Uh, yeah, that's the only difference between Bush's and Clinton's Iraq policies.
Yet more lies about what I say hidden in sarcasm.
Did Bush and Clinton not both play the WMD card? Because that's all I said.
Quote:
Man you are a tool. "Did he lie under oath?" You sound like you're his lawyer trying to get him off on technicalities, rather than making objective judgments. Of course he wasn't under oath.
It's an important distinction. If someone is trying to sell you something in a speech you assume they are likely to lie or exaggerate. If someone is saying something under oath they are obligated to tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth". Huge difference.
Question for you:
I think Clinton deserved impeachment for lying under oath. Do you think I would feel the same if he only lied on television?
Quote:
You also claimed in one of your defenses of Bush that terrorism wasn't really one of his reasons for the war.
Quote me. Shouldn't be too hard.
--
midwinter:
Quote:
Isn't that precisely what the Senate is going to look into?
It's bad form to answer a question with a question.
We shall see what they come up with.
Quote:
No, but if he deliberately misrepresented the level of threat to Congress ( to get them to grant approval for the war), to the UN (via Powell), and to the American people (via his national press conference), I would say that that's a very, very bad thing.
I think Congress and the UN were well aware of everything Bush/Powell talked about and were able to make decisions on their own without him (and they did, as many were quite angry with him.) It is not as if he wasn't being called a liar before he even opened his mouth. It's not like these weren't questions before.
Re: Congress' abrogation of their Constitutional duties by handing the Executive supreme war powers. That is a travesty on a Constitutional basis alone, I don't think members of Congress are so stupid to belive everything the President says.
As far as the American people, I don't know how much he's lied to them. I haven't really seen the case made. Maybe, maybe not.
Quote:
Wasn't there a problem with members of congress requesting intelligence data and not getting it?
I don't know if it was a problem so much as them not being authorized, which is perfectly valid IMO. Congress is more full of leaks than the Titanic.
If they weren't sure they shouldn't have given him so much power, that is their own fault those goddam bastards.
Quote:
Clinton wages a full-scale war, with hundreds of thousands of troops, and I didn't notice? The difference is not the R or the D. The difference is that Clinton wanted to contain SH (and occasionally drop some bombs on him to keep him in check); Bush wanted to remove him from power.
And that difference is a bad thing!? haha
Quote:
Why would neither admin be making the argument you've been advancing if, in fact, the humanitarian issue had been such a large part of their case? Seriously.
What do you mean "be making the argument"? They already made the argument, you agree to that.
They called it a war of liberation for Dog's sake.
Do you want them to make it on your front porch? How many times does it have to he rehashed to be known?
When was the last time Bush said something about WMD? Yet how often is it brought up even today?
This is very much about what Bush's partisan political opponents want the issue to be about, and since WMD is all they've got to attack with that's what they go with. It becomes a media event.
*giant, out of arguments and logic resorts to flexing his charity muscles in a character attack, let's see how it goes*
Quote:
So when was the last time you did any humanitarian work? When was the last time anyone you knew did humanitarian work.
I don't know what you consider "humanitarian work" but I do habitat for humanity every so often and back in my church-going days (a good 5 years ago) I was very active in such things. Oklahoma tornado disaster cleanup, Mississippi flooding and all that good fun.
Not much in the last few years aside from the Habitat for Humanity, though, and I really have a difficult time seeing what the hell it has to do with anything.
Quote:
I guess everyone else that actually has spend years studying it and devoting their lives to it just have their heads up their asses.
I think humanitarian workers are political creatures, by and large, especially ones who use the work of others they know as weapons on internet message boards.
Tell me, giant, what have the humanitarian repercussions of the war been and how do they compare to the pre-war methods of "containing" Hussein?
I don't know what you consider "humanitarian work" but I do habitat for humanity every so often and back in my church-going days (a good 5 years ago) I was very active in such things. Oklahoma tornado disaster cleanup, Mississippi flooding and all that good fun.
Then it's obvious where your background in international relations and world humanitarian crises comes from.
Quote:
Tell me, giant, what have the humanitarian repercussions of the war been and how do they compare to the pre-war methods of "containing" Hussein?
You still seem to be missing the point. Massive war in iraq and <2000 peacekeepers to Congo. Whatever happened to Afghanistan? AIDS in africa? Indonesia? Myanmar? How many more do you want?
But, hey, lets just focus on the fact that the money spent on war in Iraq would have better served those we forgot about in Afghanistan.
The point of Iraq's humanitarian situation is not Iraq's humanitarian situation?
Quote:
Massive war in iraq and <2000 peacekeepers to Congo. Whatever happened to Afghanistan? AIDS in africa?
Afghanistan is still there. We still have troops there. Russia just backed a NATO peacekeeping plan there with 5,000 troops in Kabul. Karzai is visiting Iran. What the hell does your ignorance on the subject have to do with anything?
Bush pledged a shitload of money for AIDS in Africa and dozens of groups are still working on it.
