TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Ha!
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Ha!

And guess what all you defenseless fools, I DON'T CARE IF IT'S ON MOVEON.ORG, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/


HA!

well, why didn't they show Rummy's response? Afraid people might agree with it, hmmm?


Rummy's a good guy. He tells it straight up as it is. Its brought him a lot of headache as he has been trying to take the politics out of the Pentagon.

Politics or mafia, is a very strong thing to fight against.


p.s.

and wtf is censure the president

It's laughable b'cuz it was completely taken out of context followed by an opportunistic jab at a very intelligent man.

something that sight is good at and is all it has going for it. America's failure.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo It's laughable b'cuz it was completely taken out of context followed by an opportunistic jab at a very intelligent man. something that sight is good at and is all it has going for it. America's failure.

if youare going to look at it fromt he context of the whole damn interview... then yes.. it was tajen out of context.

But the question was clear and his response was a lie...and he was proven wrong right there!!!!

Its so funny seeing right wingers try their best at defending even the most idiotic responses from the Bush administration

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King if youare going to look at it fromt he context of the whole damn interview... then yes.. it was tajen out of context. But the question was clear and his response was a lie...and he was proven right there!!!! Its so funny seeing right wingers try their best at defending even the most idiotic responses from the Bush administration

Get a life.

quote:

Originally posted by rainbow_marble Get a life.

looks like youve lost some of those colorful rainbow marbles didnt you...its okay, i have one for you to play with.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Its so funny seeing right wingers try their best at defending even the most idiotic responses from the Bush administration

well he didn't lie. Even in that interview. He said he never said "imminent" threat... he didn't, he said "immediate"

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus well he didn't lie. Even in that interview. He said he never said "imminent" threat... he didn't, he said "immediate"

man are you for real ?

Well if you take a few steps back and apply some relativity to Bush's statement that Iraq was an imminent threat, we can see that they weren't lying at all. For example, if we juxtapose the imminent threat that Iraq posed with the age of the universe depicted as a 24-hour clock , we can clearly see that we have but mere milli-seconds to pre-emptively react before it is too late. So you see all you dumb liberals, the administration was in fact RIGHT!

Now excuse me, I am imminently turning 65 and I have to hurry up and collect my social security check before all the money runs out. Well shoot ... I'm too late. This is most certainly Clinton's fault.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well if you take a few steps back and apply some relativity to Bush's statement that Iraq was an imminent threat, we can see that they weren't lying at all. For example, if we juxtapose the imminent threat that Iraq posed with the age of the universe depicted as a 24-hour clock , we can clearly see that we have but mere milli-seconds to pre-emptively react before it is too late. So you see all you dumb liberals, the administration was in fact RIGHT! Now excuse me, I am imminently turning 65 and I have to hurry up and collect my social security check before all the money runs out. Well shoot ... I'm too late. This is most certainly Clinton's fault.

you are trying too hard

"No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Can you name any OTHER terror states that had any greater priority?

Imagine peace in this region with this asshole still around... You can't.
But the potential for peace now is that much more realized.
And yes, long term, it will happen.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Only country who have been condemned for terrorism. (for its illegal actions and murders in Nicaragua).

wait... in that region?

ISRAEL, duh!

state terrorism against the terrorism of the weaks.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek wait... in that region? ISRAEL, duh! state terrorism against the terrorism of the weaks.

So. You want the complete desruction of Isreal?

correct me if I'm wrong...and I'm serious.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo "No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Can you name any OTHER terror states that had any greater priority? Imagine peace in this region with this asshole still around... You can't. But the potential for peace now is that much more realized. And yes, long term, it will happen.

Well North Korea comes to mind but that's not the point. I think that everyone recognized that Iraq posed a threat to the region and perhaps over time, everyond else. That's not disputable, what's disputable is Iraq's immediate threat that would warrant pre-eminent invasion ... ignore all humanitarian concerns because that's not applicable. In the event that Iraq did pose this threat, then I would be a strong advocate of the go-it-alone preeminent approach. But in fact, Iraq did not pose this threat. Therefore by doing a simple cost benefit analysis of the situation, imo the costs of the war and the lives lost, were not worth the benefits gained.

Now if the UN had started the war just as precipitously as the US then I would have been in support of the invasion ... simply because the costs would have been spread out such that the benefits yielded from the effort would nto have come at such a high price.

I suppose I'm a firm believer of realpolitik

What's that saying? There's nothing more dangerous than a man motivated by ideology?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo So. You want the complete desruction of Isreal? correct me if I'm wrong...and I'm serious.

Your question is more of an implication.

I want people of all that land to live togetehr under one democratic state where EVERYONE (MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN, ARAB, JEW) is treated equally under law.

