Hardly. Once upon a time, I wanted to be PROUD of my President. I wanted to believe that he was a good man, a man of honor and integrity, a man deserving of both the title and the office. And then this pathetic excuse for a man decided he'd single-handedly ruin the office, the title, and our credibility and respect in the world.
DID Saddam have WMD, at one time? Yes. He had chemical agents, and he had an active nuclear program, as well as biological programs. Did he have them still ongoing in the leadup to the war? NO! You claim that he *would have* restarted them once we gave him the chance; where's your evidence for that?
Also, is the mere fact of *having* WMD enough to get one overthrown? If so, I know a certain North American nation that desperately needs regime change...
You claim these things as "fact" - but no one, not one Administration operative, not one policy wonk, not one person, has ever provided any evidence that wasn't either grossly misinterpreted or outright fabricated. On this, sir, you and your beloved President have lost all of their credibility. You only get to cry "Wolf" so many times before the answering cry becomes "Bullshit!"
Fuck all of y'all who want to ignore the facts and carry on w/ your petty attacks.
That would be you, sir. Fuck you, and fuck you very much.
Quote:
No one is squirming or flailing here, quite the opposite. I saw this lame ass thread and decided to shed the light of reality on it, and some here scurried and scampered away like rats on a kitchen floor.
Your "light of reality" has no more evidence to back it up than Bush's weak-ass "justification" for invading Iraq. And they're both nothing but pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Quote:
I'm sorry that reality doesn't conform w/ your well crafted paradigm of hating all things Bush, or all things United States but guess what, you're flat wrong, and some day you're going to have to face that fact.
So now those who don't love all things Bush officially "hate" all things United States? Nice leap, fuckwit. Disagreeing with my government or my President does NOT make me un-American, nor does it make me a terrorist. On this score YOU, sir, are the one who is flat wrong. One hundred percent WRONG. Some day you're going to have to face that fact. And the fact that the blood of thousands of human beings is on YOUR hands - you and everyone who supported this misbegotten adventure.
Why on Earth would I believe ANYTHING you have to say at this point? You've never, ever, given one scintilla of real proof, and neither has your hero or anyone in his Administration. Instead, what they've done is dissemble, lie, question the patriotism of those who question them, and even expose a covert agent during a time of war - a crime that at least *used* to be punishable by a firing squad.
But, hey, you've got the "facts", right? Facts and your convictions - and I'm guessing that, by the time it's all said and done, this Administration will have an awful lot of convictions - but of a criminal variety.
So, in closing, I say sincerely, Fuck You, and fuck you again, and then fuck you some more. Your eyes are as closed as your mind. Now if only your mouth would follow...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, in closing, I say sincerely, Fuck You, and fuck you again, and then fuck you some more. Your eyes are as closed as your mind. Now if only your mouth would follow...
Hey Kwicko,
What you got against freedom of speech?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This where we go to get fvcked?
I think we're all pretty set on this issue. It's been discussed over and over and over...you know, you were here. There is no one to sway one way or the other, not on this topic. Others perhaps, but not this. The thread title was just asking for trouble.
I like to read Dr. Suess. Though not a big fan of Green Eggs and Ham.
*They're in a box with a fox wearing socks.*
---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is that your answer? "SIDES???" WTF does this have to do with sides? Or is sides what you use as a substitute for evidence and logic?
And furthermore, Saddam had made such great strides in WMD development that he made them INVISIBLE! Yes, INVISIBLE!
That's why Hans Blix, David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and those two hundred-thousand-plus USA military personnel and contractors to this very day have not found hide nor hair of them!
Oh, Saddam was very crafty indeed. He hid WMD so well even HE couldn't find them! That's why he couldn't use them to save his career!
That's what happens to invisible WMDs..- Signy
Saddam would have been proud to know you were on his side. - Auraptor
Yes, Saddam was a very bad untrustworthy man. Paranoid. Delusional. A merciless tyrant who created such a vicious dog-eat-dog system that eventually it drove him crazy. But yanno, I could say that about 50% of the world's leaders. So how do we decide who to invade, if anyone? Do we decide on the basis of what they MIGHT do? May as well nuke half the planet then.
No, usually we save invasion for those nations that pose an immediate threat. Now,
Did Saddam have stockpiles of non-degraded WMD a year before we invaded in 2003? Yes, or no?
BTW- Saddam may have been a fascist, but there was nothing "islamo" about him.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're right.
I think we're all pretty set on this issue. It's been discussed over and over and over...you know, you were here. There is no one to sway one way or the other, not on this topic. Others perhaps, but not this.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Please enlighten me sir, as to why this does not apply to Darfur and other countries RIGHT NOW where the regimes are killing their own people then?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Saddam still used them on his own people. That alone is reason enough to take him down.
Oh...you can't?
You truly are a biped.
Bottom line Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*Licks TWG*
I know, I was just waiting for him to stumble so I could kick him while he was down. 
I'm kinda nasty that way.
Was Kwicko who ran him over with a fuckin steamroller though.
(pun intended)
While not a rabid environmentalist, it was indeed ole Doc Seuss and the Lorax who made it clear to me how lack of respect for your living space and greed can boomerang on you, a lesson I have never forgotten.
My old elementary school actually banned that book from their library in 1990, what a world we live in, eh ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Please enlighten me sir, as to why this does not apply to Darfur and other countries RIGHT NOW where the regimes are killing their own people then?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Saddam still used them on his own people. That alone is reason enough to take him down.
Oh...you can't?
You truly are a biped.
Bottom line Chrisisall
Russia, Germany, France, England,the U.N. ( rawkus laughter ), etc.... any nation could take it upon themselves to go settle Darfur if they wanted to. Sorry, but it's not the USA's job to stamp out EVERY fire in the world, and judging from the lack of appreciation we're getting currently, I'd not be surprised if we ever helped anyone again. Hell, Europe had to wait until WE stepped in to do something about the Balkans, and that's right in their own back yard !