Did Bush and Clinton not both play the WMD card? Because that's all I said.
Bush played the card in order to invade Iraq. That's the reason people are critical his playing of the WMD card. But you knew that, you were just trying to defend Bush in any way possible.
Quote:
Question for you:
I think Clinton deserved impeachment for lying under oath. Do you think I would feel the same if he only lied on television?
It's a pathetically transparent attempt to defend Bush. Question for you: how often do presidents go under oath? If that's your standard, Nixon wouldn't have been up for impeachment.
Quote:
Quote me. Shouldn't be too hard.
I'm claiming that you said terrorism wasn't really one of the reasons Bush used to go to war. By saying "quote me," you're not admitting you said it. Do you deny you it then?
Afghanistan is still there. We still have troops there. Russia just backed a NATO peacekeeping plan there with 5,000 troops in Kabul. Karzai is visiting Iran.
You know, a little research wouldn't hurt.
Quote:
Bush pledged a shitload of money for AIDS in Africa and dozens of groups are still working on it.
Again, do you just read headlines and form your world view off of that?
Groverat, who are you trying to fool with this oath BS? So we should remove a president for a technicality, but not lying to start a war? I think you are basically alone on that one. But then again, you apparently think you can use these inane arguments to safe a little face.
Bush played the card in order to invade Iraq. That's the reason people are critical his playing of the WMD card. But you knew that, you were just trying to defend Bush in any way possible.
No, I'm being consistent.
I didn't really care all that much when Clinton lied about his blowjob and I don't really care all that much that Bush lied to invade Iraq.
Clinton lying to bomb Iraq is worse than Bush's lie to invade because Clinton didn't actually get anything accomplished with the lie. Bush got rid of Saddam and sanctions, two HUGE positives in my mind.
Quote:
It's a pathetically transparent attempt to defend Bush.
It's not my fault you are the one obsessed with that angle.
Quote:
Question for you: how often do presidents go under oath?
Don't know and what does that matter?
Quote:
If that's your standard, Nixon wouldn't have been up for impeachment.
Nixon was involved in an actual crime; B&E etc...
Lying is not a crime.
Quote:
I'm claiming that you said terrorism wasn't really one of the reasons Bush used to go to war. By saying "quote me," you're not admitting you said it. Do you deny you it then?
I'm asking you to provide context with a quote.
Lay the hammer down on me, BRussell, smack me up.
----
giant:
Again, what is your point about Afghanistan, AIDS in Africa? What's your point?
Quote:
So we should remove a president for a technicality, but not lying to start a war?
Remove a president? When did I say we should remove a president for a technicality? Or do you not know what impeachment is?
How would I be using an argument now to "save face" when I've been using it for ~8 months? Learn a lesson from Anders, a little research he did trying to catch me in a lie revealed that I've been saying the exact same thing for months. Ain't that right, Anders?
My problem is that you seem to find it acceptable. Not a small lie ether. It resulted in the death of many people. Now I know you're going to say it resulted in saving many people but that's not the point.
Impossible fantasy is more important than life on the ground, eh?
If the senate wants to investigate go ahead but until Dubya commits an impeachable offense I don't give a shit. You hate him because you're a partisan tool, plain and simple. I'm not motivated by that like you are.
quote:
An american president is supposed to have better values than to lie just to get his way ( yes I'm including Clinton in this as well ). Especially when it results in the death of many ( something that Clinton's lie didn't ).
Excuse me, jimmac, EXCUSE ME?
Clinton lies didn't cost lives?
Ever heard of Desert Fox, my friend? EVER?
"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."
Which president said this before dropping a metric assload of bombs on Iraq?
Or were Clinton's bombs made of rainbows and fairy tales?
And this is what I mean when I accuse you of having no real motivation or thought aside from partisan bullshit.
You can attempt to wriggle out of this one by making an obivious and feable attempt to portray me as uncaring or a tool for the democratic party. I'm registered independent by the way.
With the Clinton thing we'll never know the statis of WOMD in Iraq at the time. That was years ago. I still don't think that Iraq was ever any kind of real threat but I never said Clinton was perfect.
The lie I was talking about was with the sex scandal.
Bush lied about his facts to create a war that cost lives and lots of money in a time of economic strife. Nothing you say will change that.
I accuse you of having a blind spot when it comes to the truth. There were a lot of people who didn't want us to go to war. Our president assured us there was a good reason to do so ( WOMD and that he was some kind of threat to us the humanitarian aspect was a sub plot ). What's the matter groverat? Don't you care about those people who died in a war that was started under false pretenses? Or under your definition was it wrong under Clinton but ok under Bush? People died ether way.
My main problem with this isn't that the people of Iraq are free of one regime only to find themselves ( and their oil ) being governed by the west ( I know you'll say we're going to leave but prevously you said we wouldn't stay at all ). My problem is that this was all started under false pretense. Bush stonewalled this one through and should be held accountable.
I've endured your sexist and immature little boy insults over this but I do believe we have you by the short hairs this time.
