or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 15  

post #561 of 631
If Wolfowitz is that blatant and honest, he gets some respect.

"Why Iraq?"
"Oil."
"You know there were no WMD, what about OIL!?"
"I said oil."
"Oh right you did... uh... well..."

Hilarious.

-

jimmac:

Quote:
Any occupation is a ruling body. But you claim we set them free.

There is a ruling body over you, are you not free?

Childish logic.

Quote:
The part you say the end justified the means doesn't wash. It was under false pretense. Don't you get it?

I think by saying the end justifies the means I acknowledges the false pretense. That's kind of the whole point of saying that the end justifies the means, acknowledging the means.

Do you get it?

Quote:
And guess what? There are still many dictators in the world.

Wow, that's relevant.

All situations are not the same.

Quote:
Bush picked this one for other reasons ( not the ones you have listed ). Listen if Clinton had done this I would be saying the exact same things. But you know that's not the way reality went.

Yeah, they were different, Clinton favored a good relationship with France over ousting Saddam.

Bombing Iraq = ok.
Ousting Hussein = not ok.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #562 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
If Wolfowitz is that blatant and honest, he gets some respect.

"Why Iraq?"
"Oil."
"You know there were no WMD, what about OIL!?"
"I said oil."
"Oh right you did... uh... well..."

Hilarious.

-

jimmac:



There is a ruling body over you, are you not free?

Childish logic.



I think by saying the end justifies the means I acknowledges the false pretense. That's kind of the whole point of saying that the end justifies the means, acknowledging the means.

Do you get it?



Wow, that's relevant.

All situations are not the same.



Yeah, they were different, Clinton favored a good relationship with France over ousting Saddam.

Bombing Iraq = ok.
Ousting Hussein = not ok.

Now you're clutching at straws. No amount twisted logic will change things. The thing about the other dictators is extremely relevent. Or don't you care about those people? The problem is why did we go after this one with all the others ( especialy the ones that pose a real threat )?

Caught in your own twisted logic. Give it up. I've got to go to work now but " I'll be back ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #563 of 631
Quote:
The thing about the other dictators is extremely relevent. Or don't you care about those people? The problem is why did we go after this one with all the others ( especialy the ones that pose a real threat )?

Please tell me of these other dictators.

Tell me how they are a "real threat" and then tell me how the Hussein solution applied by Bush would apply to them in an advantageous way.

KJL in North Korea:
Do you think that an overthrow would take ~6,000 lives?
I happen to think 60,000 or even 600,000 is quite more likely. Have we tried 12 years of very aggressive "diplomatic" solutions with him?

Who else, jimmac, who else?

It's easy for you to speak in generalizations, let's see if you can provide me with some specifics.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #564 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Who else, jimmac, who else?

This is the whole point. If you don't know, then you are in no position to make pretend informed judgements about what would be the best use of American money and power.

And what the hell is wrong with University of Texas that their student's understanding of global events is limited to front-page news stories? And this is a student who is actually interested in the subject!
post #565 of 631
giant:

Quote:
This is the whole point. If you don't know, then you are in no position to make pretend informed judgements about what would be the best use of American money and power.

Educate me, giant. Who is the "real threat"?

Quote:
And what the hell is wrong with University of Texas that their student's understanding of global events is limited to front-page news stories? And this is a student who is actually interested in the subject!

If all you've got left is ad-hom sniping you're doing yourself a disservice by continuing to post.

Dig that hole, baby, dig it deep.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #566 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Educate me, giant. Who is the "real threat"?

Um, that's not exactly what we are talking about. BTW, the real threats aren't necessarily dictators.

But hey, here's a couple real threats, Pakistan and the rising forces in India. Directly concerning the US, the upper levels of Pakistani government actually has real connections to 9/11 (though this in no way makes it unique, and I don't mean Saudi Arabia)

And I'm not sure exactly what jimmac is referring to, but there certainly are regimes that are bigger threats to more people than Saddam's was. And Saddam was not a direct threat to the US.
post #567 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

How else will Iraq be disarmed?