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Kwicko - Go fuck yourself. The evidence is plain can clear for all to see, it's been produced 1000's of times, you simply keep ignoring it. Read the UN Resolutions over and over again, if that's what it takes you to get it through your dense skull.
I'm guessin you think 9/11 was an inside job too, huh? Even less of a reason for me to carry on w/ the likes of you. Clueless myrmidon for the Hate America First crowd.
Oh, and I hope this pisses you off every day for the rest of your life...Bush won't be impeached. Nor will Cheney , Dr Rice or anyone. NONE will be taken to trial, why ? Because they're not criminals, they're heroes. That's right...BIG DAMN HEROES, as are the men and women of the US Armed forces who fought for this country.
That's the way it is, that's the way it'll always be, and you're just gonna have to face the facts and deal w/ it.
Oh,and btw..I never called Saddam an Islamo Fascists.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:LOL, oh, so only the fires YOU and you pals Bush & Cheney deem righteous, eh?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
it's not the USA's job to stamp out EVERY fire in the world,
I thought as much.
Self-justifying biped.
Your lack of empathy for the truly in need disgusts me.
Active wholesale rape & murder HAPPENING NOW just doesn't trump sins of the past, I guess.
Dumb biped.
I dismiss you as irrelevant.
Dismissive Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just the ones that are sitting on a boatload of oil, perhaps?
Sorry, but it's not the USA's job to stamp out EVERY fire in the world
Maybe that's why we leave N Korea alone, even tho the leader is a demonstrable nut-case with nuclear ambitions and a decent delivery system who is systematically starving the people to death?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Sorry, but it's not the USA's job to stamp out EVERY fire in the world...
Yes, apparently we only stamp out OIL FIRES - and only then if there's the hope or promise of cheap oil for us in it.
I'm betting that the day they discover oil or some other form of mineral wealth in the Darfur region, on that very day, it will become a vital moral emergency that we save those poor buggers.
Nice deflection of the actual question, though.
Quote:
Saddam would have been proud to know you were on his side.
Really? If I disagree with you and that other horrible incompetent asshole, George Dubya Bush, now suddenly I'm on Saddam's side? Is that how it works? So the majority of the American people are on Saddam's side now? After all, it's now a MAJORITY of the US population who feel that the Iraq War was a really bad idea.
Answer this: How many tours of duty did you do in Iraq?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Shall I round you up some photoshops of saddam with horns and a tail to embed with your senseless ranting there, Rap ?
Me, I'm laughing at the fact that collaborators are always rounded up first, you see - because they are not smart enough to be let in on the game, nor worthy of trust, having sold out their own... and usually get dragged off while pathetically screeching "But I'm on your side!!"
Watching that is one of the few consolations I'll probably have, since useful clueless fools like you helped chain that boat anchor to MY ankles too.
So damned if I'll not enjoy watching you sink first, all the while singing the praises of those who'll toss you overboard once they no longer need you - it's all you and your deluded ilk on both ends of the political spectrum have left us normal folk.
Whenever you enable Government to do something FOR you, you also then enable them to do it TO you, and if you think that will not, can not, or does not happen, then your only knowledge of history must come from the american public education system.
If the words "Department of Homeland Security" don't give you the willies, you really don't have a clue.
As for the rest, I dunno about you, but when I took the Oath it was "All enemies, foreign and domestic..." and unlike some, I took it seriously.
A buncha fanatics can kill us, but they alone cannot subvert or destroy our Constitution and use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper, only our own can do that to us, and it is them, and those like you, who enable them, above all else, whom we must protect it from.
You seem to have forgotten that.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Hey Kwicko - Go fuck yourself. The evidence is plain can clear for all to see, it's been produced 1000's of times, you simply keep ignoring it. Read the UN Resolutions over and over again, if that's what it takes you to get it through your dense skull.
I'm guessin you think 9/11 was an inside job too, huh? Even less of a reason for me to carry on w/ the likes of you. Clueless myrmidon for the Hate America First crowd.
Oh, and I hope this pisses you off every day for the rest of your life...Bush won't be impeached. Nor will Cheney , Dr Rice or anyone. NONE will be taken to trial, why ? Because they're not criminals, they're heroes. That's right...BIG DAMN HEROES, as are the men and women of the US Armed forces who fought for this country.
That's the way it is, that's the way it'll always be, and you're just gonna have to face the facts and deal w/ it.
Oh,and btw..I never called Saddam an Islamo Fascists.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
The evidence is "plain can clear"? Really? I'm not even sure what the hell that means... And you're right - the evidence that there WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION is plain and clear. The UN inspectors found no evidence of them, the Coalition of the Coerced found no evidence of them, and the US military found no evidence of them. The FABRICATED some evidence to justify the war, but since the invasion, they haven't found one single piece of a WMD program that's been verified. So whatever it takes you to get that through your thick, room-temperature-IQ-having skull, go with it.
9/11 and inside job? Nope, I don't believe that for one second. What I *DO* believe is that the attacks on 9/11 brought this country together, and Bush and his cronies absconded with that spirit to push their own fucked-up agenda.
He won't be impeached, no. Of course, you're wrong about the whole "taken to trial" part - demonstrably so. Scooter Libby alread WAS taken to trial, and convicted. Did you forget already, you simpering twit?
They're not heroes, they're criminals and cowards, and are the complete opposite of the men and women of the US armed forces who fought for this country. Your "heroes" are the people who like to uselessly throw away the lives of American service personnel, just to settle petty little personal scores or act out on their daddy issues.
Bush is a certifiable piece of shit, and will go down in history as the worst President in the entire history of this country. Those are the facts. Deal with it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Whenever you enable Government to do something FOR you, you also then enable them to do it TO you, and if you think that will not, can not, or does not happen, then your only knowledge of history must come from the american public education system.