This game you play is really transparent and pitiful. Grow up.
Quote:
Learn a lesson from Anders, a little research he did trying to catch me in a lie revealed that I've been saying the exact same thing for months. Ain't that right, Anders?
Of course, there is this:
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
[War is] the only way to disarm Iraq.
You better hope no one looks at the beginning of the thread.
With the Clinton thing we'll never know the statis of WOMD in Iraq at the time. That was years ago. I still don't think that Iraq was ever any kind of real threat but I never said Clinton was perfect.
What would they have in 1998/9 that they didn't have in 2002/3? And that timespan was void of UN inspectors.
I think it's hilarious you allow ambiguity for Clinton "we'll never know" and absolve him to an extent "I never said Clinton was perfect."
At least I have the consistency to say they both lied to get something done.
Quote:
Bush lied about his facts to create a war that cost lives and lots of money in a time of economic strife. Nothing you say will change that.
And since I don't disagree with any of that (never have) I don't want to "change" it.
Quote:
There were a lot of people who didn't want us to go to war.
Yes.
Quote:
Our president assured us there was a good reason to do so ( WOMD and that he was some kind of threat to us the humanitarian aspect was a sub plot ).
Were you assured?
Assurance is a two-way street.
Bush said those things, whether or not someone was assured was a personal decision. And as you say there were a lot of people who didn't want us to go to war.
And main plot or sub-plot it is your duty as a thinking being and participant in a democracy to analyze the situation in your own mind and not through what partisan bias you have.
Quote:
Don't you care about those people who died in a war that was started under false pretenses?
Sure, the exact same amount I care about the people who died by "peaceful" means of "containment". All 1.2 million of them.
Quote:
Or under your definition was it wrong under Clinton but ok under Bush? People died ether way.
The UN's way, Clinton's way and Bush's daddy's way took 1.2 million Iraqi civilian lives.
Dubya's way took 6,000.
1.2 million lives to "contain" a brutal dictator is wrong, absolutely.
6,000 lives to remove the brutal dictator and the mass-murdering apparatus of containment is unfortunate but right, absolutely.
Has little to do with who does it. If Clinton had waged war to oust Hussein I would be saying the exact same things.
Quote:
My main problem with this isn't that the people of Iraq are free of one regime only to find themselves ( and their oil ) being governed by the west ( I know you'll say we're going to leave but prevously you said we wouldn't stay at all ).
1) Are you attempting to draw a moral equivalency between Hussein and the US's occupation so far?
2) Don't say I said something, quote me. I don't like it when so many people lie about what I say all at once.
Quote:
My problem is that this was all started under false pretense.
Your main concern re:war isn't the Iraqi people but international and domestic partisan politicking. I knew that already, you didn't have to tell me.
Quote:
Bush stonewalled this one through and should be held accountable.
He is being crucified (and has been crucified) in the court of public opinion for months. What more do you want?
What are you holding your breath for, young man?
--
giant:
1) I'm glad you learned a lesson about US government today.
The problem of WOMD not found belongs to internal US politics. One thing is sure, The Bush team is certainly praying for a discovery of WOMD in Iraq. The fact that no WOMD have been found in Iraq is a proof of honnesty or at least of intelligence.
I just wanted to come back on the so called failure of UN. Some months ago in this thread many people said that UN was a failure, because she did not folllow the US in his foreign politic.
The argument for war (and here we do not speak of internal politic, it's not just a question of moving the public opinions for a good reason) was not trusted by the majority of diplomats and theirrespective governements of the countries of the security council.
Time will demonstrate if the war in Iraq have brings some good, but except a WOMD scoop, it appears that the argument for war bringed to the UN wasn't very good. It was logical that the UN did not voted the resolution for war presented in this way.
If this war had for goal to remove a bloody tyrannic dictator, the situation may have been different, at least not for the result (because many dictators will have voted against this resolution ...) but in a moral point of vue.
My point is UN is not finish, and can be helpful when the cards are not tricked.
1) I'm glad you learned a lesson about US government today.
This is what children do. You are wrong about something, and the only way you can handle it is to play stupid games. Well, not only do I know from your web page that I have a higher and better education than you, but it's also clear that your understanding of the world comes from reading headlines and tying them together with your imagination. Keep playing games; it makes you look real intelligent.
One thing is sure, The Bush team is certainly praying for a discovery of WOMD in Iraq.
I'm sure they are doing a little more than praying. If they are smart, then the new team will 'find' some mustard gas. It's the only thing that will pass scrutiny in the long run and even though it wouldn't justify the war, American amnesia and the lowered bar will make it A-OK to most people, like groverat, looking for something, anything, to vindicate their STILL uninformed beliefs.
Of course, every claim by the US (gosh, there have been so many, haven't there?) has been discredited and everyone ignores the great significance of the idea that Bush needs to 'find' some chemical or documents.