Well, he evidently disarmed himself since there were no WMD prior to the war. So, will you finally admit that you were wrong?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #568 of 631
My my my. How long can this go on? When will you anti American anti Bush anti freedom people figure it out? Most Americans don't care if the weapons are found or if they ever existed. The liberals and the Euros will whine for decades about this, but the people who really matter to Bush are on his side. The majority of voting Americans support the President and his policy. We wanted S.H. out for the good of the World. Let the people of Iraq live without torture chambers and rape rooms. Let freedonm ring! Let the oil flow!
post #569 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
giant:



Educate me, giant. Who is the "real threat"?



If all you've got left is ad-hom sniping you're doing yourself a disservice by continuing to post.

Dig that hole, baby, dig it deep.

Giant doesn't even go to the best school in Chicago

post #570 of 631
Friedman has an editorial about the different reasons for war:

Quote:
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there ? a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ? and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ? got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states ? young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others ? and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ? are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.

The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.
post #571 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Giant doesn't even go to the best school in Chicago

UC has always been there if I wanted it. I like where I live better, though. Even though I have extended family in the UC admin, Northwestern is sort of tradition in my nuclear one (same with my ladyfriend and her family).

Oh, and I work at NU and don't take classes because I need to. Thanks.
post #572 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime.

Well, the neo-cons churned out a good number of article on this in the build-up, but most everyone considers it pretty damn risky.

But more importantly, when we start talking about 'real' anything, especially concerning 9/11, people seem to have ignored that no real investigation has been done, so any foreign policy decisions have been based off of assumptions.

Of course, I thought this was perhaps one of the most interesting quotes I've read in a while:

Quote:
For the first time in history, America is searching for the reason we went to war after the war is over.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/opinion/04DOWD.html
post #573 of 631
Thread Starter 
The US is moving away from the idea that weapons will be found on the ground since there has been no sign at all at the main sites:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...0ARE%20CLEARED
post #574 of 631
giant:

Quote:
Um, that's not exactly what we are talking about. BTW, the real threats aren't necessarily dictators.

Advice:
Before you start co-opting what other people say and make them your allies under a banner of "us v. groverat" why not try reading what they write.

And if you can't understand what they write or don't like what they write don't use it for yourself.

That should be directed at jimmac, not me.

Quote:
But hey, here's a couple real threats, Pakistan and the rising forces in India. Directly concerning the US, the upper levels of Pakistani government actually has real connections to 9/11 (though this in no way makes it unique, and I don't mean Saudi Arabia)

Pakistan, while corrupt and not nice, has helped us quite a bit in our war on terror. Again, make the case that they are a "real threat". Please.

And just saying "rising forces in India" is 300x more ambiguous than Bush's WMD spiel. Spell it out.

I'm still waiting for that hammer of truth to be brought down on my troglodyte head. Do you have any substance or just insults about my education?

Quote:
And I'm not sure exactly what jimmac is referring to, but there certainly are regimes that are bigger threats to more people than Saddam's was. And Saddam was not a direct threat to the US.

Like who?
And who among those who is a worthy candidate for war using my criteria ("choose war or aggressive diplomacy according to which causes the least humanitarian problems")?

Bring that hammer down, my well-educated friend. Smite me with your fantastic Northwestern education.

--

bunge:

Quote:
Well, he evidently disarmed himself since there were no WMD prior to the war. So, will you finally admit that you were wrong?

He disarmed? Did you tell Blix?

UNMOVIC must be notified!
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #575 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Pakistan, while corrupt and not nice, has helped us quite a bit in our war on terror. Again, make the case that they are a "real threat". Please.

Well, having high government officials and an entire intel service directly involved in the 9/11 kind of constitutes a threat, don't you think? Oh and considering al-qaeda is an arm of the ISI, I wonder where al-qaeda would get nuclear weapons. Funny how North Korea also has nuclear weapons because of Pakistan.

Quote:
And just saying "rising forces in India" is 300x more ambiguous than Bush's WMD spiel. Spell it out.

