kiltboy 0 #26 November 10, 2003 QuoteOK, if a guy that is known to kill and torture people on a scale like, say, maybe only 200 people or so, was walking around your nieborhood with a big gun and a Malitov Cocktail would you just want him left alone to do those things? Now increase the scale to country size, and add in the fact that he could have still, if left in power, affected you and your nieborhood directly, that should answer your question. The problem I have with that explanation is.... Consider that the idiot in question went into a friends neighbourhood ten years a go and got the shit kicked out of him by you. He realises that he can't compete due to the ass kisking and stays at home licking his bruises. Then someone who lives next to that guy (who just got a kicking) does commit an atrocity on the scale of 9/11 and gets what he deserves. The first guy is not likely to try something having had his head handed to him once and seen his neighbour receive the treatment he deserved. Why would the first guy be considered a threat? David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #27 November 10, 2003 QuoteConsider that the idiot in question went into a friends neighbourhood ten years a go and got the shit kicked out of him by you. He realises that he can't compete due to the ass kisking and stays at home licking his bruises. Then someone who lives next to that guy (who just got a kicking) does commit an atrocity on the scale of 9/11 and gets what he deserves. The first guy is not likely to try something having had his head handed to him once and seen his neighbour receive the treatment he deserved. Why would the first guy be considered a threat? If the briefing papers on foreign poilicy in the White House were written like this GWB might even understand what is going on.... --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #28 November 11, 2003 QuoteSee a previous thread about the growing right wing bias in american media. Nowadays you can choose to read whatever bias you want. Yes, I've been pointing this out for a while now. The grip of the big three broadcast networks and major papers has been slipping away thanks to cable and internet. We can all have our news flavored any way we want now, but the smarter of us gather from all around. QuoteWell, there was his use of a report he knew to be false in his state of the union address. Is that true? You are saying Bush stood there and lied through his teeth at that address? QuoteAnd of course the whole thing about Iraq being an immediate threat to the US was made up. I disagree. A threat to stability in the mideast is a threat to the west. If you want to believe Hussein wasn't a threat to that stability, go right ahead. I don't think I'll personally ever regret us taking Hussein down despite the uh . . . sticky wicket we seem to be in for the moment. I think you liberals are being a bit short-sighted here, expecting such quick results, casualty-free operations, etc. QuoteIronically, in the end, his constant claims of "we have nothing to hide!" turned out to be right. That's not factually correct; the story isn't told yet. A lot of opportunity existed for Hussein to hide both himself and his weapons (if they still existed), and he played those cards well, so far. However, the story is still being written. Let's refrain from writing the epilogue just yet, k? QuoteNot any more. Latest Newsweek/Gallup poll - 50% will vote against Bush, 44% will vote for him, 6% undecided. I was looking at the latest CBS poll that gives him 52% positive favorable rating, 39% disapprove. His ratings are sinking, but still higher than any president at this point in a long, long time (except for Daddy, of course). But, look what happened to Daddy. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #29 November 11, 2003 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, there was his use of a report he knew to be false in his state of the union address. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that true? You are saying Bush stood there and lied through his teeth at that address? From what I remember of that the UK government told the US government about Iraqi attempts to get uranium. The US looked into it and said there was no support to that piece of intelligence. So when the President says the UK have intelligence saying Iraq is looking to acquire uranium he was telling the truth. The President never added, "we looked at it as well but couldn't find any evidence to support the UK claim". David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #30 November 11, 2003 QuoteSo when the President says the UK have intelligence saying Iraq is looking to acquire uranium he was telling the truth. The President never added, "we looked at it as well but couldn't find any evidence to support the UK claim". Will look into this for myself, thanks for the info. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #31 November 11, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteYea, it's all about stealing oil and revenge for "daddy". Sigh. well, I am utterly confused. Could you please tell me what the war is for? OK, if a guy that is known to kill and torture people on a scale like, say, maybe only 200 people or so, was walking around your nieborhood with a big gun and a Malitov Cocktail would you just want him left alone to do those things? That doesn't answer the question. If that was the case, why did Bush not go into Zimbabwe, or Liberia? There are many heads of state who are cruel leaders. We know N Korea has WMD's because they told the world, and have conducted tests - but I see no plans to invade them. It's the Oil. It's all about the oil. (That's what I think) Blood for oil. No shortage of blood with a population of 265 million people. Lots of blood. Lots of oil. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #32 November 11, 2003 QuoteIt's the Oil. It's all about the oil. (That's what I think) If you mean it's blood for oil in terms that maintaining mideast stability equals a continued supply of cheap crude (as mikkey phrased it to me), then I'll agree that's part of the equation, and justifiably so. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #33 November 11, 2003 We agree on something political! Fuck! That's awesome!Now it's just a case of who's blood - and at the moment it looks like there's a bit more coming from your side than had 1st been planned. I'm all for peace, even if it means it needs to get worse before it gets better - but I think it's tough to put a lid on this. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #34 November 11, 2003 Hey I have a question for the people who agreed w/ Bush before going to Iraq. A lot of people on this forum defended him by saying, "I trust Bush's judgement. I'm sure the president has access to information we don't have." So now that it's clear that he definitely did NOT have access to good info, how has it affected your trust in Bush? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #35 November 11, 2003 All of us have the benefit of hindsight so we can make our own judgements about the shoulda-woulda-coulda's. To judge someone's decisions when you have the ability to see how they played out is ridiculous. Kinda like reading all the alternatives in a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, then saying, "well, I woulda picked the right path anyway." Come on. A leader has to believe in the people that work for him. He has to trust information that is delivered to him. Is it possible that our intelligence agencies, after some Clintonian budget cuts, didn't have the resources to 100% confirm all info? Is that completely Bush's fault? Would the whiners support legislation to greatly increase funding for our intelligence efforts so that we can be 100% sure of all info before any president decides what to do with it? No, that would be giving too much power to big-brother, wouldn't it? Well, it seems Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If you honestly think that all the Bush-Bashers would be content and happy had Bush only chosen to follow their urgings, you're clearly deluded. They'd still be bitching.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #36 November 11, 2003 ***OK, if a guy that is known to kill and torture people on a scale like, say, maybe only 200 people or so, was walking around your nieborhood with a big gun and a Malitov Cocktail would you just want him left alone to do those things? Now increase the scale to country size, and add in the fact that he could have still, if left in power, affected you and your nieborhood directly, that should answer your question. Quote That arguement is irrelevant. The US has a long history of supporting governments which fit kill and torture people on a regular basis. I don't think we ever had much to fear from Saddam, certainly not enough to justify taking over the country. Even if it turns out that the invasion helps the citizens of Iraq, I don't think the administration has the right to make that decision.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #37 November 11, 2003 QuoteAll the major media outlets in the USA are owned by dedicated capitalists. The "left wing bias" is a myth believed by idiots. You never fail. Kallend is a prime example of a major problem here people. He works at a University where pretty much everyone is a lefty. He surrounds himself with lefty people all day. So, what Kallend views as middle of the road, a middle of the road guys sees as a lefty radical. So the media, which slightly leans left he sees as middle of the road. And, Slightly leaning right media like fox to him seem as exremely right... THis happens all the time. Sorry, but your claim of it being a myth is, an Opinion and a biased one at that. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,123 #38 November 11, 2003 >Is that true? You are saying Bush stood there and lied through his >teeth at that address? Like I said, he used a report he knew to be false to make the case for war. It's well documented (by the administration's own admissions) that the Niger uranium intelligence had been disproven by the CIA; Tenet told the administration to not include it. Whether or not you consider that "lying through your teeth" depends on how you want to spin it. And no matter how you spin it, the statement "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them" is a plain ol lie. >I disagree. A threat to stability in the mideast is a threat to the west. But he didn't say that. He said that the smoking gun everyone wanted on Iraq could come in the form of "a mushroom cloud" and therefore we cannot wait to attack. Not that Saddam posed a threat to stability, but that there was an imminent danger that he would use nuclear weapons. That was a made-up threat intended to scare people. >That's not factually correct; the story isn't told yet. Well, we made the statement "we know where the weapons are." That's certainly false. And so far, not one laboratory, not one weapon, has been found. About the best anyone has been able to do is to find a few components of a reactor at a physicist's home. I have no doubt that we will eventually find traces of old WMD's in Iraq. We know they're there; we sold them to him. However, what we claimed was that he had an active WMD program with weapons he could use. I have a feeling we won't be able to show that. I also have no doubt that within a few years WMD's will be found in Iraq - but I have a feeling they will be new ones we give to the new government to help us fight yet someone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #39 November 11, 2003 QuoteIs it possible that our intelligence agencies, after some Clintonian budget cuts, didn't have the resources to 100% confirm all info? I get it, Bush lies and it is Clinton's fault... Isn't it also equally possible that Bush and or his administration actively tried to spin intelligence reports to support their desire to go to war? QuoteWell, it seems Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. That statement is just laughable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,167 #40 November 11, 2003 QuoteQuoteAll the major media outlets in the USA are owned by dedicated capitalists. The "left wing bias" is a myth believed by idiots. You never fail. Kallend is a prime example of a major problem here people. He works at a University where pretty much everyone is a lefty. He surrounds himself with lefty people all day. So, what Kallend views as middle of the road, a middle of the road guys sees as a lefty radical. So the media, which slightly leans left he sees as middle of the road. And, Slightly leaning right media like fox to him seem as exremely right... THis happens all the time. Sorry, but your claim of it being a myth is, an Opinion and a biased one at that. Chris I'll bet you believed in Iraqi WMDs too, and that the Iraqis tried to buy uranium in Africa, and that Bush's intelligence info was good. Maybe you'll explain why so many dedicated capitalists support left-wing media outlets.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #41 November 12, 2003 One of the key mistakes of Rumsi & Bush was to assume that the occupation of Iraq would be easy and that you can "build" a democratic Iraq with US troops occupying it. Soldiers are NOT police and they are not really trained to handle civilian security issues. One of the reasons that the "resistance" is growing is that the US military are struggling to manage the situation. The following is from the BBC and a good example (note Shias are the ones who were suppressed by Saddam and supposed to be "happy" to have been "liberated"): QuoteThe US military has confirmed that one of its soldiers shot dead the mayor of a highly volatile Baghdad district. Mohannad Gazi al-Kaabi, who was appointed by the US authorities to run the largely Shia Muslim area of Sadr City in Baghdad, died on Sunday. He was shot during an altercation with US troops at the local council's compound. US Central Command says it is still investigating the incident in the area where US-Iraqi tensions are high. It appears that the American soldiers stopped the mayor from driving into the Sadr City council compound, in line with rules to prevent car bombings. The mayor took exception and began to fight with one of the guards. Another soldier fired warning shots and finally shot the mayor in the upper leg. He bled to death. Funeral Relatives buried the mayor on Monday, though without the numbers of mourners that might be expected at the funeral of a popular local leader. The BBC's Peter Greste, in Baghdad, says al-Kaabi was seen as a collaborator rather than a local representative after his appointment by the Americans. He adds that there is considerable friction in Sadr City between Iraqis and American forces, and this incident will do nothing to improve relations. Sadr City was formerly named Saddam City. Despite bearing the name of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, it is one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the city --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #42 November 12, 2003 QuoteSo now that it's clear that he definitely did NOT have access to good info, how has it affected your trust in Bush? With regards to trusting Bush, what matters is not whether or not he had access to good intel, as you're suggesting, but rather whether or not he thought, or believed, that he had access to good intel. