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It's already been shown that the argument originally made to say Bush is lying is wrong...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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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!
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.
Comments
my comments in italics:
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.
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?
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).
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.
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?
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?
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).
note that the no-fly zones were not supported by the UN
Absolutely right.
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.
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).
ftmsucks@yahoo.com
--
Fundamentalist forces are taking hold of india and already hundreds of people have died in high-profile conflicts.
Yes... and. Where is the threat?
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"?
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.
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....
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/
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?).
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.
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.
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.
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.
It would bother me if he was a democrat.
I sincerely doubt that.
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.
Powell lost it when he saw the proposed contents of is Feb. 5 speech to the UN, as prepared by Cheney etc.
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
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!
Oct 2002
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
Groverat: That Bush lied? BIG ****ING DEAL
how things change
Also:
Oct 2002
Groverat: What the administration wants is to "give [inspections] some teeth"
June 2003
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.
Bush reminds me of O. J. Simpson, post trial. We will find the killer.... We will find the WMD.