Considering a full 7th of the world's population lives there and it has been the focus of much attention due to its conflict with Pakistan (one that could easily change the world much more dramatically than sept 11), I find it funny that the high profile and powerful political shift in India over the past few years has passed under your radar. You want to see America get involved in a dangerous conflict?
post #576 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Friedman has an editorial about the different reasons for war:

I can't disagree with this editorial. I think that all of the reasons to do this were valid, but perhaps he should have focused on the others a bit more. In other words, I believe they'll find weapons (actually, I'd argue they have already), but they probably shouldn't have focused so intently on them as a justification for war.

The thing I agree most with in the article is this:


Quote:
he only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ? and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ? got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

I think this is completely accurate. One thing that came out of this is that neighbor states saw we ****ing mean business. We also debunked Al-jazeera and its anti-western propoganda for a lot of folks. One man was quoted on April 9th (in Egypt) as saying "No one will ever believe Al-jazeera again". As I've said before, I'm convinced the administration came to a determination that although we might enflame Arab setiment, things were already so bad (in terms of perception of the US) that it couldn't get too much worse. Essentially, it's the old "at least they'll respect raw American power" idea. A few months ago, my father said to me "the only thing these people respect is raw power". Despite being generalized, I see his point. We demonstrated some "serious shit" over there.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #577 of 631
Thread Starter 
Groverat, you wanted me to do some research on what you have said, so I did. I saved a copy of the old version of this thread, and here is what you were saying in october:

my comments in italics:
Quote:
Giant: Now that we know that the basis for attacking Iraq, WOMD, is simply a lie, we can now see without any doubt that, as the title states, our president and his administration are lying to the citizens of the United States in order to start a war with Iraq.

Groverat: You lost me with the first sentence. Have fun at the meeting at the docks later...

It's already been shown that the argument originally made to say Bush is lying is wrong... [ referring to ritter, whose comments have ended up spot on ]

Here's an interesting dilemma. Will the U.N. do what is necessary to defend the United States? ...[ from what? ]

They fire on our soldiers as our soldiers perform U.N. mandated missions,[ note that the no-fly zones were not supported by the UN ]I need no more justification...He has attempted to assassinate one of our heads of state ...[ there is little if any evidence to support this ]

You say Bush is trying to start a war... where's the evidence that all he wants is war?
Because he says he wants inspections and you say no one disagrees. Where has he said, "I just want war with Iraq, that's it."? ...[ we've all agreed that he did, people in the admin have come out and said that was the goal, and time has shown that Bush did not want more inspections, though it was obvious at the time ]

What the administration wants is to "give it some teeth" ...[ read above ]

Looks like not only a full 180 degree shift on some subjects, but on others it didn't really turn out the way you thought.
post #578 of 631
giant:

Quote:
Well, having high government officials and an entire intel service directly involved in the 9/11 kind of constitutes a threat, don't you think? Oh and considering al-qaeda is an arm of the ISI, I wonder where al-qaeda would get nuclear weapons. Funny how North Korea also has nuclear weapons because of Pakistan.

al-Qaeda is an arm of the ISI?
Sweeping indictments with less evidence than Bush layed out for the WMD case. Do you think you actually have credibility enough to not make a case?

Quote:
Considering a full 7th of the world's population lives there and it has been the focus of much attntion due to it's conflict with Pakistan (one that could easily change the world much more dramatically than sept 11), I find it funny that the high profile and powerful political shift over the past few years has passed under your radar.

So India's conflict with Pakistan makes it a "real threat" to the US? A "political shift"?

What the hell are you talking about? That may be the weakest argument you've made so far (and that's saying something).
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #579 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Well, having high government officials and an entire intel service directly involved in the 9/11 kind of constitutes a threat, don't you think? Oh and considering al-qaeda is an arm of the ISI, I wonder where al-qaeda would get nuclear weapons. Funny how North Korea also has nuclear weapons because of Pakistan.