I just wanted to come back on the so called failure of UN. Some months ago in this thread many people said that UN was a failure, because she did not folllow the US in his foreign politic.
point-of-fact:
I didn't say and don't think the UN-SC is a failure because it failed to rubber stamp the US. Ideally a reasonable counter to the US's power would be nice.
My opinion that the UN-SC is a failure is based on the idea that it rarely does anything positive and its handling of Iraq prior to the war was beyond reprehensible.
Quote:
My point is UN is not finish, and can be helpful when the cards are not tricked.
The UN can do great things. The UN-SC can only do something right if it everyone except the person the force is going to attack agrees to move forward. That is why I think the UN-SC is a failure, because it is inflexible and self-defeating.
NATO, on the other hand, has a great track record and is looking poised to move to larger arenas. I'm not against international security, I'm against ineffectual bodies like the UN-SC.
---
giant:
Quote:
Apparently not.
Howso?
---
I wonder where those planted WMD that were so heavily predicted before the war are... hmmm.
I didn't say and don't think the UN-SC is a failure because it failed to rubber stamp the US. Ideally a reasonable counter to the US's power would be nice.
My opinion that the UN-SC is a failure is based on the idea that it rarely does anything positive and its handling of Iraq prior to the war was beyond reprehensible.
The UN can do great things. The UN-SC can only do something right if it That is why I think the UN-SC is a failure, because it is inflexible and self-defeating.
NATO, on the other hand, has a great track record and is looking poised to move to larger arenas. I'm not against international security, I'm against ineffectual bodies like the UN-SC.
---
1) The first point was not written especially for you. To be frank i don't remember exactly who write what. This thread is particulary long, and i miss it for three weeks, like the rest of AI for personal reasons.
2) I don't understand what you meant with UN SC, in particular this sentance : everyone except the person the force is going to attack agrees to move forward. Can you reword it in a more simple way for a non native english speaker
3) the crisis is over, dispite the conflictuals situations, all countries needs each others especially in the occidental side. Many foreign offices wanted to speak of the future and not of the process of the second war in Irak.
1) The first point was not written especially for you. To be frank i don't remember exactly who write what. This thread is particulary long, and i miss it for three weeks, like the rest of AI for personal reasons.
Ok.
*hugs*
Quote:
2) I don't understand what you meant with UN SC,
United Nations - Security Council
When you say "UN" I take that to mean the entire organization, which has many great humanitarian subsets that I respect a great deal. So I make the distinction: UN-SC.
Quote:
in particular this sentance : everyone except the person the force is going to attack agrees to move forward. Can you reword it in a more simple way for a non native english speaker
Yeah it was a bad sentence even for native English speakers.
I am saying that the only time the UN-SC can do something right is when everyone agrees (except the person who will be attacked by the UN forces, of course). And even then the UN-SC has a very spotty track record.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
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?
I am saying that the only time the UN-SC can do something right is when everyone agrees (except the person who will be attacked by the UN forces, of course). And even then the UN-SC has a very spotty track record.
Thanks for the clarification. I see your point. I think the real goal of the security council is to avoid a new world war. Considering that the word has changed since 1945, an evolution of this system should be made.
What would they have in 1998/9 that they didn't have in 2002/3? And that timespan was void of UN inspectors.
I think it's hilarious you allow ambiguity for Clinton "we'll never know" and absolve him to an extent "I never said Clinton was perfect."
At least I have the consistency to say they both lied to get something done.
And since I don't disagree with any of that (never have) I don't want to "change" it.
Yes.
Were you assured?
Assurance is a two-way street.
Bush said those things, whether or not someone was assured was a personal decision. And as you say there were a lot of people who didn't want us to go to war.
And main plot or sub-plot it is your duty as a thinking being and participant in a democracy to analyze the situation in your own mind and not through what partisan bias you have.
Sure, the exact same amount I care about the people who died by "peaceful" means of "containment". All 1.2 million of them.
The UN's way, Clinton's way and Bush's daddy's way took 1.2 million Iraqi civilian lives.
Dubya's way took 6,000.
1.2 million lives to "contain" a brutal dictator is wrong, absolutely.
6,000 lives to remove the brutal dictator and the mass-murdering apparatus of containment is unfortunate but right, absolutely.
Has little to do with who does it. If Clinton had waged war to oust Hussein I would be saying the exact same things.
1) Are you attempting to draw a moral equivalency between Hussein and the US's occupation so far?
2) Don't say I said something, quote me. I don't like it when so many people lie about what I say all at once.
Your main concern re:war isn't the Iraqi people but international and domestic partisan politicking. I knew that already, you didn't have to tell me.
He is being crucified (and has been crucified) in the court of public opinion for months. What more do you want?
What are you holding your breath for, young man?
--
giant:
1) I'm glad you learned a lesson about US government today.
2) Was war not the only way to disarm Iraq?
I'm not holding my breath " young man " . I wasn't making comment about your age as much as your demeanor. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. It's about right and wrong. He's being crucified? Good.