A buncha fanatics can kill us, but they alone cannot subvert or destroy our Constitution and use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper, only our own can do that to us, and it is them, and those like you, who enable them, above all else, whom we must protect it from.Quote:
Frem: Thanks for that. That's beautiful.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Did Saddam have stockpiles of non-degraded WMD a year before we invaded in 2003? Yes, or no?
Just bumping the question that 'Rap predictably dodged.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Bush won't be impeached. Nor will Cheney , Dr Rice or anyone. NONE will be taken to trial, why ? Because they're not criminals, they're heroes. That's right...BIG DAMN HEROES"
Speaking of delusional - how's that economy going, Rap ? Because I've noticed that once facts turn inconvenient to your true believership you either dump them or deny them.
Great way to drive yourself into the arms of comfortable, happy, welcoming, fact-free reality-free insanity. Hope you enjoy your stay there.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's an insult to the mentally retarded. There's a difference between not having a much mental horsepower or using that capacity to justify a delusion. Auraptor, he's got a lot of horsepower but all he's doing is spinning his wheels and creating a lot of smoke. If that hp could just get a grip on reality he'd go like a bat outta hell.
So whatever it takes you to get that through your thick, room-temperature-IQ-having skull, go with it.
So, Auraptor: Did Saddam have stockpiles of non-degraded WMD a year before we invaded in 2003? Yes, or no?
Thanks Storymark.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:His excuse for not giving you his usual delusional response to that question will be that I dismissed him, I'll bet.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, Auraptor: Did Saddam have stockpiles of non-degraded WMD a year before we invaded in 2003? Yes, or no?
Plus, you are delusional yourself, Signy, if you believe we could ever get a nonsense-free simple yes or no from the man.
"Without peeps like AU, Plausible Deniability itself would be impossible."
It's been said Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
the evidence that there WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION is plain and clear.
Except for the ones Saddam used before 1991 and the ones he continued to pretend to be making until his downfall. He had a scheme to pretend to be hiding something...and he did that very well since he was in fact hiding the remnants and faking the existence of an ongoing program.
Quote:
The UN inspectors found no evidence of them
Except for the samples they had in their New York offices. Wrong file...
Quote:
the Coalition of the Coerced
Wow, talk about left wing rhetoric. Who was coerced? Countries could either join or not join. Some joined, some didn't, some even managed to do both and a couple managed to do neither.
Seems there is a lot of legitimate disagreement about Iraq, but this bit is silly.
Quote:
found no evidence of them, and the US military found no evidence of them.
They found remnants. A dozen shells here, a few canisters there, it added up to a nice little stash, but was mostly outdated and improperly stored.
They did find missiles that violated the range agreement. I note for the record that they found an entire squadron of advanced Iraqi fighters buried in the sand next to an airbase and a crapload of small arms stashed just about anywhere (schools, hospitals, mosques, Signy's house...all evidence of a plan to hide weapons.
Quote:
The FABRICATED some evidence to justify the war, but since the invasion, they haven't found one single piece of a WMD program that's been verified.
Most of the findings remained classified until 2006. Unfortunately it was too late. Saddam Hussein could take you on a guided tour of his secret chemical plant and you'd come out saying 'not true'.
The evidence is no longer relevant to the discussion. You reached your conclusion sometime in the summer of 2003 to adopt the WMD issue as false and to invalidate the cause for war. It casually overlooks the OTHER causes for war, which have been discussed at great length and then ignored.
Truth is the issue is moot. The question of 'whether we should have gone to war in the first place' is not relevant because...simply put...we are no longer in the 'first place'.
The issue now is 'we are at war in Iraq, how do we win?' Clearly the new strategy adopted by the President last year has been highly effective. Violence is down, the insurgency as collapsed, the outside support network has collapsed, the govt is showing signs of consolidation, and Iraqi forces are starting to take control.
One option is to continue the fight building up Iraq and then drawing down our forces while remaining ready and able to provide back up and support. In light of the situation this seems to
a strategy for long term victory, although in war there are no guarrantees.
Option two, flee for our lives...er...withdraw. Call it strategic redeployment, advancing to the rear, cut and run, surrender, call it whatever you want, choosing this option leaves Iraq on its own and invites further attacks in Iraq and on American interests around the globe. After all, if you kill enough of us, we give up...and by enough I mean a few thousand or so.
Oddly you could say the same about many of the tiny countries around the world. For example, killing 3,000 Liberian soldiers pretty much defeats Liberia...so its a good deal, knock off the biggest superpower at a bargain price.
Quote:
Bush is a certifiable piece of shit, and will go down in history as the worst President in the entire history of this country. Those are the facts. Deal with it.
Oddly, most Bush-haters decided this around November of 2000. Since then they are shaping the facts to suit the conclusion. Bush could have personally cured cancer in his White House lab and you'd be saying he experimented on to many rats or the vaccine is too expensive or anything and everthing you can to support the conclusion: 'Bush Bad'.
Fact
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except there was none.
Originally posted by Hero:
Most of the findings remained classified until 2006. Unfortunately it was too late. Saddam Hussein could take you on a guided tour of his secret chemical plant and you'd come out saying 'not true'.
Quote:Except he didn't.
Bush could have personally cured cancer in his White House lab and you'd be saying he experimented on to many rats or the vaccine is too expensive or anything and everthing you can to support the conclusion: 'Bush Bad'.
Quote:Like the two you listed above....okaaaaay.
Facts should shape the conclusion...not the other way around.
H
That was too easyisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think we should take the high road and avoid all the name calling.
Let's just get back to making fun of "The Decider" and let the sycophants focus on applying their KY.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Pssst! Little boy! Didn't anyone ever tell you that "pretend" guns aren't real?
the evidence that there WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION is plain and clear.-Kwicko
Except for the ones Saddam used before 1991 and the ones he continued to pretend to make
HERO, let's put this in terms you might understand:
I suppose you COULD make the argument that a paranoid wife-beater holding a fake gun looks as much a threat as a paranoid wife-beaterholding a real gun, so blammo! he's killed.
