<strong>Some guy said that when the smearing campaign against the inspectors starts, then war is just around the corner. Guess he was right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments like those are a preemptive strike against legitimate criticism. Criticism can only be a smear campaign?
SDW...just in the case that Blix came out with some damning stuff against Iraq: If I had it, I would bet you the entire US defense budget that you wouldn't complain about that, even if he was lying about it!
Looks like it's the US and UK who are the real liars: Even the corporate media are reporting this one! (probably not Fox tho)....
If WMDs are the real reason for going to war against Iraq, how come they have to resort to fabricating 'evidence' on such a regular basis? They've done this re. nerve gas, bio weapons, mobile labs, aerial photos, arabic "translations", the works. Even the supposed gassing of the Kurds is a lie: this was acknowledged in a DIA report 10 years ago to be either untrue or "highly improbable".
<strong>Topic: Hans Blix is a Liar</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, he's a liar.
And George Bush is a liar.
And Tom Daschle is a liar.
And Jean-Pierre Raffarin is a liar.
And Vladimir Putin is a liar.
And Tony Blair is a liar.
And your 4th grade teacher is a liar.
And everybody's mother is a liar.
No one makes it through life without lying. Anyone who lies or ever has lied is a liar.
Why bother to call someone a liar, since it's true about all of us? I suppose you might make the accusation if you want to emphasize the act of lying, to convey the idea that a particular person's lying is somehow a characteristic and pernicious aspect of their being.
Well, is that your point about Hans Blix SDW2001? Or is it merely that in your opinion that he has lied about certain specific things?
Whether the accusation is true or not, I don't think I've ever heard a convincing, persuasive, well-considered case for a particular viewpoint made that included someone snarling out the words "He's a liar!"
Lest you think I'm singling you out for your pro-war viewpoint, I can fault many anti-war people for the same kind of blustering, useless rhetoric.
Blix' former boss, a friend who has known him for 40 years has said that Blix is only in it for the job, the prestige and the process.
He claims that Blix is like most career diplomats: More interested in the process than in the result. If there are results, then the process ends and Blix loses his job.
Remember a few months ago when that Iraqi tried to flee into the cars of the UN inspectors? Blix' response was to turn him back over to the Iraqis for "such an inelegant way of approaching the Inspectors."
Not interested in what he had to say. Not interested in the fact that the Iraqis would kill him if he was returned to them. Not interested in any part of it except that the man was "inelegant."
That same man has disappeared now. Likely murdered. After he was tortured, after his children were tortured and raped and after his wife and drawn and quartered in front of the entire family. That is the regime Blix would rather have in power because it gives him and those like him jobs.
It's like he thinks he is a AAA celebrity scoffing at the peon who futily tries to get an autograph, except he is utterly oblivious to the severity of the situation which compelled that person to risk it all in approaching the inspectors. I wonder if at that point, it became clear to all who witnessed it (Iraqi's, that is) that these shining UN inspectors who are held as upholders of justice and peace lacked any sense of sympathy or concern for "the natives" whatsoever.
"clinton is like 1000 times better than Bush" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That's a good one. Thank god clinton isn't president now. Of course, neither Iraq or N.Korea would be a problem. saddam and jong-il would just tell clinton they have no weapons and he'd belive them...no problem! As much as the left hates to admit it, we are paying for eight years of liberal "i feel your pain" politics. No, clinton is not responsible for 9-11 or the current situation, at least not completely.
It's true that the liberals need gun control. The louder they speak up the more they shoot themselves in the foot! (see following posts for evidence)
Oh my. I am just in disbelief when I hear this kind of thinking. The President of the United States is equated with a maniacal dictator who slaughters his own people and has toyed with the international community for years. This is the Left for you.
And, the first statement makes it even worse. You cite Bill Clinton as being more trustworthy than George W. Bush. That's absurd....unbelievably absurd. You are talking about the president that looked the people right in the eye....wagged his finger in their faces, and LIED. He lied under oath. He later admitted it! And you compare him to President Bush? Clinton is perhaps the most dishonest President in the history of this nation. Say what you about the economy and "being at peace" during his administration (also a lie), he was the very definition of "morally corrupt".
[quote]That's a good one. Thank god clinton isn't president now. Of course, neither Iraq or N.Korea would be a problem. saddam and jong-il would just tell clinton they have no weapons and he'd belive them...no problem!<hr></blockquote>
North Korea wouldn't be a problem since we would still be giving our aid package to them. We only stopped giving them aid because of a *mistranslation*. Then they decided they couldn't trust us because we were making stuff up about them and looking to pick a fight. So they started up their nuclear reactors and now they could have a nuclear bomb in 4-8 weeks. I doubt Clinton would have got himself in that mess.