Any occupation is a ruling body. But you claim we set them free. The part you say the end justified the means doesn't wash. It was under false pretense. Don't you get it? And guess what? There are still many dictators in the world. 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.
Comments
Uh, yeah, that's the only difference between Bush's and Clinton's Iraq policies.
Yet more lies about what I say hidden in sarcasm.
Did Bush and Clinton not both play the WMD card? Because that's all I said.
Man you are a tool. "Did he lie under oath?" You sound like you're his lawyer trying to get him off on technicalities, rather than making objective judgments. Of course he wasn't under oath.
It's an important distinction. If someone is trying to sell you something in a speech you assume they are likely to lie or exaggerate. If someone is saying something under oath they are obligated to tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth". Huge difference.
Question for you:
I think Clinton deserved impeachment for lying under oath. Do you think I would feel the same if he only lied on television?
You also claimed in one of your defenses of Bush that terrorism wasn't really one of his reasons for the war.
Quote me. Shouldn't be too hard.
--
midwinter:
Isn't that precisely what the Senate is going to look into?
It's bad form to answer a question with a question.
We shall see what they come up with.
No, but if he deliberately misrepresented the level of threat to Congress ( to get them to grant approval for the war), to the UN (via Powell), and to the American people (via his national press conference), I would say that that's a very, very bad thing.
I think Congress and the UN were well aware of everything Bush/Powell talked about and were able to make decisions on their own without him (and they did, as many were quite angry with him.) It is not as if he wasn't being called a liar before he even opened his mouth. It's not like these weren't questions before.
Re: Congress' abrogation of their Constitutional duties by handing the Executive supreme war powers. That is a travesty on a Constitutional basis alone, I don't think members of Congress are so stupid to belive everything the President says.
As far as the American people, I don't know how much he's lied to them. I haven't really seen the case made. Maybe, maybe not.
Wasn't there a problem with members of congress requesting intelligence data and not getting it?
I don't know if it was a problem so much as them not being authorized, which is perfectly valid IMO. Congress is more full of leaks than the Titanic.
If they weren't sure they shouldn't have given him so much power, that is their own fault those goddam bastards.
Clinton wages a full-scale war, with hundreds of thousands of troops, and I didn't notice? The difference is not the R or the D. The difference is that Clinton wanted to contain SH (and occasionally drop some bombs on him to keep him in check); Bush wanted to remove him from power.
And that difference is a bad thing!? haha
Why would neither admin be making the argument you've been advancing if, in fact, the humanitarian issue had been such a large part of their case? Seriously.
What do you mean "be making the argument"? They already made the argument, you agree to that.
They called it a war of liberation for Dog's sake.
Do you want them to make it on your front porch? How many times does it have to he rehashed to be known?
When was the last time Bush said something about WMD? Yet how often is it brought up even today?
This is very much about what Bush's partisan political opponents want the issue to be about, and since WMD is all they've got to attack with that's what they go with. It becomes a media event.
*giant, out of arguments and logic resorts to flexing his charity muscles in a character attack, let's see how it goes*
So when was the last time you did any humanitarian work? When was the last time anyone you knew did humanitarian work.
I don't know what you consider "humanitarian work" but I do habitat for humanity every so often and back in my church-going days (a good 5 years ago) I was very active in such things. Oklahoma tornado disaster cleanup, Mississippi flooding and all that good fun.
Not much in the last few years aside from the Habitat for Humanity, though, and I really have a difficult time seeing what the hell it has to do with anything.
I guess everyone else that actually has spend years studying it and devoting their lives to it just have their heads up their asses.
I think humanitarian workers are political creatures, by and large, especially ones who use the work of others they know as weapons on internet message boards.
Tell me, giant, what have the humanitarian repercussions of the war been and how do they compare to the pre-war methods of "containing" Hussein?
Originally posted by groverat
I don't know what you consider "humanitarian work" but I do habitat for humanity every so often and back in my church-going days (a good 5 years ago) I was very active in such things. Oklahoma tornado disaster cleanup, Mississippi flooding and all that good fun.
Then it's obvious where your background in international relations and world humanitarian crises comes from.
Tell me, giant, what have the humanitarian repercussions of the war been and how do they compare to the pre-war methods of "containing" Hussein?
You still seem to be missing the point. Massive war in iraq and <2000 peacekeepers to Congo. Whatever happened to Afghanistan? AIDS in africa? Indonesia? Myanmar? How many more do you want?
But, hey, lets just focus on the fact that the money spent on war in Iraq would have better served those we forgot about in Afghanistan.
You still seem to be missing the point.
The point of Iraq's humanitarian situation is not Iraq's humanitarian situation?
Massive war in iraq and <2000 peacekeepers to Congo. Whatever happened to Afghanistan? AIDS in africa?
Afghanistan is still there. We still have troops there. Russia just backed a NATO peacekeeping plan there with 5,000 troops in Kabul. Karzai is visiting Iran. What the hell does your ignorance on the subject have to do with anything?