But the zionists are too greedy. It will never happen.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well if you take a few steps back and apply some relativity to Bush's statement that Iraq was an imminent threat

Once again, the 2003 SOTU quote is "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

actually occrider, i don't know what you are talking about... because Hans Blix and his infamous inspectors have repeatedly said that Saddam was not a threat because his means were just not there anymore. But, USA not believing him, UK playing along, they attacked.

A year later, no WMD, proving Blix to be right! the UN was right!! The WMD have been destroyed up to 1998 and nothing else was produced in the country!

The only clown was Saddam who still made it seem as if he had something left... but he didn't have a choice either. He wanted to keep at bay his old enemies i.e. Iran and Syria.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Your question is more of an implication. I want people of all that land to live togetehr under one democratic state where EVERYONE (MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN, ARAB, JEW) is treated equally under law. But the zionists are too greedy. It will never happen.

Your right, I never intended for him to answer that, maybe he will.
But he has to be honest before he make statements like that.
But as far as Iraq is concerned, is it the "zionist" that are too greedy or the shiites that will prevent peace.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Your right, I never intended for him to answer that, maybe he will. But he has to be honest before he make statements like that. But as far as Iraq is concerned, is it the "zionist" that are too greedy or the shiites that will prevent peace.

my answer is similar to his... frankly the destruction of Israel is something that the religious love selling to the masses...

i aint either religious or in those masses...

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek actually occrider, i don't know what you are talking about... because Hans Blix and his infamous inspectors have repeatedly said that Saddam was not a threat because his means were just not there anymore. But, USA not believing him, UK playing along, they attacked. A year later, no WMD, proving Blix to be right! the UN was right!! The WMD have been destroyed up to 1998 and nothing else was produced in the country! The only clown was Saddam who still made it seem as if he had something left... but he didn't have a choice either. He wanted to keep at bay his old enemies i.e. Iran and Syria.

The context being that his ability to produce wmds was severely crippled. Iraq still possessed a large army and was potentially a threat to neighboring countries and to the US if he provided funding to terrorist organizations (not necessarily Al-Qaeda). Are you insinuating that Iraq posed no threat to the world and Kuwait/Saudi Arabia had no need of protection? Given his past history and animosity towards the US in particular, one could state that a person with the funding and the apparatuses of an entire country posed some sort of threat whether it be immediate or over a long period of time.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Once again, the 2003 SOTU quote is "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

Ok fine. I agree with that statement 100%. We should act before a threat becomes imminent. Therefore let's increase our intelligence operations, let's increase pressure through the UN, so on and so forth. Why don't we change that quote to accurately reflect the situation:

"Some have said we must not go to war until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

Now does that statement hold the same sort of credibility as before? According to this statement, we have free reign to go to war if we even dream that a country might bear us hostility. Using similar logic, I'm going to pre-emptively shoot you, because I think that you're going to rob my house because you're staring at me funny and you have a past conviction.

I agree with the Arabs on this thread.

The destruction of Israel would bring more peace to the middle east than the fall of Iraq. I don't think anyone can really deny that. Of course this is assuming that Israel has no WMD (care to gamble?)

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The context being that his ability to produce wmds was severely crippled. Iraq still possessed a large army and was potentially a threat to neighboring countries and to the US if he provided funding to terrorist organizations (not necessarily Al-Qaeda). Are you insinuating that Iraq posed no threat to the world and Kuwait/Saudi Arabia had no need of protection? Given his past history and animosity towards the US in particular, one could state that a person with the funding and the apparatuses of an entire country posed some sort of threat whether it be immediate or over a long period of time.

are you repeating what CNN told you this morning???

what large army??? hundred of thousands of demoarlized and under or not equipped soldiers?? Are you talking about those who fled when the americans entered Baghdad? You've seen those old men guarding the big road axis coming into town??? I saw it on tv and thought it was a bad joke to conisder this as a defence.

Threat to who??? Turkey ? Iran? Syria? Jordan? Kuwait? SA?

All these countries are way better equipped 12 years after the first gulf war.

The first gulf war was a joke: Iraqi vs US army... now 12 years after some serious embargo and famishing and the Iraqi army is still large and dangerous???

gimme a break.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek are you repeating what CNN told you this morning??? what large army??? hundred of thousands of demoarlized and under or not equipped soldiers?? Are you talking about those who fled when the americans entered Baghdad? You've seen those old men guarding the big road axis coming into town??? I saw it on tv and thought it was a bad joke to conisder this as a defence. Threat to who??? Turkey ? Iran? Syria? Jordan? Kuwait? SA? All these countries are way better equipped 12 years after the first gulf war. The first gulf war was a joke: Iraqi vs US army... now 12 years after some serious embargo and famishing and the Iraqi army is still large and dangerous??? gimme a break.

But were you willing to leave him in power after the first gulf war or the alternative of taking him out then thus pre-empting the second?
He was a threat just being alive, wealthy beyond comprehension, in complete and total lust of his complete and total power, and prior record.
I'm not as arrogant as to try and change your mind about this. I respect your opinion.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.