But that wasn't the case. Let's say that the man is being held and police are in the process of searching the guy's house, and they're not finding any weapons real OR fake. So cops from the next county come over and shoot the guy while the house is being searched because he "might" be a threat someday....
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Let's just get back to making fun of "The Decider" and let the sycophants focus on applying their KY.
"War for oil? See this book, you little punks? I'll rip it in half if I hear that again!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Like the two you listed above....okaaaaay.
You say there were no WMDs.
I say there were remnants in the form of several dozen warheads, several dozen morter and artillery rounds, and a relatively small number of storage containers...found in several scattered caches or abandoned weapons depots. Given the improper storage the weapons were largely inert or ineffective and possibly much of it was simply overlooked when the larger stockpiles were found and disposed of after 1991. Never the less those findings exist and amount to several hundred pounds of potentially lethal chemical weapons such as sarin and mustard gas, similar to the weapons he used on his own people in the 1980s.
Saddam also engaged in strategic deception to faake a hidden weapons program so as to maintain a false showing of strength and defiance in order to fool his enemies at home and abroad. If the invasion proved one thing it was the success of the 1991 military campaign to dismantle Saddam's ability to make war.
But you can't see beyond the conclusion...and that was made in the summer of 2004...two years before the facts were released.
I fault the Bush administration for two things in this regard. One, the findings, small as they were, should have been released immediately, along with the conclusion that Saddam was a faker. Two, screw the truth, we should have FOUND a stockpile...real or otherwise (I mean faked one). Now these two suggestions can't both be true...what I mean is we should have picked one or the other...the idea that we simply kept the truth quiet and didn't bother to lie is a major foulup.
Then again the case for war was so strong, even absent WMDs, that the issue is irrelevant. Even after the fact the war can be justified. Certainly we did not know about each town's torture rooms or the extent Saddam was brutalizing his people behind the scenes. Knowing after the fact justifies the war (in the same way that absent EVERYTHING else, the extermination of the Jews alone would have justified war with Germany even though discovered after the fact). Simply put, Justice demanded war, even though we did not realize it at the time.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero, I'd buy your WMD story except for one thing: There was an aggressive search for prohibited weapons going on when we invaded. It was our invasion that ended the search several weeks-to-a few months before it's conclusion. I guess you didn't read my example about the paranoid wife-beater who was killed by next-county sheriffs while his home was being searched by the police? That would be an appropriate analogy, I think.
Quote:There are torturers all over the world very bit as brutal as Saddam or even more so. People who killed hundred of thousands with our weapons. We support quite a few of them, if they're useful to "us". (Including Saddam.)
Certainly we did not know about each town's torture rooms or the extent Saddam was brutalizing his people behind the scenes. Knowing after the fact justifies the war
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, Auraptor:
Did Saddam have stockpiles of non-degraded WMD a year before we invaded in 2003? Yes, or no?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"several dozen morter and artillery rounds, and a relatively small number of storage containers...found in several scattered caches or abandoned weapons depots"
Well, if you haven't actually been attacked the standard for launching a legal war is 'imminent threat'. Did those constitute an 'imminent threat' ? I'm asking your legal-ship just out of curiosity.
"But you can't see beyond the conclusion...and that was made in the summer of 2004...two years before the facts were released."
UUhhhmm - actually, no. A number of people, myself included, said there were no WMD, that the UN inspectors should be allowed to finish the job of inspecting, that the threat assessment was full of holes, and that the only reason why Bush had to attack immediately was b/c the seasonal window of opportunity was closing.
So while YOU may feel stupid, the more thoughtful of us feel - vindicated. At having reached the obvious and logical conclusions.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Never said Saddam didn't need to go.
Originally posted by Hero:
You say there were no WMDs.
I say there were remnants in the form of several dozen warheads, several dozen morter and artillery rounds, and a relatively small number of storage containers...found in several scattered caches or abandoned weapons depots. Given the improper storage the weapons were largely inert or ineffective and possibly much of it was simply overlooked when the larger stockpiles were found and disposed of after 1991. Never the less those findings exist and amount to several hundred pounds of potentially lethal chemical weapons such as sarin and mustard gas, similar to the weapons he used on his own people in the 1980s.
Saddam also engaged in strategic deception to faake a hidden weapons program so as to maintain a false showing of strength and defiance in order to fool his enemies at home and abroad. If the invasion proved one thing it was the success of the 1991 military campaign to dismantle Saddam's ability to make war.
But you can't see beyond the conclusion...and that was made in the summer of 2004...two years before the facts were released.
I fault the Bush administration for two things in this regard. One, the findings, small as they were, should have been released immediately, along with the conclusion that Saddam was a faker. Two, screw the truth, we should have FOUND a stockpile...real or otherwise (I mean faked one). Now these two suggestions can't both be true...what I mean is we should have picked one or the other...the idea that we simply kept the truth quiet and didn't bother to lie is a major foulup.
Then again the case for war was so strong, even absent WMDs, that the issue is irrelevant. Even after the fact the war can be justified. Certainly we did not know about each town's torture rooms or the extent Saddam was brutalizing his people behind the scenes. Knowing after the fact justifies the war (in the same way that absent EVERYTHING else, the extermination of the Jews alone would have justified war with Germany even though discovered after the fact). Simply put, Justice demanded war, even though we did not realize it at the time.
H
Wow. That was a waste of an explanation...
Tired Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess you didn't read my example about the paranoid wife-beater who was killed by next-county sheriffs while his home was being searched by the police? That would be an appropriate analogy, I think.
A police example...excellent:
Actually, its dead wrong. In this case your analogy only fits if the wife-beater is NOT in custody and is in fact in the act of beating his wife in another room while your police are searching for his weapons (and ignoring the wife-beating...oh, and taking billions in oil bribes).