Bush pledged a shitload of money for AIDS in Africa and dozens of groups are still working on it.
What is your point?
Originally posted by groverat
Did Bush and Clinton not both play the WMD card? Because that's all I said.
Bush played the card in order to invade Iraq. That's the reason people are critical his playing of the WMD card. But you knew that, you were just trying to defend Bush in any way possible.
Question for you:
I think Clinton deserved impeachment for lying under oath. Do you think I would feel the same if he only lied on television?
It's a pathetically transparent attempt to defend Bush. Question for you: how often do presidents go under oath? If that's your standard, Nixon wouldn't have been up for impeachment.
Quote me. Shouldn't be too hard.
I'm claiming that you said terrorism wasn't really one of the reasons Bush used to go to war. By saying "quote me," you're not admitting you said it. Do you deny you it then?
Originally posted by groverat
Afghanistan is still there. We still have troops there. Russia just backed a NATO peacekeeping plan there with 5,000 troops in Kabul. Karzai is visiting Iran.
You know, a little research wouldn't hurt.
Bush pledged a shitload of money for AIDS in Africa and dozens of groups are still working on it.
Again, do you just read headlines and form your world view off of that?
Bush played the card in order to invade Iraq. That's the reason people are critical his playing of the WMD card. But you knew that, you were just trying to defend Bush in any way possible.
No, I'm being consistent.
I didn't really care all that much when Clinton lied about his blowjob and I don't really care all that much that Bush lied to invade Iraq.
Clinton lying to bomb Iraq is worse than Bush's lie to invade because Clinton didn't actually get anything accomplished with the lie. Bush got rid of Saddam and sanctions, two HUGE positives in my mind.
It's a pathetically transparent attempt to defend Bush.
It's not my fault you are the one obsessed with that angle.
Question for you: how often do presidents go under oath?
Don't know and what does that matter?
If that's your standard, Nixon wouldn't have been up for impeachment.
Nixon was involved in an actual crime; B&E etc...
Lying is not a crime.
I'm claiming that you said terrorism wasn't really one of the reasons Bush used to go to war. By saying "quote me," you're not admitting you said it. Do you deny you it then?
I'm asking you to provide context with a quote.
Lay the hammer down on me, BRussell, smack me up.
----
giant:
Again, what is your point about Afghanistan, AIDS in Africa? What's your point?
So we should remove a president for a technicality, but not lying to start a war?
Remove a president? When did I say we should remove a president for a technicality? Or do you not know what impeachment is?
How would I be using an argument now to "save face" when I've been using it for ~8 months? Learn a lesson from Anders, a little research he did trying to catch me in a lie revealed that I've been saying the exact same thing for months. Ain't that right, Anders?
jimmac:
quote:
My problem is that you seem to find it acceptable. Not a small lie ether. It resulted in the death of many people. Now I know you're going to say it resulted in saving many people but that's not the point.
Impossible fantasy is more important than life on the ground, eh?
If the senate wants to investigate go ahead but until Dubya commits an impeachable offense I don't give a shit. You hate him because you're a partisan tool, plain and simple. I'm not motivated by that like you are.
quote:
An american president is supposed to have better values than to lie just to get his way ( yes I'm including Clinton in this as well ). Especially when it results in the death of many ( something that Clinton's lie didn't ).
Excuse me, jimmac, EXCUSE ME?
Clinton lies didn't cost lives?
Ever heard of Desert Fox, my friend? EVER?
"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."
Which president said this before dropping a metric assload of bombs on Iraq?
Or were Clinton's bombs made of rainbows and fairy tales?
And this is what I mean when I accuse you of having no real motivation or thought aside from partisan bullshit.
You can attempt to wriggle out of this one by making an obivious and feable attempt to portray me as uncaring or a tool for the democratic party. I'm registered independent by the way.
With the Clinton thing we'll never know the statis of WOMD in Iraq at the time. That was years ago. I still don't think that Iraq was ever any kind of real threat but I never said Clinton was perfect.
The lie I was talking about was with the sex scandal.
Bush lied about his facts to create a war that cost lives and lots of money in a time of economic strife. Nothing you say will change that.
I accuse you of having a blind spot when it comes to the truth. There were a lot of people who didn't want us to go to war. Our president assured us there was a good reason to do so ( WOMD and that he was some kind of threat to us the humanitarian aspect was a sub plot ). What's the matter groverat? Don't you care about those people who died in a war that was started under false pretenses? Or under your definition was it wrong under Clinton but ok under Bush? People died ether way.
My main problem with this isn't that the people of Iraq are free of one regime only to find themselves ( and their oil ) being governed by the west ( I know you'll say we're going to leave but prevously you said we wouldn't stay at all ). My problem is that this was all started under false pretense. Bush stonewalled this one through and should be held accountable.
I've endured your sexist and immature little boy insults over this but I do believe we have you by the short hairs this time.
Originally posted by groverat
Or do you not know what impeachment is?
This game you play is really transparent and pitiful. Grow up.