Then there is Iraq. Bush wants his war, Bush is going to get his war. It's as simple as that. For Clinton, war was the last option. For Bush, it's obviously one of the first. When nearly 35% of your own people don't favor military action without UN support, you have a problem. The world doesn't want this conflict, they want to try peace first and maybe they would have a chance if the President wasn't pressing war so much. They made up their mind a year ago they were going to attack Iraq. So much for the element of surprise.
[quote]And, the first statement makes it even worse. You cite Bill Clinton as being more trustworthy than George W. Bush. That's absurd....unbelievably absurd. You are talking about the president that looked the people right in the eye....wagged his finger in their faces, and LIED.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, but George W. Bush has lied to the American people as well. He says that for him, war is the last option. He says that God told him to attack Iraq. Does anyone actually believe this? If war was the last option, we'd still be doing diplomacy instead of having 200,000 troops in the Persian Gulf. It's not a recent decision to attack Iraq either since it's been months since the first troops arrived to start an invasion. So you want to say Bush hasn't gone on television and lied? Please. The difference between what Clinton has done and what Bush has done is that Clinton lied about a personal affair. Wow. What a crime.
[quote]He lied under oath. He later admitted it! And you compare him to President Bush? <hr></blockquote>
Hey, lying is lying. The independent counsel *never* had a case against President Clinton, as much as you would have loved to see him removed from office. When it comes down to it, all he did was hide a personal affair, something about his personal life, from the American people. All that time and money was spent for nothing, and it kept Clinton from more important business. It was a modern day witch hunt by the 'high and mighty' Republican party, plain and simple.
[quote]Clinton is perhaps the most dishonest President in the history of this nation. Say what you about the economy and "being at peace" during his administration (also a lie), he was the very definition of "morally corrupt".<hr></blockquote>
Oh, how soon we forget about such crooks as President Nixon, who ordered a break in of DNC headquarters and then not only lied about it and tried to cover it up, but then proceeded to *fire* everyone around him including multiple independent counsels when they figured out what really happened. So you want to compare a President who was fooling around with a President who ordered illegal activities such as break ins, and say the one who was fooling around is the most dishonest and morally corrupt President ever? In your dreams. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I said, you believe Bush is more trustworthy than Saddam because you like him. That's the equivalent of a Clinton fan saying 'Bill Clinton is 1000 times better than Bush, so that means he DIDN'T lie about getting a blow job!'
It makes no sense, that's the point. Clinton lied. Bush is lying. Saddam is lying. You're putting Bush on a pedastal simply because you like him, not because he's actually trustworthy.
[quote]Remember a few months ago when that Iraqi tried to flee into the cars of the UN inspectors? Blix' response was to turn him back over to the Iraqis for "such an inelegant way of approaching the Inspectors."<hr></blockquote>
got a link for that? i don't recall reading anything about that at all.
got a link for that? i don't recall reading anything about that at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>I remember that . . . and it truly is shameful to think that he was not immediately given diplomatic immunity
after all these are the UN inspectors, aren't the Iraqis supposed to be 'trembling' before the possibility of what they might find?!?! and couldn't it be anything that they find, like the stories of a desperate man?!?!
the only reason i ask for a link is that i don't have much of a problem with the job Blix is doing. i'd felt he was a guy stuck with a shit job that there's going to be no happy solution to.
HOWEVER. if what was described above actually happened, then he's done in my opinion. he's worthless, obviously not trying to actually find the answers. if you were really searching for this info, someone came running for their lives to tell you and you turn them away?
man, i'd put that on the news 24/7 and ask for his removal from the office. that's terrible.
however, i'm not going to beleive it unless i actually see an article on it from a reputable news source. too many claims from either side of the issue are unfounded nowadays for me to believe anything i don't see for myself.
<strong>the only reason i ask for a link is that i don't have much of a problem with the job Blix is doing. i'd felt he was a guy stuck with a shit job that there's going to be no happy solution to.
HOWEVER. if what was described above actually happened, then he's done in my opinion. he's worthless, obviously not trying to actually find the answers. if you were really searching for this info, someone came running for their lives to tell you and you turn them away?
man, i'd put that on the news 24/7 and ask for his removal from the office. that's terrible.
however, i'm not going to beleive it unless i actually see an article on it from a reputable news source. too many claims from either side of the issue are unfounded nowadays for me to believe anything i don't see for myself. </strong><hr></blockquote>I think that what occured was more sensative then it is charicterized here . . . . he needs to be able to continue what he is doing, what all the inspectors are doing, they can't suddenly become the airlift crew for the entire Iraqi people
That would be like faultuing the American airmen for leaving Vietnam without taking every single Vietnamese that wanted to leave . . . ..
anyway, the flip side is is that it might also have made a good scene which would have held things up and gotten teh ball rolling in other directions as well . . . <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
We have tried diplomacy! 12 years of diplomacy! Bush isn't stupid...he knows that it probably won't work. But, there has been a serious effort anway. Do we all forget that it is the United States, led by the President personally, that called for new U.N. resolution?