In such a case perhaps other officers arriving, finding the man in the process of beating his wife and armed with what appears to be a handgun (and with a known history of violence and threatening to use said weapon)...in that case I would fully support them if they felt the need to open fire AFTER (as in the case of Saddam) they identified themsleves and he was given an ultimatum to put down the gun and come out with his hands up.
I'd say, given those facts, the first cops were ineffective and or corrupt, while the second cops were very much able to restore order and enforce the law. I'd maintain that position even if the apparent handgun turned out to be much smaller and likely inoperable then originally thought (because he was intentionally concealing the condition of his gun...for whatever reason).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
"Which one of you reprobates tore the pages out of this book? Kwicko, aren't you a little old to be in this class, and what's that you have in your mouth."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"several dozen morter and artillery rounds, and a relatively small number of storage containers...found in several scattered caches or abandoned weapons depots"
Well, if you haven't actually been attacked the standard for launching a legal war is 'imminent threat'. Did those constitute an 'imminent threat' ? I'm asking your legal-ship just out of curiosity.
Your comparing what we actually found with what we and EVERY other intellegence agency in the world THOUGHT we would find (and what Saddam was pretending to have). If we thought we'd find a whole big program ready to start firing on day one, then yes it was an imminent threat.
But I would argue, based upon history, that imminent threat is NOT the standard for launching a legal war. Causes for war can be many, just causes are slightly fewer. Legally speaking an American war is legal if Congress says the President can do it (and in modern times this can mean a lot of different degrees, such as his limited authorization to deploy troops under the standing authorization of the War Powers Act...or as broad as a declared war).
But what about international law says you?
Thats much easier. In Korea, for example, the United States was not attacked or threatened with attack. We had no mutual defense treaty with South Korea. What we had was authorization from the United Nations to act under their authority. Such authorization is not necessary or binding and many wars have been waged in the absense (the British fight with Argentina, India wars with Pakistan, the Arabs and Isrealis, etc.)
In this case the UN authorized large scale military action against Iraq on two occaisions. First in 1990, which later became the 1991 Gulf War. Second in 2002, which resulted in the 2003 invasion. The first conflict was never resolved and ended in a cease fire under which the Iraqis promised a crapload of stuff. Most of their promises where never honored, thus technically is was game on pretty much anytime we wanted another round (Clinton used this to justify the 1998 Lewinsky Storm...he also cited the need to prevent Saddam from "threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons").
Another favorite example of mine is the thousands of Kuwaiti civilian and military prisoners who were supposed to be returned...but have never been found (Iraq acknowledged them, but I guess they got misplaced although mass grave sites continue to be investigated and some remains have been found in recent years).
The 2002 authorization was somewhat vague...on purpose, because France and Russia (bought and paid for by Iraqi oil money) opposed a strongly worded statement. But in the end being vague left it open to interpretation and ultimately we relied on both resolutions and the spirit of all the ones in between to give our operation the UN stamp.
But your original premise that Iraq must have been a threat is far to simplistic to encompass the whole of international law.
Quote:
"But you can't see beyond the conclusion...and that was made in the summer of 2004...two years before the facts were released."
UUhhhmm - actually, no. A number of people, myself included, said there were no WMD, that the UN inspectors should be allowed to finish the job of inspecting, that the threat assessment was full of holes, and that the only reason why Bush had to attack immediately was b/c the seasonal window of opportunity was closing.
There were a lot of reasons to invade, Bush rattled off a bunch when he addressed Congress. The anti-war types looked close, picked one and decided that one was the all or nothing.
Ultimately the final decision was Saddam's. We said 'get out or we'll invade', at that point he could have gotten out and would probably still be alive today.
But you are correct. The seasonal window was closing and many of our troops were in position. While it would have been better to have another month to soothe Turkey into letting us de
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:LOL, oh, so only the fires YOU and you pals Bush & Cheney deem righteous, eh?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
it's not the USA's job to stamp out EVERY fire in the world,
I thought as much.
Self-justifying biped.
Your lack of empathy for the truly in need disgusts me.
Active wholesale rape & murder HAPPENING NOW just doesn't trump sins of the past, I guess.
Dumb biped.
I dismiss you as irrelevant.
Dismissive Chrisisall
Where's the rest of the world's " empathy " ?? Oh, they don't get such scrutiny, do they? We save 1 region, we're expected to save them all ? Sorry Alice, the real world don't work like that.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, Auraptor:
Did Saddam have stockpiles of non-degraded WMD a year before we invaded in 2003? Yes, or no?
.
There were stockpiles of illegal munitions, chem warheads, which he wasn't suppose to have. The key you're adding is " non -degraded " . Gee, why would you say that ? Because it's known that old suppplies, still ILLEGAL supplies, were unaccounted for by Iraq. That being the mustard gas, which he never reported, until found. Another misnomer that there HAD to be " stockpiles " is a media made concept, not one that the U.N. or the US felt was vital. Chem weapons can be stored in vary small containers, there need not be " stockpiles " of any such material at any one place. It's likely that stuff is buried out in the desert, or was shipped over to Syria, right before the war.
But everyone already knows this, you're just babbling about the obvious.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Eff the biped once again.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
We save 1 region, we're expected to save them all ? Sorry Alice, the real world don't work like that.
We 'saved' them? I thought it was to protect ourselves? Oh well, there are many reasons, I guess.
So we picked the easiest target- that's fair. We wouldn't want to be saving innocent women and children who are actively being murdered when we can pound on a more or less spent regime for killings in the past.
I expected a better unreasonable rationale from you, AU- this is how a grade schooler biped might respond.