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,123 #43 November 12, 2003 >With regards to trusting Bush, what matters is not whether or not he > had access to good intel, as you're suggesting, but rather whether > or not he thought he had access to good intel. Would you trust your life to your doctor? Would knowing he had erroneous lab results change whether you trusted your life to your doctor? The issue isn't whether a guy in a bar somewhere thinks Bush is a trustworthy guy once you get to know him. The issue is - the next time we claim that, say, North Korea has WMD's, is anyone going to believe us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,167 #44 November 12, 2003 It's very interesting to go back in this forum to January - March 2003 and read what the Bush supporters were writing then, and see how they have twisted (spun) it now so that they can continue to justify his actions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #45 November 12, 2003 QuoteIt's very interesting to go back in this forum to January - March 2003 and read what the Bush supporters were writing then, and see how they have twisted (spun) it now so that they can continue to justify his actions. ------------------ I did.. its WAYYYYY to depressing of a read. And it saddens me....No civilian casualties... oops......going for WMD...oops... Then it was freeing the Iraqui people and bringing them democracy....at least the initial war was quick...SHOCK and AWE...yes.. we have shocked the world... and announced ourselves as the big bully on the block. And the world took notice and our moral imperative has evaporated. From a diplomatic standpoint its one of the biggest blunders of history. We thumbed our noses at the UN... and now went begging to the UN for help. And terrorists from around the world... the true believers are flocking to Iraq... to BRING IT ON as our simplistic president put it. . The tragedy of this is that we have provided all the whackos in the middle east that think we are the greatest evil that has ever existed.... 100,000 convenient targets. It does not matter what we believe we are... that is our perception.. their perceptions are very different. How the hell are we going to support the actual men and women we are sending over there in the line of fire. Will we support thier families? I hope we do a lot better job this time around. I pray they are safe and all of them return home to us... whole in mind and body and spirit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,123 #46 November 12, 2003 >It's very interesting to go back in this forum to January - March 2003 >and read what the Bush supporters were writing then . . . Well, never let it be said that people can't learn from past mistakes. Past - "Clinton's sexual indiscretions make a mockery of morals in the United States! They should be disclosed, so americans can decide for themselves what sort of man he is." Present - "Yeah, so Arnold was accused of groping 15 women. It's nothing, really. Just what happens on movie sets and stuff. Maybe they're all made up. Those democrats are just trying to smear him - they should leave people's private lives alone." Past - "Of course Saddam has weapons of mass destruction! What, do you want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud over an american city?" Present - "Well, we never said he _definitely_ had them. Maybe they got lost. Besides, it was a war of liberation, really. Why can't you be happy about that?" Past - "Saddam has clear links with the 9/11 terrorists." Present - "We didn't mean a direct connection, really, just that they were both Arabs and both bad." Past - "Saddam is the worst man alive. Life in Iraq is hell. Torture! Killings! Mass graves!" Present - "Why can't the press say anything _good_ about Iraq? Yeah, another US helicopter was blown out of the sky today, but they also opened a new soccer field. Why isn't anyone talking about the soccer field?" Past - "We'll hear about all the real reasons we went to war soon enough, you can believe that. Our president has access to mountains of solid intelligence that he just can't reveal yet. Why can't you trust him?" Present - "So our intelligence was wrong. That's not Bush's fault." Past - "We will be welcomed as liberators once we free the people of Iraq!" Present - "We didn't say we'd be welcomed, exactly. More like it would be a nasty, dangerous war, just like every other Middle East war." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #47 November 12, 2003 QuotePast - "Clinton's sexual indiscretions make a mockery of morals in the United States! They should be disclosed, so americans can decide for themselves what sort of man he is." Present - "Yeah, so Arnold was accused of groping 15 women. It's nothing, really. Just what happens on movie sets and stuff. Maybe they're all made up. Those democrats are just trying to smear him - they should leave people's private lives alone." Sure, smearing has occurred on both sides forever, but I'm still surprised to see you draw this comparison. Schwarzenegger: accused by women (many anonymous) of groping -- and most of them came out just in time to (try to) thwart the election. Clinton: along with much groping, also accused of indecent exposure and rape. The rape accuser (Juanita Broderick) was SO credible, even Kathy Ireland wouldn't say she was lying. Plus, one could easily draw together a lefties then and now comparison like yours, but why? QuotePast - "Saddam is the worst man alive. Life in Iraq is hell. Torture! Killings! Mass graves!" Present - "Why can't the press say anything _good_ about Iraq? Yeah, another US helicopter was blown out of the sky today, but they also opened a new soccer field. Why isn't anyone talking about the soccer field?" Screw the press -- why not listen to what the people of Iraq say? I am sure you've seen Gallup's recent poll in which 2/3 of Baghdad residents believe "that the ousting of Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships they might have personally suffered since the U.S. and British-led invasion." Sure, there are some people dying over there, and it is sad, but is it the major indicator of whar's going on? Does Chicago's high murder rate tell the story of Chicago? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiverRick 0 #48 November 12, 2003 I suppose the only thing we did not do is nuke Tikrit. Yet. Do you really believe that? never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #37 November 11, 2003 QuoteAll the major media outlets in the USA are owned by dedicated capitalists. The "left wing bias" is a myth believed by idiots. You never fail. Kallend is a prime example of a major problem here people. He works at a University where pretty much everyone is a lefty. He surrounds himself with lefty people all day. So, what Kallend views as middle of the road, a middle of the road guys sees as a lefty radical. So the media, which slightly leans left he sees as middle of the road. And, Slightly leaning right media like fox to him seem as exremely right... THis happens all the time. Sorry, but your claim of it being a myth is, an Opinion and a biased one at that. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,123 #38 November 11, 2003 >Is that true? You are saying Bush stood there and lied through his >teeth at that address? Like I said, he used a report he knew to be false to make the case for war. It's well documented (by the administration's own admissions) that the Niger uranium intelligence had been disproven by the CIA; Tenet told the administration to not include it. Whether or not you consider that "lying through your teeth" depends on how you want to spin it. And no matter how you spin it, the statement "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them" is a plain ol lie. >I disagree. A threat to stability in the mideast is a threat to the west. But he didn't say that. He said that the smoking gun everyone wanted on Iraq could come in the form of "a mushroom cloud" and therefore we cannot wait to attack. Not that Saddam posed a threat to stability, but that there was an imminent danger that he would use nuclear weapons. That was a made-up threat intended to scare people. >That's not factually correct; the story isn't told yet. Well, we made the statement "we know where the weapons are." That's certainly false. And so far, not one laboratory, not one weapon, has been found. About the best anyone has been able to do is to find a few components of a reactor at a physicist's home. I have no doubt that we will eventually find traces of old WMD's in Iraq. We know they're there; we sold them to him. However, what we claimed was that he had an active WMD program with weapons he could use. I have a feeling we won't be able to show that. I also have no doubt that within a few years WMD's will be found in Iraq - but I have a feeling they will be new ones we give to the new government to help us fight yet someone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #39 November 11, 2003 QuoteIs it possible that our intelligence agencies, after some Clintonian budget cuts, didn't have the resources to 100% confirm all info? I get it, Bush lies and it is Clinton's fault... Isn't it also equally possible that Bush and or his administration actively tried to spin intelligence reports to support their desire to go to war? QuoteWell, it seems Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. That statement is just laughable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,167 #40 November 11, 2003 QuoteQuoteAll the major media outlets in the USA are owned by dedicated capitalists. The "left wing bias" is a myth believed by idiots. You never fail. Kallend is a prime example of a major problem here people. He works at a University where pretty much everyone is a lefty. He surrounds himself with lefty people all day. So, what Kallend views as middle of the road, a middle of the road guys sees as a lefty radical. So the media, which slightly leans left he sees as middle of the road. And, Slightly leaning right media like fox to him seem as exremely right... THis happens all the time. Sorry, but your claim of it being a myth is, an Opinion and a biased one at that. Chris I'll bet you believed in Iraqi WMDs too, and that the Iraqis tried to buy uranium in Africa, and that Bush's intelligence info was good. Maybe you'll explain why so many dedicated capitalists support left-wing media outlets.