And yes, I think Bush is guided by God. The Left will mock this and say it is dishonest. One thing I believe about Bush is that he wants this for what he considers to be the right reasons. You (and many others) may disagree with those reasons, but I'm sure he is steadfast in his beliefs.
Don't say "God told him to attack Iraq"...that's not what he said...it is a mischaracterization. He said he prays for guidance, wisdom and strength, and that he feels he is on the right course.
You also say that that war isn't a good idea because 35% of the people oppose it. At least you're honest...that's probably a fair number. However, what about the 65% of those of us who support it? One must also put Europe's opposition in context and perspective. Europe, on the whole, is passive, has been passive, and will remain passive. To quote Jay Leno "In WWII, not even the French defended France".
One last point: Speaking of France, I am growing more perplexed by the day regarding their actions. It is one thing to oppose military action, but to actively work to persuade security council members to vote agaisnt the U.S and Britain...that's just unbelieveable, don't you think? France has become an irrelavent power. Perhaps this is their way of trying to assert themselves. As an ally of both the US and Britain, they should not be actively acting working agaisnt us. It doesn;t even seem that our former enemy Russia is doing what they are.
<strong>And yes, I think Bush is guided by God. The Left will mock this and say it is dishonest. One thing I believe about Bush is that he wants this for what he considers to be the right reasons. You (and many others) may disagree with those reasons, but I'm sure he is steadfast in his beliefs.
Don't say "God told him to attack Iraq"...that's not what he said...it is a mischaracterization. He said he prays for guidance, wisdom and strength, and that he feels he is on the right course.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two things could be happening when Bush announces he is "praying for guidance"
1. He is pandering to the constituency that would buy this revolting piece of crap and its implied attitudes:
or worse yet:
2. He actually thinks with this kind of sentiment
SDW, I know you probably have allready ordered one of these Hunh?!?!
Comments
<strong>Some guy said that when the smearing campaign against the inspectors starts, then war is just around the corner. Guess he was right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments like those are a preemptive strike against legitimate criticism. Criticism can only be a smear campaign?
<strong>
Comments like those are a preemptive strike against legitimate criticism. Criticism can only be a smear campaign?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought you were pro-preemptive strikes?
<strong>
Then you are (1) lying, or (2) ignorant. Or you could be saying it for political reasons (see (2)).
I'm tired of this stuff. You guys whine because you don't get better treatment here and then you post THIS!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I realize that as much as I don't like Bush, Saddam is 1000 times worse. That doesn't make either one more trustworthy than the other.
You guys are like little kids. 'Because I don't like you, that means you stole the cookie from the cookie jar!'
Get real. Bush has a very poor history when it comes to trust.
Clinton is like 1000 times better than Bush, so that means he DIDN'T lie about getting a blow job!
Looks like it's the US and UK who are the real liars: Even the corporate media are reporting this one! (probably not Fox tho)....
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/882311.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/882311.asp</a>;
<a href="http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2346364"; target="_blank">http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2346364</a>;
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,910113,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,910113,00.html</a>;
If WMDs are the real reason for going to war against Iraq, how come they have to resort to fabricating 'evidence' on such a regular basis? They've done this re. nerve gas, bio weapons, mobile labs, aerial photos, arabic "translations", the works. Even the supposed gassing of the Kurds is a lie: this was acknowledged in a DIA report 10 years ago to be either untrue or "highly improbable".
Send your high profile communication to bush......oops! He might be a liar also!
Scott,
" He's the Puppet of Paris. "
__________________
If you don't stop I'm going to send some frenchmen after you! ( they'll being packing some big loaves of french bread )
Man found beaten senseless with baguette.
Police baffled.
Film at eleven.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>Topic: Hans Blix is a Liar</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, he's a liar.
And George Bush is a liar.
And Tom Daschle is a liar.
And Jean-Pierre Raffarin is a liar.
And Vladimir Putin is a liar.
And Tony Blair is a liar.
And your 4th grade teacher is a liar.
And everybody's mother is a liar.
No one makes it through life without lying. Anyone who lies or ever has lied is a liar.