Sincerely, Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:See? Incapable of a yes or no.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There were stockpiles of illegal munitions, chem warheads, which he wasn't suppose to have. The key you're adding is " non -degraded " . Gee, why would you say that ? Because it's known that old suppplies, still ILLEGAL supplies, were unaccounted for by Iraq. That being the mustard gas, which he never reported, until found. Another misnomer that there HAD to be " stockpiles " is a media made concept, not one that the U.N. or the US felt was vital. Chem weapons can be stored in vary small containers, there need not be " stockpiles " of any such material at any one place. It's likely that stuff is buried out in the desert, or was shipped over to Syria, right before the war.
BTW AU, you never break the law, huh? Never go a couple miles over the speed limit? That endangers people you know. You oughta be shot for that, I guess.
*and AU misses the analogy*
So Saddam got rid of weapons on the eve of our emminent attack? Sorry, mad, evil dictators don't work that way, Alice.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Your comparing what we actually found with what we and EVERY other intellegence agency in the world THOUGHT we would find (and what Saddam was pretending to have). If we thought we'd find a whole big program ready to start firing on day one, then yes it was an imminent threat.
To say that "we and EVERY other intelligence agency" thought anything with any consensus or certainty is a lie. Not a misstatement, not an exaggeration, but an outright LIE. You're lying, plain and simple. You are fabricating the truth; you are making things up out of whole cloth. You say WE thought this, and that's simply not borne out by the evidence. Bush and his dimwitted cronies repeatedly had their people insert words that the intelligence experts kept removing, such as the infamous "16 dirty words" in the State of the Union. Eventually, some of those things got through, and then they were given the air of truth - what Stephen Colbert coined the term "truthiness" to describe - things that sound like they OUGHT to be true, but which are simply not true. In other words, LIES.
Also, we had the British and Italian intelligence agencies working on outright forgeries of documents "proving" that Saddam had a nuclear program. These were roundly dismissed by nearly every reputable intelligence agency that reviewed them, yet Bush & Co. still passed them off as "proof". They weren't proof; they weren't even close.
Oh yeah - all this happened WELL BEFORE the runup to the invasion, not (as you stated) just last year. It was a known fact, in the intelligence agencies and in the real world, that the Administration's "proof" was false, well before he even gave his State of the Union address in which he lied.
As you've said already, you and the "heroes" in the administration are completely willing to lie in order to justify an illegal invasion, so why are you trying to convince me that you're telling the truth now? You're a liar, and known and proven to be such.
Mike
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts DO!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Eff the biped once again.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
We save 1 region, we're expected to save them all ? Sorry Alice, the real world don't work like that.
We 'saved' them? I thought it was to protect ourselves? Oh well, there are many reasons, I guess.
So we picked the easiest target- that's fair. We wouldn't want to be saving innocent women and children who are actively being murdered when we can pound on a more or less spent regime for killings in the past.
I expected a better unreasonable rationale from you, AU- this is how a grade schooler biped might respond.
Sincerely, Chrisisall
Well, there was the Balkans, which still has US soldiers there. Then there's Somolia, which working w/ the U.N. proved to be such a HUGE F-ING success. The hard fact of the mattter on Darfur is , no one ,not us, not Europe, not Japan, not Australia wants to waste their military saving folks who don't want us there in the first place.
At the very least, we should get something back for our troubles.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"Stockpiles"??? Tell me, how many of something does it take to make a "stockpile?" I think all together they may have found about 500 bits and pieces of mostly degraded stuff all over Iraq. Certainly not a "stockpile" of anything, especially as it was scattered about.
There were stockpiles of illegal munitions, chem warheads, which he wasn't suppose to have. The key you're adding is " non -degraded " . Gee, why would you say that ? Because it's known that old suppplies, still ILLEGAL supplies, were unaccounted for by Iraq.
Furthermore, why would Saddam deliberately hide something for a decade that would degrade in two years or less? Either Saddam was utterly stupid because he was "stockpiling" bit and pieces of useless junk, or it was accidental. Either way, it's not a threat.
And he didn't "account" for the WMD that he destroyed? EGAD! We invaded Iraq because of an ACCOUNTING ERROR???? Man the green eyeshades! Full speed ahead!
So let's see... we invade in 1991. Saddam's army is in full flight, leaving behind tanks, rockets, and other weapons... a few chemical warheads... several drums of mustard gas. And shortly thereafter Saddam destroys his MWD, missing a few bits here and there. Bits and pieces which would do him no good because they'd been lost. And that's why we invaded Iraq.
Yep- makes sense to me.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kwicko.... not only am I NOT lying, I'm right. Flat out, dead on right. And that's what burns your noodle, doesn't it ? You literally can't handle the truth, so you sooth your frustration by claiming I'm lying. When we both know I'm not. All Bush, who is far more brilliant than you and most of this board, did was to force the Intel guys to put their $$ where their mouth was. For over 10 yrs, the intelligence gurus spun tales of this and that being done in Iraq. When Bush then is about to send troops in , based on THEIR intelligence, some start to hymm and haw and start the double speak.... Bush wasn't having any of it. Some pin head intel guys get their widdle feelings hurt by big , bad mean Mr Bush, and start crying like little bitty bitches. F-them! Bush has far more important things to worry about than whether weenie Lifer agent in the CIA getting demoted a pay grade or two because he F-d up the story of what was going on in Iraq for the past 10 yrs. Oh, I know, it's not a easy thing to do , but it's ONLY his G-D JOB!! God forbid we send troops into harms way and weenie intel guy has to fess up that he's been jerkin' off for the past 10 yrs, and only writing shit that's made him look good by GUESSING Saddam is on the verge of this or that weapons system.
The British ? They still stand by their Yellow Cake / Niger findings, so any claims that they've been " dismissed " is bullshit. So sorry.
I'm not the liar here, you are, and it's all because you hate Bush, hate America and hate freedom.
F you now and forever, Jihad lovin' meat puppet.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:True, actually. To lie, one must know the truth, and you know nothing of that, therefore you cannot lie.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not the liar here,
Quote:You'd make a very good Nazi, AU.
you are, and it's all because you hate Bush, hate America and hate freedom.