Considering a full 7th of the world's population lives there and it has been the focus of much attention due to its conflict with Pakistan (one that could easily change the world much more dramatically than sept 11), I find it funny that the high profile and powerful political shift in India over the past few years has passed under your radar. You want to see America get involved in a dangerous conflict?

No one wants to see a conflict erupt. But Pakistan, despite it's history, agreed to suport the US...basically in full. They have cooperated and did so immediately after 9/11. I have no doubt that the Bush administration probably told them "cooperate or we're coming after you before we go into Afghanistan".

The ISI is, or was, a problem. My understanding is that there has been a near witch-hunt for extremists within that organization.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #580 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

That may be the weakest argument you've made so far (and that's saying something).

See, that's the fundamental problem here. While some of us discuss the issus in the real world, you apparently would rather argue just for the sake of it. Background knowledge isn't important to you, you just want every detail of information posted here. You want the content of books crammed into little posts so you can play and arguing game.

Put plainly, it doesn't matter if my 'argument' seems like anything to you. Fundamentalist forces are taking hold of india and already hundreds of people have died in high-profile conflicts. Al-Qaeda is an arm of the ISI, and anyone that has any knowledge of it knows this. High government officials and nuclear scientists in pakistan are directly involved in al-qaeda, all the way up to the head of the ISI sending $100,000 to atta.

This is all high-profile stuff, yet somehow your ignorance of it is a fault in me?
post #581 of 631
Quote:
referring to ritter, whose comments have ended up spot on

Have they? Are you talking about his Senate testimony that Iraq could restart chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons programs within months?

Quote:
from what? how is Iraq a threat to the US?

I was silly enough to believe the UN-SC at the time; Blix's reports and all that.
I admit to that freely, I thought this would be a UN deal all along (and said so many times).

Quote:
note that the no-fly zones were not supported by the UN

Absolutely right.

Quote:
we've all agreed that he did, people in the admin have come out and said that was the goal, and time has shown that Bush did not want more inspections, though it was obvious at the time

Bush wanted disarmament. Since Paul Wolfowitz != George Bush you can't say what GeeDub wanted the whole time. The way he switched between Powell and Rumsfeld WRT ideaology is plain for anyone to see.

Did Wolfowitz always want war? Sure, I'll buy that. Did Bush always think that was the way to go? You can't prove that in any way. Lest you forget about his daddy's mode of foreign affairs.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #582 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
My understanding is that there has been a near witch-hunt for extremists within that organization.

Nope. Only a couple concessions for show (General Mahmud) and to keep a lid on it (Pearl's killed who has many names).
post #583 of 631
Incidentally, would you mind sending me the copy of the old thread, I'd be interested to read it.

ftmsucks@yahoo.com

--

Quote:
Fundamentalist forces are taking hold of india and already hundreds of people have died in high-profile conflicts.

Yes... and. Where is the threat?

Quote:
Al-Qaeda is an arm of the ISI, and anyone that has any knowledge of it knows this. High government officials and nuclear scientists in pakistan are directly involved in al-qaeda, all the way up to the head of the ISI sending $100,000 to atta.

And, to you, you think Pakistan will organize or help those who organize terror attacks against the US while working with us in the war on terror.

I don't doubt that there are those within their government that helped al Qaeda. But do you really believe they are a "real threat"?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #584 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Bush wanted disarmament. Since Paul Wolfowitz != George Bush you can't say what GeeDub wanted the whole time. The way he switched between Powell and Rumsfeld WRT ideaology is plain for anyone to see.

To say that Bush determines US foriegn policy is a joke. The Bush admin consists of a very large staff and many independent advisors who are the ones that create our policies. 'Bush' is shorthand for 'the Bush administration.' Bush himself has only been studying world politics since just before he got in office.
post #585 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Essentially, it's the old "at least they'll respect raw American power" idea. A few months ago, my father said to me "the only thing these people respect is raw power". Despite being generalized, I see his point. We demonstrated some "serious shit" over there.

