 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Bush Lied? |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep                  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6309 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| [edit] for all those that think Bush lied about why he wanted to go to war with Iraq [/edit]
try searching for: Clinton Iraq 1998 and see what you get (edited by geeogree on 11-19-05 11:06 PM) |
|||
drjayphd Torosu OW! BURNY!   Since: 11-18-05 From: CT Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| tl;dr
(Seriously, though, you mind actually posting something regarding what you're saying? I'm not going to go search for it before trying to provide a rebuttal. You're trying to say something about the Clinton administration, say it. Don't make us do the work.) |
|||
|
Cymoro Administrator    Since: 11-17-05 From: Cymoro Gaming Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| tl;dr: don't attack him cus he did it two >(
Seriously, American presidents lie, we get it. Hell, we have to put up with their shit. (edited by Cymoro on 11-19-05 11:35 PM) |
|||
Arwon Bazu  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Who cares if he lied or not? The war was a stupid idea that has turned out badly, regardless of whether he lied or not to start it. | |||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
| This war is only making more terrorists. U.S. foreign policy was already aggressive, but Bush has multiplied its aggression. Saddam was arguably the most secular Middle East leader. | |||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| I assume you're refering to Operation Desert Fox. Before that attack Iraq wasn't cooperating with UN inspectors, whether they were or not, that alone was enough reason to believe they had WMDs, or were attempting to develop them. There was no need to lie.
Let's compare time lines: Operation Desert Fox: Clinton threatons Iraq with military action if they don't cooperate with inspectors. Iraq agrees to cooperate, an attack is adverted. A few days pass. Iraq is once against refusing to cooperate with inspectors. The US and UK attack Iraq. A couple of days pass. After bombing targets thought to most likely aid in the production and development of WMDs, the US and UK withdraw. Operation Iraqi Freedom: Bush threatons Iraq with military action if they don't cooperate with inspectors. Iraq agrees to cooperate, inspectors report that they've found no WMDs. A few days pass. The US and UK attack Iraq. 2 years, eight months pass Still not timeline for withdrawal. (edited by emcee on 11-06-06 02:12 AM) (edited by emcee on 11-06-06 02:14 AM) (edited by emcee on 01-28-07 02:59 PM) (edited by emcee on 01-28-07 03:29 PM) |
|||
|
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6300 days |
| ||
| Ok, without having bothered to search for what you asked me to search (it's 6.24 am and I came home from a loooooong shift at the pub), I'm just going to assume that what you're trying to say is that "Bush lied, but you can't be pissed off about it, because Clinton also liedl"... Now, all I'm wondering is this: Is politics only made up out of those who like Democrats and those who like Republicans? What about those who don't really like either of them? Why must people 'cross the pond insist on believeing that politics must be defined along a bipolar spectrum? | |||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
| Long live the socialist revolution. | |||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6309 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
okay, maybe this will get my point across better.... 
[edit] check this out too http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html [/edit]
Iraq - The Politics of Pulling Out Reprinted with permission from Doug Edelman With polls showing support for the war in Iraq declining, and President Bush's personal popularity in a tailspin - it has suddenly become fashionable to be anti-war. (At least for those whose politics are blown by the winds of "fashion".) Much has been made of the call by Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania for withdrawal of our troops, as though the Administration had lost some sort of Democratic ally... but Murtha's been opposed to Iraq for years... it's not news. The "no WMD" argument is weakening, in the light of finding 1.77 tons of enriched Uranium, 1700 gallons of chemical agents, Sarin-filled artillery shells etc. (Ok, we haven't found a nuke, or bio-weapon ready to launch… but if I may borrow a point from my favorite radio personality, Randy Tobler… Those same Liberals that defend evolution against Intelligent Design stating the the "missing links" just haven't been found yet; these are the very same Liberals that accept a PRESUMPTION that WMD never existed just because there has been little success unearthing them.) So the Dems needed a new banner to wave. The usual Leftist suspects have added a "cut and run" call for immediate withdrawal to their incessant drone of "Bush Lied, yada yada". They're all acting as if our going to Iraq was not only an evil conspiracy - but that they were dragged into it against their wills - kicking and screaming with their heals leaving deep divots! Convenient amnesia has taken hold in the House and Senate. These prominent Democrats, who have hitched their wagon to the Sheehan exp "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons; there is no question about that." Nancy Pelosi "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Ted Kennedy "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." John Kerry "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion." Harry Reid And there are many others. The hypocrisy is staggering, though not surprising. The question is, were they insincere and playing politics when they made the statements, or are they insincere and playing politics now in their flip-flopping – now that public support of the War Effort is waning? There is no soul - no character - no depth of conviction in these liberals. To adapt a line from the late JFK, they will tell any lie, espouse any position, reverse any statement, assail any nominee, spend any amount, cowtow to any billionaire, to attain and maintain political power. So, as it appears the current winds of sentiment are blowing from a war-weary direction; the Sheehanites, aided by the Mainstream Media, and energized by the 2000th death in Iraq, geared up the "Withdraw Now" campaign... and the Dems are buying into it. But while they're advocating Iraqus Interruptus (pulling out too soon); let's give some thought to the real issues involved. We talk about "supporting the troops", but the most demoralizing thing to those troops deployed in harm's way today is the very prospect that they may be withdrawn with the job left undone. The TROOPS believe in what they're there doing! Despite the media's touting of military recruitment being down... RE-ENLISTMENT among those troops DEPLOYED in harm's way has never been higher! How can we "support the troops" without supporting their mission?? When it comes to world peace, security and stability issues - the words "middle east" are always at the center of any discussion. Iraq MUST be stabilized. The insurgency MUST be quelled. To pull out before Iraq is ready to