Why bother to call someone a liar, since it's true about all of us? I suppose you might make the accusation if you want to emphasize the act of lying, to convey the idea that a particular person's lying is somehow a characteristic and pernicious aspect of their being.
Well, is that your point about Hans Blix SDW2001? Or is it merely that in your opinion that he has lied about certain specific things?
Whether the accusation is true or not, I don't think I've ever heard a convincing, persuasive, well-considered case for a particular viewpoint made that included someone snarling out the words "He's a liar!"
Lest you think I'm singling you out for your pro-war viewpoint, I can fault many anti-war people for the same kind of blustering, useless rhetoric.
He claims that Blix is like most career diplomats: More interested in the process than in the result. If there are results, then the process ends and Blix loses his job.
Remember a few months ago when that Iraqi tried to flee into the cars of the UN inspectors? Blix' response was to turn him back over to the Iraqis for "such an inelegant way of approaching the Inspectors."
Not interested in what he had to say. Not interested in the fact that the Iraqis would kill him if he was returned to them. Not interested in any part of it except that the man was "inelegant."
That same man has disappeared now. Likely murdered. After he was tortured, after his children were tortured and raped and after his wife and drawn and quartered in front of the entire family. That is the regime Blix would rather have in power because it gives him and those like him jobs.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
That's a good one. Thank god clinton isn't president now. Of course, neither Iraq or N.Korea would be a problem. saddam and jong-il would just tell clinton they have no weapons and he'd belive them...no problem! As much as the left hates to admit it, we are paying for eight years of liberal "i feel your pain" politics. No, clinton is not responsible for 9-11 or the current situation, at least not completely.
It's true that the liberals need gun control. The louder they speak up the more they shoot themselves in the foot! (see following posts for evidence)
"Bush is nomore trustworthy than Saddam"
Oh my. I am just in disbelief when I hear this kind of thinking. The President of the United States is equated with a maniacal dictator who slaughters his own people and has toyed with the international community for years. This is the Left for you.
And, the first statement makes it even worse. You cite Bill Clinton as being more trustworthy than George W. Bush. That's absurd....unbelievably absurd. You are talking about the president that looked the people right in the eye....wagged his finger in their faces, and LIED. He lied under oath. He later admitted it! And you compare him to President Bush? Clinton is perhaps the most dishonest President in the history of this nation. Say what you about the economy and "being at peace" during his administration (also a lie), he was the very definition of "morally corrupt".
North Korea wouldn't be a problem since we would still be giving our aid package to them. We only stopped giving them aid because of a *mistranslation*. Then they decided they couldn't trust us because we were making stuff up about them and looking to pick a fight. So they started up their nuclear reactors and now they could have a nuclear bomb in 4-8 weeks. I doubt Clinton would have got himself in that mess.
Then there is Iraq. Bush wants his war, Bush is going to get his war. It's as simple as that. For Clinton, war was the last option. For Bush, it's obviously one of the first. When nearly 35% of your own people don't favor military action without UN support, you have a problem. The world doesn't want this conflict, they want to try peace first and maybe they would have a chance if the President wasn't pressing war so much. They made up their mind a year ago they were going to attack Iraq. So much for the element of surprise.
[quote]And, the first statement makes it even worse. You cite Bill Clinton as being more trustworthy than George W. Bush. That's absurd....unbelievably absurd. You are talking about the president that looked the people right in the eye....wagged his finger in their faces, and LIED.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, but George W. Bush has lied to the American people as well. He says that for him, war is the last option. He says that God told him to attack Iraq. Does anyone actually believe this? If war was the last option, we'd still be doing diplomacy instead of having 200,000 troops in the Persian Gulf. It's not a recent decision to attack Iraq either since it's been months since the first troops arrived to start an invasion. So you want to say Bush hasn't gone on television and lied? Please. The difference between what Clinton has done and what Bush has done is that Clinton lied about a personal affair. Wow. What a crime.
[quote]He lied under oath. He later admitted it! And you compare him to President Bush? <hr></blockquote>
Hey, lying is lying. The independent counsel *never* had a case against President Clinton, as much as you would have loved to see him removed from office. When it comes down to it, all he did was hide a personal affair, something about his personal life, from the American people. All that time and money was spent for nothing, and it kept Clinton from more important business. It was a modern day witch hunt by the 'high and mighty' Republican party, plain and simple.