He who lives by the sword....
tribalfusion?
tribalfusion?
post #586 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


And, to you, you think Pakistan will organize or help those who organize terror attacks against the US while working with us in the war on terror.

I'm not going to waste too much time getting you up to speed, but here's something to get you started:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c..._id=1454238160

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/01/inv.pakistan.funds/
post #587 of 631
Quote:
To say that Bush determines US foriegn policy is a joke. The Bush admin consists of a very large staff and many independent advisors who are the ones that create our policies. 'Bush' is shorthand for 'the Bush administration.' Bush himself has only been studying world politics since just before he got in office.

Wow, it's almost like you read my post and re-worded it.

Bush makes the final decision, there are definitely different viewpoints in the administration and Bush wavered between the two at different points. That is undeniable. At the time I posted that (Oct. 2002) he was definitely going the UN route with Powell (asking for new resolutions and renewed inspections). AGAINST the advice of the warhawk neo-cons, if you'll remember, Cheney especially lobbied AGAINST Bush's actions. Powell had to do some hardcore convincing.

So let's not act like all was set in stone in the Bush administration, the war inside was on hard at the time I posted that and Powell wasn't historically one who lost any kind of battle.

Quote:
India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links

So India and Pakistan are a "real threat" to the US because they help us find terrorists, even within each other's governments?

Do you believe they are threats to the security of the United States of America?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #588 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Please tell me of these other dictators.

Tell me how they are a "real threat" and then tell me how the Hussein solution applied by Bush would apply to them in an advantageous way.

KJL in North Korea:
Do you think that an overthrow would take ~6,000 lives?
I happen to think 60,000 or even 600,000 is quite more likely. Have we tried 12 years of very aggressive "diplomatic" solutions with him?

Who else, jimmac, who else?

It's easy for you to speak in generalizations, let's see if you can provide me with some specifics.

Ok I told myself I'd collect my thoughts before replying but I'm short on time today ( the real world ).

I should have said " more of a threat " as the other's are right . Part of the point is that modern dictators don't real pose much of a real ( even N.Korea ) threat to the U.S.

This included Iraq.

My point is why pick this one? There's a lovely island just off the coast of Florida. Maybe you've heard of it? It's called Cuba. The human rights violations you speak of go on everyday there ( and have gone on for a very long time ). They may not have Soviet missles any longer but they're only a stones throw from our boarders. A lot closer than Iraq.

So did he stick a pin in a map to decide this?

The thing to look at here is that Bush did this for reasons not mentioned. Are they oil or stratigic? Or did he just want a scapegoat since he can't find Osama?

The world is a better place without Saddam. I don't have a problem with that. The place where this becomes shady is the fact that there was another agenda. One that Bush would follow without the need for support from the people who voted him into office ( well not really but let's not get into that ). The people who hired him in effect. This we should not support. Once you start down that road ( and I know you'll say this happens all this time but this was pretty blatant ) it will lead to other liberties taken or loss there of.

The fact that no small country is much of a threat to us and the only one's that could be ( Russia or China ) aren't in a position or of a current temperment to do so means we are pretty much free to throw our weight around. Given that Bush thinks it's ok to do this without telling his voting public the truth ( last time I looked this isn't a monarcy ) is a very bad situation. These kinds of desisions shouldn't be left to one man or group. When he started this war he pretty much cut through all the opposition with little regard. There was no direct threat. This really bothers me. It would bother me if he was a democrat. This is why I'm glad some people in government are looking into this.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #589 of 631
AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!


ENOUGH!!!! GOTO YOUR CORNERS!!!

right or wrong, the results are the same:

Down the hall their voices ring, their feet are on the run.
Phantoms on the winter sky, together they do come.
Faded lips and eyes of blue they're carried in the wind.
Their laughter filled the countryside but they'll not laugh again.

All the games are ended now, their voices have been stilled.
Their fathers built the tools of war by which they all were killed.
Their fathers made the uniforms showing which side they were on
and the young boys were the middle men for guns to pray upon.