Learn a lesson from Anders, a little research he did trying to catch me in a lie revealed that I've been saying the exact same thing for months. Ain't that right, Anders?
Of course, there is this:
Originally posted by groverat
[War is] the only way to disarm Iraq.
You better hope no one looks at the beginning of the thread.
With the Clinton thing we'll never know the statis of WOMD in Iraq at the time. That was years ago. I still don't think that Iraq was ever any kind of real threat but I never said Clinton was perfect.
What would they have in 1998/9 that they didn't have in 2002/3? And that timespan was void of UN inspectors.
I think it's hilarious you allow ambiguity for Clinton "we'll never know" and absolve him to an extent "I never said Clinton was perfect."
At least I have the consistency to say they both lied to get something done.
Bush lied about his facts to create a war that cost lives and lots of money in a time of economic strife. Nothing you say will change that.
And since I don't disagree with any of that (never have) I don't want to "change" it.
There were a lot of people who didn't want us to go to war.
Yes.
Our president assured us there was a good reason to do so ( WOMD and that he was some kind of threat to us the humanitarian aspect was a sub plot ).
Were you assured?
Assurance is a two-way street.
Bush said those things, whether or not someone was assured was a personal decision. And as you say there were a lot of people who didn't want us to go to war.
And main plot or sub-plot it is your duty as a thinking being and participant in a democracy to analyze the situation in your own mind and not through what partisan bias you have.
Don't you care about those people who died in a war that was started under false pretenses?
Sure, the exact same amount I care about the people who died by "peaceful" means of "containment". All 1.2 million of them.
Or under your definition was it wrong under Clinton but ok under Bush? People died ether way.
The UN's way, Clinton's way and Bush's daddy's way took 1.2 million Iraqi civilian lives.
Dubya's way took 6,000.
1.2 million lives to "contain" a brutal dictator is wrong, absolutely.
6,000 lives to remove the brutal dictator and the mass-murdering apparatus of containment is unfortunate but right, absolutely.
Has little to do with who does it. If Clinton had waged war to oust Hussein I would be saying the exact same things.
My main problem with this isn't that the people of Iraq are free of one regime only to find themselves ( and their oil ) being governed by the west ( I know you'll say we're going to leave but prevously you said we wouldn't stay at all ).
1) Are you attempting to draw a moral equivalency between Hussein and the US's occupation so far?
2) Don't say I said something, quote me. I don't like it when so many people lie about what I say all at once.
My problem is that this was all started under false pretense.
Your main concern re:war isn't the Iraqi people but international and domestic partisan politicking. I knew that already, you didn't have to tell me.
Bush stonewalled this one through and should be held accountable.
He is being crucified (and has been crucified) in the court of public opinion for months. What more do you want?
What are you holding your breath for, young man?
--
giant:
1) I'm glad you learned a lesson about US government today.
2) Was war not the only way to disarm Iraq?
I just wanted to come back on the so called failure of UN. Some months ago in this thread many people said that UN was a failure, because she did not folllow the US in his foreign politic.
The argument for war (and here we do not speak of internal politic, it's not just a question of moving the public opinions for a good reason) was not trusted by the majority of diplomats and theirrespective governements of the countries of the security council.
Time will demonstrate if the war in Iraq have brings some good, but except a WOMD scoop, it appears that the argument for war bringed to the UN wasn't very good. It was logical that the UN did not voted the resolution for war presented in this way.
If this war had for goal to remove a bloody tyrannic dictator, the situation may have been different, at least not for the result (because many dictators will have voted against this resolution ...) but in a moral point of vue.
My point is UN is not finish, and can be helpful when the cards are not tricked.
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
1) I'm glad you learned a lesson about US government today.
This is what children do. You are wrong about something, and the only way you can handle it is to play stupid games. Well, not only do I know from your web page that I have a higher and better education than you, but it's also clear that your understanding of the world comes from reading headlines and tying them together with your imagination. Keep playing games; it makes you look real intelligent.
Originally posted by groverat
2) Was war not the only way to disarm Iraq?
Apparently not.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
One thing is sure, The Bush team is certainly praying for a discovery of WOMD in Iraq.
I'm sure they are doing a little more than praying. If they are smart, then the new team will 'find' some mustard gas. It's the only thing that will pass scrutiny in the long run and even though it wouldn't justify the war, American amnesia and the lowered bar will make it A-OK to most people, like groverat, looking for something, anything, to vindicate their STILL uninformed beliefs.
Of course, every claim by the US (gosh, there have been so many, haven't there?) has been discredited and everyone ignores the great significance of the idea that Bush needs to 'find' some chemical or documents.
I just wanted to come back on the so called failure of UN. Some months ago in this thread many people said that UN was a failure, because she did not folllow the US in his foreign politic.
point-of-fact:
I didn't say and don't think the UN-SC is a failure because it failed to rubber stamp the US. Ideally a reasonable counter to the US's power would be nice.