[quote]Clinton is perhaps the most dishonest President in the history of this nation. Say what you about the economy and "being at peace" during his administration (also a lie), he was the very definition of "morally corrupt".<hr></blockquote>
Oh, how soon we forget about such crooks as President Nixon, who ordered a break in of DNC headquarters and then not only lied about it and tried to cover it up, but then proceeded to *fire* everyone around him including multiple independent counsels when they figured out what really happened. So you want to compare a President who was fooling around with a President who ordered illegal activities such as break ins, and say the one who was fooling around is the most dishonest and morally corrupt President ever? In your dreams. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
Clinton is like 1000 times better than Bush, so that means he DIDN'T lie about getting a blow job!
I said, you believe Bush is more trustworthy than Saddam because you like him. That's the equivalent of a Clinton fan saying 'Bill Clinton is 1000 times better than Bush, so that means he DIDN'T lie about getting a blow job!'
It makes no sense, that's the point. Clinton lied. Bush is lying. Saddam is lying. You're putting Bush on a pedastal simply because you like him, not because he's actually trustworthy.
got a link for that? i don't recall reading anything about that at all.
<strong>
got a link for that? i don't recall reading anything about that at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>I remember that . . . and it truly is shameful to think that he was not immediately given diplomatic immunity
after all these are the UN inspectors, aren't the Iraqis supposed to be 'trembling' before the possibility of what they might find?!?! and couldn't it be anything that they find, like the stories of a desperate man?!?!
it almost makes a good arguement for war
except that it still does not . .
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
HOWEVER. if what was described above actually happened, then he's done in my opinion. he's worthless, obviously not trying to actually find the answers. if you were really searching for this info, someone came running for their lives to tell you and you turn them away?
man, i'd put that on the news 24/7 and ask for his removal from the office. that's terrible.
however, i'm not going to beleive it unless i actually see an article on it from a reputable news source. too many claims from either side of the issue are unfounded nowadays for me to believe anything i don't see for myself.
<strong>the only reason i ask for a link is that i don't have much of a problem with the job Blix is doing. i'd felt he was a guy stuck with a shit job that there's going to be no happy solution to.
HOWEVER. if what was described above actually happened, then he's done in my opinion. he's worthless, obviously not trying to actually find the answers. if you were really searching for this info, someone came running for their lives to tell you and you turn them away?
man, i'd put that on the news 24/7 and ask for his removal from the office. that's terrible.
however, i'm not going to beleive it unless i actually see an article on it from a reputable news source. too many claims from either side of the issue are unfounded nowadays for me to believe anything i don't see for myself.
That would be like faultuing the American airmen for leaving Vietnam without taking every single Vietnamese that wanted to leave . . . ..
anyway, the flip side is is that it might also have made a good scene which would have held things up and gotten teh ball rolling in other directions as well . . . <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
We have tried diplomacy! 12 years of diplomacy! Bush isn't stupid...he knows that it probably won't work. But, there has been a serious effort anway. Do we all forget that it is the United States, led by the President personally, that called for new U.N. resolution?
And yes, I think Bush is guided by God. The Left will mock this and say it is dishonest. One thing I believe about Bush is that he wants this for what he considers to be the right reasons. You (and many others) may disagree with those reasons, but I'm sure he is steadfast in his beliefs.
Don't say "God told him to attack Iraq"...that's not what he said...it is a mischaracterization. He said he prays for guidance, wisdom and strength, and that he feels he is on the right course.
You also say that that war isn't a good idea because 35% of the people oppose it. At least you're honest...that's probably a fair number. However, what about the 65% of those of us who support it? One must also put Europe's opposition in context and perspective. Europe, on the whole, is passive, has been passive, and will remain passive. To quote Jay Leno "In WWII, not even the French defended France".
One last point: Speaking of France, I am growing more perplexed by the day regarding their actions. It is one thing to oppose military action, but to actively work to persuade security council members to vote agaisnt the U.S and Britain...that's just unbelieveable, don't you think? France has become an irrelavent power. Perhaps this is their way of trying to assert themselves. As an ally of both the US and Britain, they should not be actively acting working agaisnt us. It doesn;t even seem that our former enemy Russia is doing what they are.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>And yes, I think Bush is guided by God. The Left will mock this and say it is dishonest. One thing I believe about Bush is that he wants this for what he considers to be the right reasons. You (and many others) may disagree with those reasons, but I'm sure he is steadfast in his beliefs.
Don't say "God told him to attack Iraq"...that's not what he said...it is a mischaracterization. He said he prays for guidance, wisdom and strength, and that he feels he is on the right course.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two things could be happening when Bush announces he is "praying for guidance"
1. He is pandering to the constituency that would buy this revolting piece of crap and its implied attitudes:
or worse yet:
2. He actually thinks with this kind of sentiment
SDW, I know you probably have allready ordered one of these Hunh?!?!
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>