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 | ||
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6430 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
Because I didn't insult anyone's intelligence. :o
Where is this magical UN document, geeogree? Let's see it. Produce to me a DEFINITIVE piece of literature that has all the empirical truths necessary to link Saddam DIRECTLY to Al-Qaeda. Why would a secularist Ba'athist help religious extremists? How would that benefit him, other than destabilizing his country? Geeogree, Clinton BOMBED the weapons plants, not because he was lying about the WMDs, but because he couldn't get inspectors in. Bush could. Clinton didn't bomb civilian areas, Bush did. |
|||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6472 days Last view: 6472 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree I'm not mad at only Bush, but the whole fucking system. Even if Clinton lied, he didn't break international law when he used military force. Bush rushed into this war, because he had momentum on his side. This war is imperialist in nature. The U.S. needs cheap oil to sustain itself. And before you call me a paranoid conspiracist, Wolfowitz, in his analysis of American foreign policy, even said this. Wolfowitz said that the U.S. has the right to sustain itself by military force; he even used Mid-East oil as an example in the document! Bush has multiplied the aggression in U.S. foreign policy in an already aggressive policy. This man is a threat to world peace and humanity as a whole, not that other leaders are pure and clean either. |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6445 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
yeah, he is aggressive.... but it's about time somebody stepped up and acted rather than sitting around talking about the problem.
talking to Saddam, or Osama was never going to get the job done. People like that don't respond to diplomacy. |
|||
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6430 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
geeogree, it did work.
And it does work. Saddam Hussein was the leader of a nation, ergo strong diplomatic stances would've worked. Bin Laden represents a loosely knit group of terrorists and therefore there is no leverage the international community can use to incite diplomatic speech. |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6445 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
it worked on Saddam? how?
the sanctions didn't stop him from filtering billions of dollars from the oil for food program. They also didn't stop him from trying to build weapons. Sure, it may have hindered a little bit, but they really only hurt the people, not the leader. |
|||
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6430 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
That's unrelated, as the Oil For Food program was inherently flawed and hindered by the endless beauracratic red tape the UN has to put up with.
Now, tell me. How did diplomacy fail in the lead up to the current conflict? Hm? Bush got inspectors in. The inspectors said they could find nothing. BOMB! |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6431 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree Ah, yes, the "you used a flawed argument so now flawed arguments are valid, except of course when you use them" argument. Plain and simple: The reason for going to war with Iraq was WMDs, after over 2 1/2 years NONE were found.
The majority of the Democrats aren't looking to "cut and run". They are simply asking for a clear timeline for withdrawal. Anyone who believes that if we stay there long enough, we will stop the insurgency is living in a fantasy world. Even after the creation of the transitional government, insurgencancy has only increased. Basic public services have yet to be completely restored, the most Sunnis don't support the occupaton, or the new government. Also maybe the "Bush lied" statements have become an "incessant drone", I guess people can be pretty persistant when they want to see accountability for the false intelligence that led to a war.
Clearly the author doesn't understand the vast difference in the amount of intelligence available to the President versus the congress. The CIA processes a huge amount of "raw intelligence". It can be anything from rumors, to documents, to information taken from interrogations. Some of it turns out to be true, others false. That's why its called raw intelligence. Only once information has been verified by multiple peices on intelligence is it supplied to congressional commitees. What the Administration did was pick through raw intelligence and pulled out pieces that supported their arguement for war and presented the to the congress and public as fact. If they honestly didn't know the information hadn't been properly verified, its incompetience. If they did, it lying, plain and simple. Basically what the author of this article is saying is "He couldn't have been lying if they believed him".
Don't you think involvement in a war that is not getting better, and no has timetable for withdrawal is a little more demoralizing than people questioning the Bush Administration?
Iran couldn't occupy Iraq any better than we can. Stability needs to brought to this region, but simply taking over countries and replacing there government isn't the way to do it, it just makes matters worse (as we've seen). Those advocating the theory that turning Iraq into a democracy will somehow create stability in the region, have yet to give a full explaination of how one leads to the other. And contrary to popular believe there are actually several democracies in the region.
Seriously, does anyone care to explain how the war in Iraq, resolved problems with North Korea?
Ah, there it is the obligitory, but pointless reference to 9/11. Really, what does that have to do with anything?
The reason for the majority of the insurgency IS our presence. As long as we are there, there will be insurgency. The main issue here is we went to war over WMDs that clearly never existed. I don't think its unreasonable to expect some sort of investigation into what was actually known before sending our troops into battle. |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6445 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
abscence of proof is not proof of abscence | |||
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6430 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
Ummm, complete and utter lack of proof.