You've seen the fires in the night, watched the devil as he smiles.
You've heard a mother's mournful cry as she searches for her child.
You've seen the lines of refugees, the faces of despair
and wondered at the wise men who never seem to care.

Goodbye you lost children, God speed you on your way.
Your little beds are empty now, your toys are put away.
Your mother sings a lullaby as she gazes at the floor.
Your father builds more weapons and marches out once more.

Down the hall their voices ring, their feet are on the run.
Phantoms on the winter sky, together they do come.
Faded lips and eyes of blue they're carried in the wind.
Their laughter filled the countryside but they'll not laugh again.
post #590 of 631
jimmac:

Quote:
My point is why pick this one?

Why did the Bush administration pick this one or why do I think this one was the right one? Because those might be different.

Quote:
There's a lovely island just off the coast of Florida. Maybe you've heard of it? It's called Cuba. The human rights violations you speak of go on everyday there ( and have gone on for a very long time ). They may not have Soviet missles any longer but they're only a stones throw from our boarders. A lot closer than Iraq.

I'm gonna need some substance here. What are you talking about?
Having a patronizing and sarcastic tone doesn't make up for lack of a point.

And trying to put Cuba and Iraq in the same category is a joke.

Quote:
So did he stick a pin in a map to decide this?

No, he looked at a worrisome middle east and saw a big glaring problem (opportunity?).

Quote:
The thing to look at here is that Bush did this for reasons not mentioned.

Well, the administration has mentioned a lot of reasons; WMD, oil, humanitarian crisis, Hussein.

We'll see how the oil motivation plays out, reconstruction will be an exciting time.

Quote:
The place where this becomes shady is the fact that there was another agenda. One that Bush would follow without the need for support from the people who voted him into office ( well not really but let's not get into that ). The people who hired him in effect. This we should not support. Once you start down that road ( and I know you'll say this happens all this time but this was pretty blatant ) it will lead to other liberties taken or loss there of.

"well not really but let's not get into that".
read: "I know I'm wrong going in but humor me."

Bush's constituency supported the war.

Quote:
The fact that no small country is much of a threat to us and the only one's that could be ( Russia or China ) aren't in a position or of a current temperment to do so means we are pretty much free to throw our weight around.

Ok, so I guess you take back this "real threats" argument? Good, we both knew it was a load of crap.

Quote:
Given that Bush thinks it's ok to do this without telling his voting public the truth ( last time I looked this isn't a monarcy ) is a very bad situation. These kinds of desisions shouldn't be left to one man or group.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The decision to use US power should be made by one group, the United States government, and that power should be exercised as outlined in the Constitution of the US.

If you want to be pissed, be pissed at the Democrat congressmen who voted to give Bush all the power.

Quote:
It would bother me if he was a democrat.

I sincerely doubt that.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #591 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat




So India and Pakistan are a "real threat" to the US because they help us find terrorists, even within each other's governments?

Do you believe they are threats to the security of the United States of America?



Again, how is your complete and utter lack of knowledge of this subject a fault in me?

Go research pakistan to learn maybe even just a little about the country.

As for India, you clearly have NO idea whatsoever anything about the situation. It's interesting how the only conception of the word 'threat' you can wrap your brain around consists of wither terrorist or military attacks on the US. Why do you even bother commenting on India here when you so blatantly have no understanding of the situation or the countries involved?

BTW: When a country's second in command is involved, is no small issue.
post #592 of 631
Back on topic here...(if permissable)

Powell lost it when he saw the proposed contents of is Feb. 5 speech to the UN, as prepared by Cheney etc.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #593 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
If you want to be pissed, be pissed at the Democrat congressmen who voted to give Bush all the power.

I am. A lot. And have been for a while.

I sure hope some of these mealy-mouthed, pansy, spineless, coward-assed huddling in the corner, inarticulate (with the exception of Barney Frank and Harold Ford, Jr. and a couple of others) "republicrats" get replaced by left-leaning challengers in the upcoming election cycle(s). I'm tired of my choices at the ballot box being between republican and republican-lite. They deserved to get their asses handed to them in the mid-terms for that joke of a national campaign "strategy" they "used."