My opinion that the UN-SC is a failure is based on the idea that it rarely does anything positive and its handling of Iraq prior to the war was beyond reprehensible.
My point is UN is not finish, and can be helpful when the cards are not tricked.
The UN can do great things. The UN-SC can only do something right if it everyone except the person the force is going to attack agrees to move forward. That is why I think the UN-SC is a failure, because it is inflexible and self-defeating.
NATO, on the other hand, has a great track record and is looking poised to move to larger arenas. I'm not against international security, I'm against ineffectual bodies like the UN-SC.
---
giant:
Apparently not.
Howso?
---
I wonder where those planted WMD that were so heavily predicted before the war are... hmmm.
Originally posted by groverat
powerdoc:
point-of-fact:
I didn't say and don't think the UN-SC is a failure because it failed to rubber stamp the US. Ideally a reasonable counter to the US's power would be nice.
My opinion that the UN-SC is a failure is based on the idea that it rarely does anything positive and its handling of Iraq prior to the war was beyond reprehensible.
The UN can do great things. The UN-SC can only do something right if it That is why I think the UN-SC is a failure, because it is inflexible and self-defeating.
NATO, on the other hand, has a great track record and is looking poised to move to larger arenas. I'm not against international security, I'm against ineffectual bodies like the UN-SC.
---
1) The first point was not written especially for you. To be frank i don't remember exactly who write what. This thread is particulary long, and i miss it for three weeks, like the rest of AI for personal reasons.
2) I don't understand what you meant with UN SC, in particular this sentance : everyone except the person the force is going to attack agrees to move forward. Can you reword it in a more simple way for a non native english speaker
3) the crisis is over, dispite the conflictuals situations, all countries needs each others especially in the occidental side. Many foreign offices wanted to speak of the future and not of the process of the second war in Irak.
1) The first point was not written especially for you. To be frank i don't remember exactly who write what. This thread is particulary long, and i miss it for three weeks, like the rest of AI for personal reasons.
Ok.
*hugs*
2) I don't understand what you meant with UN SC,
United Nations - Security Council
When you say "UN" I take that to mean the entire organization, which has many great humanitarian subsets that I respect a great deal. So I make the distinction: UN-SC.
in particular this sentance : everyone except the person the force is going to attack agrees to move forward. Can you reword it in a more simple way for a non native english speaker
Yeah it was a bad sentence even for native English speakers.
I am saying that the only time the UN-SC can do something right is when everyone agrees (except the person who will be attacked by the UN forces, of course). And even then the UN-SC has a very spotty track record.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...970334,00.html
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
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?
Originally posted by groverat
I am saying that the only time the UN-SC can do something right is when everyone agrees (except the person who will be attacked by the UN forces, of course). And even then the UN-SC has a very spotty track record.
Thanks for the clarification. I see your point. I think the real goal of the security council is to avoid a new world war. Considering that the word has changed since 1945, an evolution of this system should be made.
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:
What would they have in 1998/9 that they didn't have in 2002/3? And that timespan was void of UN inspectors.
I think it's hilarious you allow ambiguity for Clinton "we'll never know" and absolve him to an extent "I never said Clinton was perfect."
At least I have the consistency to say they both lied to get something done.
And since I don't disagree with any of that (never have) I don't want to "change" it.
Yes.
Were you assured?
Assurance is a two-way street.
Bush said those things, whether or not someone was assured was a personal decision. And as you say there were a lot of people who didn't want us to go to war.
And main plot or sub-plot it is your duty as a thinking being and participant in a democracy to analyze the situation in your own mind and not through what partisan bias you have.
Sure, the exact same amount I care about the people who died by "peaceful" means of "containment". All 1.2 million of them.
The UN's way, Clinton's way and Bush's daddy's way took 1.2 million Iraqi civilian lives.
Dubya's way took 6,000.
1.2 million lives to "contain" a brutal dictator is wrong, absolutely.
6,000 lives to remove the brutal dictator and the mass-murdering apparatus of containment is unfortunate but right, absolutely.
Has little to do with who does it. If Clinton had waged war to oust Hussein I would be saying the exact same things.
1) Are you attempting to draw a moral equivalency between Hussein and the US's occupation so far?
2) Don't say I said something, quote me. I don't like it when so many people lie about what I say all at once.
Your main concern re:war isn't the Iraqi people but international and domestic partisan politicking. I knew that already, you didn't have to tell me.
He is being crucified (and has been crucified) in the court of public opinion for months. What more do you want?
What are you holding your breath for, young man?
--
giant:
1) I'm glad you learned a lesson about US government today.
2) Was war not the only way to disarm Iraq?
I'm not holding my breath " young man " . I wasn't making comment about your age as much as your demeanor. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. It's about right and wrong. He's being crucified? Good.
Any occupation is a ruling body. But you claim we set them free. The part you say the end justified the means doesn't wash. It was under false pretense. Don't you get it? And guess what? There are still many dictators in the world. 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.
And groverat please smugness won't help you now.