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #41 November 12, 2003 One of the key mistakes of Rumsi & Bush was to assume that the occupation of Iraq would be easy and that you can "build" a democratic Iraq with US troops occupying it. Soldiers are NOT police and they are not really trained to handle civilian security issues. One of the reasons that the "resistance" is growing is that the US military are struggling to manage the situation. The following is from the BBC and a good example (note Shias are the ones who were suppressed by Saddam and supposed to be "happy" to have been "liberated"): QuoteThe US military has confirmed that one of its soldiers shot dead the mayor of a highly volatile Baghdad district. Mohannad Gazi al-Kaabi, who was appointed by the US authorities to run the largely Shia Muslim area of Sadr City in Baghdad, died on Sunday. He was shot during an altercation with US troops at the local council's compound. US Central Command says it is still investigating the incident in the area where US-Iraqi tensions are high. It appears that the American soldiers stopped the mayor from driving into the Sadr City council compound, in line with rules to prevent car bombings. The mayor took exception and began to fight with one of the guards. Another soldier fired warning shots and finally shot the mayor in the upper leg. He bled to death. Funeral Relatives buried the mayor on Monday, though without the numbers of mourners that might be expected at the funeral of a popular local leader. The BBC's Peter Greste, in Baghdad, says al-Kaabi was seen as a collaborator rather than a local representative after his appointment by the Americans. He adds that there is considerable friction in Sadr City between Iraqis and American forces, and this incident will do nothing to improve relations. Sadr City was formerly named Saddam City. Despite bearing the name of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, it is one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the city --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #42 November 12, 2003 QuoteSo now that it's clear that he definitely did NOT have access to good info, how has it affected your trust in Bush? With regards to trusting Bush, what matters is not whether or not he had access to good intel, as you're suggesting, but rather whether or not he thought, or believed, that he had access to good intel. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,123 #43 November 12, 2003 >With regards to trusting Bush, what matters is not whether or not he > had access to good intel, as you're suggesting, but rather whether > or not he thought he had access to good intel. Would you trust your life to your doctor? Would knowing he had erroneous lab results change whether you trusted your life to your doctor? The issue isn't whether a guy in a bar somewhere thinks Bush is a trustworthy guy once you get to know him. The issue is - the next time we claim that, say, North Korea has WMD's, is anyone going to believe us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,167 #44 November 12, 2003 It's very interesting to go back in this forum to January - March 2003 and read what the Bush supporters were writing then, and see how they have twisted (spun) it now so that they can continue to justify his actions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #45 November 12, 2003 QuoteIt's very interesting to go back in this forum to January - March 2003 and read what the Bush supporters were writing then, and see how they have twisted (spun) it now so that they can continue to justify his actions. ------------------ I did.. its WAYYYYY to depressing of a read. And it saddens me....No civilian casualties... oops......going for WMD...oops... Then it was freeing the Iraqui people and bringing them democracy....at least the initial war was quick...SHOCK and AWE...yes.. we have shocked the world... and announced ourselves as the big bully on the block. And the world took notice and our moral imperative has evaporated. From a diplomatic standpoint its one of the biggest blunders of history. We thumbed our noses at the UN... and now went begging to the UN for help. And terrorists from around the world... the true believers are flocking to Iraq... to BRING IT ON as our simplistic president put it. . The tragedy of this is that we have provided all the whackos in the middle east that think we are the greatest evil that has ever existed.... 