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #594 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:



Why did the Bush administration pick this one or why do I think this one was the right one? Because those might be different.



I'm gonna need some substance here. What are you talking about?
Having a patronizing and sarcastic tone doesn't make up for lack of a point.

And trying to put Cuba and Iraq in the same category is a joke.



No, he looked at a worrisome middle east and saw a big glaring problem (opportunity?).



Well, the administration has mentioned a lot of reasons; WMD, oil, humanitarian crisis, Hussein.

We'll see how the oil motivation plays out, reconstruction will be an exciting time.



"well not really but let's not get into that".
read: "I know I'm wrong going in but humor me."

Bush's constituency supported the war.



Ok, so I guess you take back this "real threats" argument? Good, we both knew it was a load of crap.



I disagree wholeheartedly. The decision to use US power should be made by one group, the United States government, and that power should be exercised as outlined in the Constitution of the US.

If you want to be pissed, be pissed at the Democrat congressmen who voted to give Bush all the power.



I sincerely doubt that.


God what a crock! If you think it's just " ok " to have the country run by one man without the input of the people in this democracy you're in the wrong country bucko! Myself and many other people would battle to their last breath to keep that from happening!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #595 of 631
Thread Starter 
Here's what's important:
Oct 2002
Quote:
Giant: Now that we know that the basis for attacking Iraq, WOMD, is simply a lie, we can now see without any doubt that, as the title states, our president and his administration are lying to the citizens of the United States in order to start a war with Iraq...

Groverat: You lost me with the first sentence. Have fun at the meeting at the docks later...

June 2003
Quote:
Groverat: That Bush lied? BIG ****ING DEAL

how things change

Also:

Oct 2002

Quote:
Groverat: What the administration wants is to "give [inspections] some teeth"

June 2003
Quote:
Wolfowitz: For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

For those of us that were actually paying attention and not eating up admin claims at face value, there was no question the bush admin was lying to start a war.

groverat ridiculed the idea, but now he realizes it, too.
post #596 of 631
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...703922,00.html

Bush reminds me of O. J. Simpson, post trial. We will find the killer.... We will find the WMD.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #597 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
God what a crock! If you think it's just " ok " to have the country run by one man without the imput of the people in this democracy you're in the wrong country bucko! Myself and many other people would battle to their last breath to keep that from happening!

Don't they call that a dictatorship?

Recall that Bush did publicly pronounce: "my job would be far easier if I were a dictator".
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #598 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Don't they call that a dictatorship?

Recall that Bush did publicly pronounce: "my job would be far easier if I were a dictator".

Yeah and groverat seems to think that's ok and business as usual.

" By The People For The People ". It doesn't say " By The President For The President ". I think we've located the heart of the problem.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #599 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Wolfowitz is out of control.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...970334,00.html

I'm sure it's out of context to some extent. But can a member of this administration utter the words 'oil' and 'Iraq' in the same sentence without being fired?

So, the Guardian has corrected itself.
Quote:
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

Full transcript of Wolfowitz's remarks at this DoD link.

post #600 of 631
giant:

Quote:
It's interesting how the only conception of the word 'threat' you can wrap your brain around consists of wither terrorist or military attacks on the US.

Educate me, Wildcat.

Quote:
how things change

There's a reason you had to cut that sentence off before it finished and removed it from context. You don't want to acknowledge what I was really saying.

All that hard research work to try and bust me and that's all you can come up with?

Could I get a copy of the old thread, please? I'd really appreciate it.
ftmsucks@yahoo.com
Please.

--

jimmac:

Quote:
God what a crock! If you think it's just " ok " to have the country run by one man without the input of the people in this democracy you're in the wrong country bucko! Myself and many other people would battle to their last breath to keep that from happening

When did I say anything of the sort, my angry partisan friend?

Also, how is the country run by one man without the input of the people any more than it was 5 years ago when we dropped bombs all over Iraq?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war