Quote:Hey you effin' biped, stop with name calling or I'll report you to the mods!!!!
F you now and forever, Jihad lovin' meat puppet.
Notimeforjerkswhocallfolknamesisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ha-ha. Made ya break out the "nazi" slur.
I win !
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, I missed this part
Quote:You don't know much about chemical or bioweapons, do you? I know I've told you before, but I'll say it real slow this time and maybe it'll sink in.
Chem weapons can be stored in vary small containers, there need not be " stockpiles " of any such material at any one place. It's likely that stuff is buried out in the desert, or was shipped over to Syria, right before the war.
All... of... Saddam's.... weapons .... were.... INCAPABLE... of... being...stored...for...more...than... two... years...except... mustard... gas.
After a year or two in the summer heat they go kaput. There is absolutely no sense in squirreling away bioweapons and CWs for the future; all you'll have is a container of degraded crap.
AFA sending it to Syria.... If Saddam was so damned paranoid and dangerous, whyever would he think that he might actually get his WMD back?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess I made it easy for you then.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ha-ha. Made ya break out the "nazi" slur.
I win !
AU, if you weren't such a pleasant, agreeable fellow outside of the RWED, I wouldn't even bother with this here...
Later.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Then again the case for war was so strong, even absent WMDs, that the issue is irrelevant. Even after the fact the war can be justified.
Really have enjoyed reading both sides of this debate, but Hero's comment is the only thing that really stood out to me.
Congrats on the win Auraptor. The other side's fixation on WMD's makes it impossible for them to see the facts you have so clearly laid out. It seems pointless to argue with the usual suspects on this issue, but I'm sure many others reading your posts with an open mind are more enlightened because of them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero, as usual you are wrong, and I have a detailed discussion saved and ready to post with all the particulars.
But I have a question for you:
Which of the many rationalizations do YOU accept as the LEGAL basis for the war ?
'Enforcement' of UN resolutions (in contravention of the UN's charter)
Imminent threat
Preventative war (not a recognized international standard)
Hussein not leaving Iraq in 48 hours as 'required' by Bush as a condition to avoid attack
Other
The reason I ask is b/c you seem to have no clue as to why exactly it was OK to attack a non-attacking, non-threatening nation.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So to retierate...
All of Saddam's weapons were INCAPABLE of being stored for more than two years except mustard gas. There's absolutely no reason to think that Saddam could either squirrel them away in the desert for "later", or (even stupider)give them way with the ideas that (a) they wouldn't be used ON him (b) he'd get them back and (c) they'd be "good to go" if he did get them back.
Quote:Facts? Like... what???
The other side's fixation on WMD's makes it impossible for them to see the facts you have so clearly laid out
I think we have a folie a trois.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap
"I'm right. Flat out, dead on right."
PN feels he's right, too. We don't take his word for it, so why should we take yours ?
***************************************************************
And how's that roaring economy doing ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap
"I'm right. Flat out, dead on right."
PN feels he's right, too. We don't take his word for it, so why should we take yours ?
Not mine, the UN Resolutions, the cease fire agreements for Iraq, their failure to live up to their obligations.
I'm tired of having to go over these things every fucking year, year after year, simply because some have it out for Bush. This has nothing to do w/ him, just the facts. I wish the haters would simply face reality and get over it.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
AU, you had to be a fucking asshole, didn't you?
More name calling, huh.
We should pull out of Iraq, so they can go back to taking naps.
Keep Flying!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Not mine, the UN Resolutions, the cease fire agreements for Iraq, their failure to live up to their obligations."
Uhmm, well the UN chrter forbids nations from attacking other nations under color of UN authority without specific UN authorization. Which, if I may point out, the US failed to get.
So, why are you right, again ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Tholo:
More name calling, huh.
Biped.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wonder what the thread(s) was that made me like you guys. It couldn't have been in RWED. Five years ago I read something somewhere and decided you all were intelligent fun folks...and you are...but a newbie would think we are all mean jerks that hate each other. We don't! (Do we?)
Continue arguing/debating. It's great entertainment and sometimes I learn things.
Chris,
What's with Stargate Atlantis without Jewel? I don't watch it, but that's sorta like blasphemy on this board, isn't it?
---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Not mine, the UN Resolutions, the cease fire agreements for Iraq, their failure to live up to their obligations."
Uhmm, well the UN chrter forbids nations from attacking other nations under color of UN authority without specific UN authorization. Which, if I may point out, the US failed to get.
So, why are you right, again ?
U.N. Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, in short gives any member nation (that's us ) the right to use military force on Iraq if it does not abide by the sanctions agreed upon by the U.N. and Iraq.
Iraq failed to abide, we responded, eventually, w/ military force.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Which of the many rationalizations do YOU accept as the LEGAL basis for the war ?
'Enforcement' of UN resolutions (in contravention of the UN's charter)
Imminent threat
Preventative war (not a recognized international standard)
Hussein not leaving Iraq in 48 hours as 'required' by Bush as a condition to avoid attack
Other
First of all your list is not exhaustive.
Second, there is no reason to pick one...I pick them all and all the ones not mentioned.
Third, there is a distinction between a legal basis for war and casus belli (which is the reason for war). As I pointed out, the legal basis for American war is found in the Constitution and ranges from the limited consent of the War Powers Act to the broad consent of a full declaration of war...I would argue the the Iraq resolution and the post 9-11 resolutions fall in between and can be withdrawn (another option is to defund the war).
Quote:
The reason I ask is b/c you seem to have no clue as to why exactly it was OK to attack a non-attacking, non-threatening nation.
Thats subjective. I could argue my reasons and opinion all night, you simply dismiss them as having 'no clue'. Thats because while you disagree you lack the reasonable basis to refute the arguments, you cant, for example, argue the historical development of the so called 'international law' nor can you defend the Saddam regime. You argument amounts to simple saying "nuh uh" and pouting.