100,000 convenient targets. It does not matter what we believe we are... that is our perception.. their perceptions are very different. How the hell are we going to support the actual men and women we are sending over there in the line of fire. Will we support thier families? I hope we do a lot better job this time around. I pray they are safe and all of them return home to us... whole in mind and body and spirit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,123 #46 November 12, 2003 >It's very interesting to go back in this forum to January - March 2003 >and read what the Bush supporters were writing then . . . Well, never let it be said that people can't learn from past mistakes. Past - "Clinton's sexual indiscretions make a mockery of morals in the United States! They should be disclosed, so americans can decide for themselves what sort of man he is." Present - "Yeah, so Arnold was accused of groping 15 women. It's nothing, really. Just what happens on movie sets and stuff. Maybe they're all made up. Those democrats are just trying to smear him - they should leave people's private lives alone." Past - "Of course Saddam has weapons of mass destruction! What, do you want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud over an american city?" Present - "Well, we never said he _definitely_ had them. Maybe they got lost. Besides, it was a war of liberation, really. Why can't you be happy about that?" Past - "Saddam has clear links with the 9/11 terrorists." Present - "We didn't mean a direct connection, really, just that they were both Arabs and both bad." Past - "Saddam is the worst man alive. Life in Iraq is hell. Torture! Killings! Mass graves!" Present - "Why can't the press say anything _good_ about Iraq? Yeah, another US helicopter was blown out of the sky today, but they also opened a new soccer field. Why isn't anyone talking about the soccer field?" Past - "We'll hear about all the real reasons we went to war soon enough, you can believe that. Our president has access to mountains of solid intelligence that he just can't reveal yet. Why can't you trust him?" Present - "So our intelligence was wrong. That's not Bush's fault." Past - "We will be welcomed as liberators once we free the people of Iraq!" Present - "We didn't say we'd be welcomed, exactly. More like it would be a nasty, dangerous war, just like every other Middle East war." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #47 November 12, 2003 QuotePast - "Clinton's sexual indiscretions make a mockery of morals in the United States! They should be disclosed, so americans can decide for themselves what sort of man he is." Present - "Yeah, so Arnold was accused of groping 15 women. It's nothing, really. Just what happens on movie sets and stuff. Maybe they're all made up. Those democrats are just trying to smear him - they should leave people's private lives alone." Sure, smearing has occurred on both sides forever, but I'm still surprised to see you draw this comparison. Schwarzenegger: accused by women (many anonymous) of groping -- and most of them came out just in time to (try to) thwart the election. Clinton: along with much groping, also accused of indecent exposure and rape. The rape accuser (Juanita Broderick) was SO credible, even Kathy Ireland wouldn't say she was lying. Plus, one could easily draw together a lefties then and now comparison like yours, but why? QuotePast - "Saddam is the worst man alive. Life in Iraq is hell. Torture! Killings! Mass graves!" Present - "Why can't the press say anything _good_ about Iraq? Yeah, another US helicopter was blown out of the sky today, but they also opened a new soccer field. Why isn't anyone talking about the soccer field?" Screw the press -- why not listen to what the people of Iraq say? I am sure you've seen Gallup's recent poll in which 2/3 of Baghdad residents believe "that the ousting of Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships they might have personally suffered since the U.S. and British-led invasion." Sure, there are some people dying over there, and it is sad, but is it the major indicator of whar's going on? Does Chicago's high murder rate tell the story of Chicago? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #48 November 12, 2003 I suppose the only thing we did not do is nuke Tikrit. Yet. Do you really believe that? never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #49 November 12, 2003 Hello Speed. A valid question. I agree with Jimbo, but would like to add that I am extremely worried about our intelligence infrastructure. Something is obviously amiss. To answer your question, my trust level hasn't diminished in the man himself, rather it is diminished in the product our intelligence agencies are producing.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #50 November 12, 2003 Typical, complain about a situation and then fail to see all the reasoning behind how we got where we are in the first place. So you're telling me you wouldn't be whining about Bush if he hadn't gone into Iraq. Oversimplification of what I said is a piss poor way to argue a point. You know what I mean by what I said and dodged the larger point. Typical.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