provide for their own security is to simply hand over the region to civil war, and ultimately to Iran! Imagine the confederacy of Iraq/Iran/Syria in a post-withdrawal scenario. Look at the positive effects on the world scene that our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have wrought: Afghanistan has been liberated and the Taliban routed. Another fledgling democracy is taking flight in the Middle East - a region desperately needing more beachheads of freedom. Saddam is deposed. A man who himself was a weapon of mass destruction is neutralized. Iraq has held elections, passed a constitution, and is moving toward self-sufficiency... but it's not there yet. Libya has abandoned its nuclear aspirations. Khadafi has been tamed without firing a shot south of Iraq. North Korea has been contained through the 6-way talks... and they didn't get the one-on-one that Kim Jong Il (and John Kerry) wanted. Pakistan has gone from antagonist to ally. Relations between India and Pakistan have warmed and they may actually work out the Kashmir situation. All these are corollary effects of the actions in Iraq. Additionally, the world is finally beginning to understand the true scope and nature of the Islamo-extremist Global War OF Terror. But all we hear about is the 2000 bodies. (Let's remember the 3000 lost on 9/11!) Of course, we don't want to maintain high troop levels in Iraq longer than necessary – and as the Iraqi Army gains the ability to take the responsibilities for their own security, we CAN begin phased withdrawals. But we must do so responsibly – in a situationally responsive manner and not by some artificial timetable. We will draw down our forces, but we must not leave a vacuum. Remember what happened when we scurried out of Southeast Asia under Nixon. We must maintain a certain level of presence in Iraq long term, and should establish permanent bases in the region. Rapid deployability must remain a priority as the region will always be a contentious place. Copyright © 2005 by Doug Edelman (edited by geeogree on 11-20-05 01:40 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| I, too, like loose conjecture and angry rhetoric :o | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I stopped reading about the time it linked the evolution debate with the search for chemical and biological weapons. | |||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Same here. It's also an obviously biased article, given it calls Democrats liberals. They aren't liberals; in any othe country, Democrats would be conservatives or moderates at the most. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| OMFG BIAS | |||
|
drjayphd Torosu OW! BURNY! Since: 11-18-05 From: CT Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| While I'm not on our paper's editorial board, I can guarantee that article's author would get laughed out of the newsroom once whoever's reading hit the first full paragraph. That evolution/WMD link isn't just tenuous, it's about as structurally sound as a spider web at the ass end of a jet engine. Got anything that isn't hysterically ill-argued? | |||
Doppelganger 8DS  Since: 11-17-05 From: 65 00 20 00 65 00 1F 00 65 00 2F 00 Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| It is a retarded argument. We know how bush lied, decieved or whatever. All presidents do at some point, and Bush is no exception, except for the fact that he'ss easy cannon fodder, notto mention he's done some rather radical things. Also, for that article posted in here, good god, evolution and WMDs? Please.
The best thing that could happen about the war right now would be to pull out immieiately. BUT, the (imperial) senate has voted like 403-3 against it. Looks like this isn't happened anytime soon. Now, who's up for some CNN? |
|||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6309 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| I love how you guys get mad because the article is biased..... as if none of your opinions right now aren't biased...
you all see "bush lied" and you jump along and say "he sure did" open your eyes and realize that maybe.... just MAYBE.... he wasn't lying maybe he was telling the truth as he knew it to be. read the linked article (not the same one as the one I posted) and it explains where the intelligence that Bush used came from.... it came from Britain, France, Germany, Russia.... and they all agreed about the conclusions of what it all meant... (edited by geeogree on 11-20-05 10:37 AM) |
|||
|
Doppelganger 8DS Since: 11-17-05 From: 65 00 20 00 65 00 1F 00 65 00 2F 00 Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| Did we find any WMDs? Answer that for us. =o | |||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree Pointing out how a leader lied is not being biased. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree I see no one getting mad. I see people ripping on a poorly written article. DrJay and I are both involved in media, and the rest of the people here are at least intelligent. Geeogree, I think you're the one that needs to experience the world with open eyes. It is overly apparent that he was lying. The war was to finish daddy's business and to get rid of an annoyance. Saddam Hussein was hardly a danger, but with the Ba'ath party gone...who is to fill the gap? Well, we just got rid of moderately oppressive secularists. Now we get to bring in theocratics, Islamists and extremly violent dictators that want to re-establish Caliphates all across the Old Islamic Empire. And trust me, with the bitter divide in the Muslim world, their reigns are going to be a lot bloodier and a lot more hard to make democratic and free. Um, no. The US collected intelligence was primarily British and American. It had spots of Turkish and Saudi intelligence. Russian intelligence on Iraq wouldn't expand beyond basic weapons capability and a really effective look at trade. That's about it. The Russians don't like to get their fingers into their allies business at this time. They've got enough to have their fingers in. The French are quite the same way, they'd rather stay out of the intel game. Germany, I'm not very knowledgable about that nation's current military. As for their agreeing, I'm going to have carefully examine that article and find its sources. (edited by Ziff on 11-20-05 02:28 PM) |
|||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6309 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| Dei: it's very possible that we didn't find any.... but do you honestly think that Saddam just left them lying around to be found? he wasn't letting the weapons inspectors find them either so I'm betting they got moved when the US announced it's invasion.
Wurl: but did he actually lie? have any of you had the chance to look at the intelligence reports that were used to decide on this war? probably not. and if Bush was lying about WMD's in Iraq then Clinton did too. Ziff: hardly a danger? sure, maybe not directly to the US but for sure indirectly. There is evidence coming out of the oil for food scandal linking Saddam to Al Queida. So yeah, maybe Saddam didn't shoot any americans, but he helped fund terrorism. oh, and insulting my intelligence.... does Ziff get a warning for flaming? of course not |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Bush Lied? |
| |