A genuine lack of ability. The financial inability. Hmmm...Logic states that it was pretty much impossible that Iraq had the ability to produce bio-chemical weapons in a way that would be genuinely harmful. More over, they lacked the delivery system to do it EFFECTIVELY. Yeesh, they were using ancient Soviet SCUDs that were retrofitted to carry heavier yield conventional explosives. And the concept of them even having a structurally sound nuclear weapons development program is LAUGHABLE. |
|||
Randy53215 Melon Bug Since: 11-17-05 From: Greenfield, Wisconsin (U.S.A) Last post: 6431 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree Not to mention that MSNBC just showed Kerry and another democrat about a year ago saying they believe we should be at war. Way to go! With that said, my friends brother has seen radioactive cassings in Iraq with all the tools to make WMD's. |
|||
DarkSlaya 930 Gamma Ray Since: 11-17-05 From: Montreal, Canada Last post: 6431 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
US has WMD, let's bomb them.
Iraq doesn't even have them and they got bombed. And I'm with people saying that there were no reasons to attack. Oh, and everyone lies, that's a known fact. If someone says they never lied, well they're lying. |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6431 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree More flawed logic. There is no need for proof of absence, the burden of proof is on the accuser. |
|||
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6432 days Last view: 6431 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Randy53215 Your brother is a specialist in nuclear technology and was on the front lines fighting? What the hell? (lol'd at the friend's brother, did you ask him directly, or just your friend?) Anyways, it doesn't matter what happened, it matters what we do about it now. Then we can worry about what happened. |
|||
Skreename Giant Red Paratroopa Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6437 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
Occam's Razor. 2 possibilities: Saddam had the weapons and decided not to use them on the forces who went in specifically to depose them with some bizarre motivation... Or he simply didn't use them because he didn't have them. Which is easier to believe?
Of course, this also applies to the current situation. He has them, but cleverly hid them where nobody (including his own forces, apparently; I doubt they'd have any issues with nuking attacking American forces), or actually dismantled his program, leaving the remnants where people have been finding them. I don't think anyone's views will be changed by this, either way, though. |
|||
Deleted User Banned Since: 05-08-06 Last post: None Last view: 6431 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skreename I'm not trying to step in on either side here, but I have two comments: 1. Why would Saddam use WMDs if he had them on said US forces given it was his own country being invaded? Maybe it's me, but that's just being fucking retarded. Of course, WMDs still feels a vague catchword to me for something. 2. Occam/Ockham's Razor applies to competing concepts and opting that one is more likely to be true based on its simplicity over the other. But, remember, humans often aren't going to do that~ Edit: WMDs tends to invoke an image of a nuclear device, I wasn't thinking about the possibility of the use of toxic gases. Saddam seemed to have no problem using toxic gases (aflatoxin) on the Kurds in the late 1980s. I suppose chemical and biological weapons could have been employed. What I'm curious are these things: 1. What happened to those supposed mobile chemical labs inside the trailers that were reported? 2. If the intelligence that Congress received was different, why haven't they been clearer on publicly explaining the differences? All I've largely heard is that they're claiming it was different. There's other things I'm curious about as well for either side, and I want to make that clear. (edited by Thayer on 11-23-05 11:03 AM) |
|||
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6430 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
Randy, what exactly does he mean by "nuclear casing"? Is it possible it was spent uranium munitions that the US forces use? I mean, if you were to explode those the particle spread could be highly damaging (very dense) and potentially toxic. A dirty bomb, if it were. I'm surprised the insurgency hasn't been spending more time looking for these bullets to put into pipe-bombs. Maybe they are. I've stopped following the story that closely. | |||
Shane Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: IRELAND!!! Last post: 6442 days Last view: 6431 days |
| ||
Bush is a retard, he is mentally insane and he somehow convinced most of the american people that the war was good. Seriously, anyone stupid enough to support Bush needs to be hit repeatedly over the head with a baseball bat. There, I said it!
No offense to you Bush supporters or anything but seriously though, why? |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6445 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
bush supporters need to be hit in the head...
but no offence intended.... maybe you need that hit in the head too |
|||
Thexare Metal battleaxe Off to better places Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6431 days Last view: 6430 days |
| ||
Some people shouldn't even be allowed to post in debate forums. I think anyone who seriously tries to use "retard" as an insult is on that list.
Yeah, I'm sure Bush has lied about things. That's politics for you. I'm sure that every president in the last hundred years, regardless of party affiliation, has lied. But other than that, Ziff said pretty much anything I could've thought of. |
|||
Shane Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: IRELAND!!! Last post: 6442 days Last view: 6431 days |
| ||
Sorry I DID get a little carried away there. sorry dudes:/ |
Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Bush Lied? | | |