I note for the record that your non-threatening, non-attacking Iraq had a record of brutalizing its people, attacking its neighbors, funding Palestinian terrorists, harboring some nasty terrorist types, including some Al Queda types folks in the north, tried to assinate the first President Bush after he left office, and regularly fired on US and British warplanes flying in the no-fly zone established as part of the cease fire agreement after the 1991 war. This to is not an exhaustive list.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sadly, TWG, it appears for some the facade of intelligence, reason and tolerance was about as real as those WMDs...
This is what some folk look like when the mask comes off, is all, and the primary reason why I ain't debatin em, just pokin em with a stick once in a while to watch them flail about in a rage like any other angry primate.
I only really bother if theres an actual possibility of rational discussion and you are correct, it's become less and less common around here as of late thanks in part to a level of rabidity and fanaticism that I, personally, find dangerous as a whole no matter the direction it takes.
But knowing how that thought process works, and watching it in action is essential, critical even, to throwing monkeywrenches in the works thereof, a defensive practice I am most fond of.
We could of course, just flat ignore them and discuss something else.. Manga, for example, I think you'd get a big kick out of The Wallflower, a series the Fremgirl recently picked up, it seemed something that would appeal to your sense of humor and weirdness.
Let em rant, I just wanna watch and label all the gears and levers so I know how and when to pull em to get the results *I* want out of it.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Tholo:
More name calling, huh.
Biped.
hehehe, as compaired to quadrupeds hahahaah
Keep Flying!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look, Auraptor, first you say Iraq had WMD. The, when you're shown icontrovertibly that the weapons of WMD they had were degraded beyond use, your resort to the Syria gammbit. When you're shown that Saddam would likely not have "given" WMD to Syria, you say Saddam was a "bad man". When it's pointed out to you that we supported Saddam when he was useful (yanking the moralistic rug out form under your feet) you whine... "Well,, the UN resolutions....!" AS IF you gave a fig for anything that the UN had to say!
So if you're so hot to enforce UN resolutions, why don't get bent about THESE?
Resolution 127: " ... 'recommends' Israel suspends its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " ... 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " ... determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " ... 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " ... 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
Resolution 250: " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 252: " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " ... 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " ... 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): cease fire in Yom Kippur War
Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
Resolution 347: " ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425 (1978): 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was completed as of 16 June 2000.
Resolution 427: " ... 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " ... 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " ... 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " ... 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " ... 'str
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Non related issues, Sig. Nice try though.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I pity you Rap....
You live in an even scarier world than I do in my own mind from day to day. Until this thread, I really thought that quite impossible.
I hope you find whatever it is you need to cope from day to day the next 8 years when we don't have a white male "Christian" in office anymore to protect you from all the bad guys in the world. The only thing I want to see less than Barack Hussain Obama in office is to see McCain in office, but he is going to win this.
Your hero just made white Christian men so stinking unpallatable that I do believe it will be a very long time until we see another one in office. Your hero just made it possible to break traditions that haven't been able to be broken for 200 years.
In 2009 we will have a Muslim in office because of your hero. I hope you can live with that. I'd truly miss your posts here if you couldn't.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I pity you Rap....
You live in an even scarier world than I do in my own mind from day to day. Until this thread, I really thought that quite impossible.
I hope you find whatever it is you need to cope from day to day the next 8 years when we don't have a white male "Christian" in office anymore to protect you from all the bad guys in the world. The only thing I want to see less than Barack Hussain Obama in office is to see McCain in office, but he is going to win this.
Your hero just made white Christian men so stinking unpallatable that I do believe it will be a very long time until we see another one in office. Your hero just made it possible to break traditions that haven't been able to be broken for 200 years.
In 2009 we will have a Muslim in office because of your hero. I hope you can live with that. I'd truly miss your posts here if you couldn't.
6ix...why are you attacking Auraptor like this? In all the posts he's ever done, I've never once seen him refer to President Bush as "his hero". I would think you and the others here who continually attempt to make points with him would recognize and appreciate having an opposition voice here amongst the overwhelming throng of Dems. Libs, and non-traditionalists. That's what make this board fun and lively...differences of opinion and alternative interpretations of preceived realities. It would not be any fun, and you and most others would never even look at these boards again if everybody had the same views. I used to be on Right Nation.net. I hadn't been there in about a year, but the other day I went back to see what's going on there....jeeeesh!..Just one personal attack with obsceneties after another, and then with 20-50 posts all chiming in unison how they all must be right. It accomplishes nothing, as does it's counter-part, the many left-wing sights spewing forth their vitriolic hatred en masse. I want to believe that Browncoats are more flexible in their ability to appreciate, not agree mind you, but at least appreciate another side to things. So many "cons" have left this board, I would think the few that are left would be greatly appreciated for their contribution to the activity that so many here seem to enjoy every day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can agree with all of that Jongs, except for the part about him not calling Bush a hero:
"Oh, and I hope this pisses you off every day for the rest of your life...Bush won't be impeached. Nor will Cheney , Dr Rice or anyone. NONE will be taken to trial, why ? Because they're not criminals, they're heroes. That's right...BIG DAMN HEROES, as are the men and women of the US Armed forces who fought for this country."
Big damn heros they all are, it would seem.
I just can't agree with that at all, and everything I said about Bush in my last post I believe 1000% percent. He has ruined the office for all white Christian males. Before, there was a healthy competition from minorities and women to run for office. Today there is an unspoken hatered and distrust of white males in office and Osamabama is going to ride that wave to the top. I worked in politics longer than he's been a Senator, in a state which actually has shut down bars and resturants because of their unconstitutional ban on smoking. Brave new world, here we come.
All thanks to Bush Co.
As much as I can't wait to see the guy leave, the world is going to suck even more after he is gone. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME