|
Bush a moron or not? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Is is always about what the Us thinks and what the US wants??Isreal is the threat to the region,and if US cares about security in that region they should perhaps do something about it,or mayve cut their fundings to Isreal.
and Bush isnt all the above ( - the dictator part)?? :rolleyes:
you forgot to mention the FACT that all those weapons were given to them by the US government and other european countries.You forgot to mention that US could've stoped the gasing but they didnt.
If thats the case then why lets say Iran cant have such weapons?are they not allow to protect themselves? it seems like only the countries that have close ties with the Americans can have those weapons.
I guess NK isnt that important not as much as Iraq was anyways,even tho NK kept saying that they will use their weapons,and they dont care about the UN or what anyone tells them,but stillBush decided to bomb Iraq regardless of all those direct threats from NK:o |
Can you give some logical response to the points I've made that doesn't involve hate-filled rhetoric?
I'm sure NK and Iran are very important but the western world cannot spread itself so thin in so little time. I sincerely hope they WILL be taken care of in due time. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Your Mother
Do you believe all this that you spew? Or do I have to make you look like an idiot?
-Your Mother |
Be my guest, but since you've already indicated you believe in the laughable notion that the USA went after Saddam to get Oil from Iraq (I could think of half a dozen hard-to-believe but at least plausible reasons like, faulty intelligence, jumping the gun, revenge for his daddy, etc.), I'm pretty sure most people who are not already on your side are going to disregard anything else that you might have to say about this topic.
No offense, you've raised a lot of good points in other threads, but I'm not exactly inspired by this particular one (a link from a site that says we're nearing the end of civilization within a decade of Y2K? Come on!) |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Be my guest, but since you've already indicated you believe in the laughable notion that the USA went after Saddam to get Oil from Iraq (I could think of half a dozen hard-to-believe but at least plausible reasons like, faulty intelligence, jumping the gun, revenge for his daddy, etc.), I'm pretty sure most people who are not already on your side are going to disregard anything else that you might have to say about this topic.
No offense, you've raised a lot of good points in other threads, but I'm not exactly inspired by this particular one (a link from a site that says we're nearing the end of civilization within a decade of Y2K? Come on!) |
I never said the sole purpose of the US going into Iraq was to control their oil supplies, but its certainly one of them. How about the fact that Iraq is one of Israel's biggest enemies and the US is Israel's only ally. Just consider how many times the US has been the only country to veto UN resolutions against Israel:
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/conf...rames/read/1372
Or what about the troop deployment in Saudi Arabia ever since the first gulf war? It sure costs alot of money to keep all those troops there as protection. Wouldn't taking out Iraq allow them to relieve such stress in the Middle East? Oh look what happened right after Dubya declared "Mission Accomplished":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
And back to the oil argument... do you drive? Are you prepared to pay out of your ass for gasoline? Cause thats where its going. Most leading oil analysts agree that the demand for oil has become too great and the price per barrel is going to be continuously driven up in price. The US is not the only country using a load of oil anymore. China's economy is booming and its becoming positioned as the next superpower (whether you like to believe it or not). If the US could overthrow Iraq and install a puppet government (like its done covertly in numerous countries over the last 50 years), then it would be in a better position to dictate the flow of oil over the next 20 years.
And where did I ever say our civilization is going to end in the next 10 years? Have you no argument that you to distort what I've previously said? The fact of the matter is that the US was going to overthrow Saddam whether we like it or not. Everybody except the Dubya government says that inspections were working. Why didn't the US give the inspectors more time? Was Saddam really an imminent threat after they've bombed the out of the country for the last 12 years and turned it into a 3rd world country? Where was the REAL EVIDENCE that Saddam was an immediate threat? And faulty intelligence? Give me a ing break. There's no such thing when people's lives are at stake. You had better be damn certain of what you know and they weren't. Most of the evidence and intelligence they presented was severely flawed, fabricated, or even forged. And what about Rumsfeld saying the weapons were in around Tikrit? Even after the major fighting stopped, the US propaganda machines tried to spin every little piece of "evidence" into proof, but time and time again they came up empty. It got so bad that a number of polls were done a couple of months after the fighting stopped, and over 50% of Americans believed that the troops had already found WMD.
And more to the point, if your so in favor of the war, then why aren't you on the front lines fighting it? I feel for each and every family with sons and daughters deployed in Iraq fighting a war for shear political gain by their government back home.
-Your Mother |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Be my guest, but since you've already indicated you believe in the laughable notion that the USA went after Saddam to get Oil from Iraq (I could think of half a dozen hard-to-believe but at least plausible reasons like, faulty intelligence, jumping the gun, revenge for his daddy, etc.), I'm pretty sure most people who are not already on your side are going to disregard anything else that you might have to say about this topic.
No offense, you've raised a lot of good points in other threads, but I'm not exactly inspired by this particular one (a link from a site that says we're nearing the end of civilization within a decade of Y2K? Come on!) |
Bush 43 never even consulted Bush 41 before going to war. Not once! So revenge for Bush 41 isn't even a plausible reason. Bush 43 was quoted as seeking guidance from a "greater father". Thats why Bush 43 is popular with people in America. He appeals to the evangelical right (about 40%). This is the same 40% of America that believe the world was created only 6000 years ago. Millions of these people never even heard of the theory of evolution because its still illegal to teach in some states. In all honesty, these people are too ing stupid to cast a vote. They are the people that are pro-military because they believe everything they read in the news. They get their information from Fox news and Rush Limbaugh and any number of other right-wing propaganda machines. Did you know that a poll was conducted as to which news channel has the most uninformed audience? Did you know that those who watch Fox were far behind the rest of the people in their knowledge and accuracy regarding current events (both domestic and foreign). People complain about Farenheit 911 being way too democratically partisan, but have you ever watched Fox news? Fox news acheives in a single night what Farhenheit 911 did in its entire movie.
I'm curious about where you get your news from because you sound really uninformed.
And if you've a real argument to bring, then please bring it now, otherwise quit wasting my time.
-Your Mother |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Your Mother
I never said the sole purpose of the US going into Iraq was to control their oil supplies, but its certainly one of them. How about the fact that Iraq is one of Israel's biggest enemies and the US is Israel's only ally. Just consider how many times the US has been the only country to veto UN resolutions against Israel:
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/conf...rames/read/1372
Or what about the troop deployment in Saudi Arabia ever since the first gulf war? It sure costs alot of money to keep all those troops there as protection. Wouldn't taking out Iraq allow them to relieve such stress in the Middle East? Oh look what happened right after Dubya declared "Mission Accomplished":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
And back to the oil argument... do you drive? Are you prepared to pay out of your ass for gasoline? Cause thats where its going. Most leading oil analysts agree that the demand for oil has become too great and the price per barrel is going to be continuously driven up in price. The US is not the only country using a load of oil anymore. China's economy is booming and its becoming positioned as the next superpower (whether you like to believe it or not). If the US could overthrow Iraq and install a puppet government (like its done covertly in numerous countries over the last 50 years), then it would be in a better position to dictate the flow of oil over the next 20 years.
And where did I ever say our civilization is going to end in the next 10 years? Have you no argument that you to distort what I've previously said? The fact of the matter is that the US was going to overthrow Saddam whether we like it or not. Everybody except the Dubya government says that inspections were working. Why didn't the US give the inspectors more time? Was Saddam really an imminent threat after they've bombed the out of the country for the last 12 years and turned it into a 3rd world country? Where was the REAL EVIDENCE that Saddam was an immediate threat? And faulty intelligence? Give me a ing break. There's no such thing when people's lives are at stake. You had better be damn certain of what you know and they weren't. Most of the evidence and intelligence they presented was severely flawed, fabricated, or even forged. And what about Rumsfeld saying the weapons were in around Tikrit? Even after the major fighting stopped, the US propaganda machines tried to spin every little piece of "evidence" into proof, but time and time again they came up empty. It got so bad that a number of polls were done a couple of months after the fighting stopped, and over 50% of Americans believed that the troops had already found WMD.
And more to the point, if your so in favor of the war, then why aren't you on the front lines fighting it? I feel for each and every family with sons and daughters deployed in Iraq fighting a war for shear political gain by their government back home.
-Your Mother |
AWESOME POST DUDE!!!!!:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyespop: |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
And your point is???? Just becuase the dems were also agreeing with Bush doesnt make the claim any more factual or legitimate. How is citing what the democrats have siad in the past justify what has happened?
I SAW and HEARD with my own eyes and ears Bush saying there was "undeniable proof". That stuck in my head becuase he said his administration was going to show the world this "proof". Well.. no proof came up except fear induced assupmtions fueled by all the oil they saw in their eyes
And with respect to the "imminent threat" quotes.. well he IMPLIED that. That is what part of the campaign is all about.. saddam being a THREAT to the US and the rest of the world... where were you these past two years??? thats what the whole administration runs off of...the produiction of fear. Please dont sit there and tell me Bush and his Admin didnt mention Saddam being a major threat to the world. Much of the basis of going to war was based on his dangerous Intentions to use these supposed "WMD"
These sources dont even strengthen your argument Aaron... they are very very very specified and trivial occurances taht dont lend hand to the general argument at hand.
| quote: |
3. Iraq in 1998 was known to have a ton of illegal weapons and yet we have no proof other than Saddam's "word" that they were destroyed. Further to that he prevented U.N. inspectors from doing their job and acted in a manner which very much suggested he was lying. |
It was recently admitted by the now exiled scientific head of Saddams weapons program back in the 90's that they were given details from Saddam himself to destroy the program becuase it was not leading anywhere. Now you will say "well of course that man would say that.. he is loyal still to saddam" but you must remember that this all comes down to "he said she said" scenario that BOTH parties have failed to garner any support on their side... especially now since the US cant even find anyhting.
With the 500 BILLION DOLLARS spent on defense and and intelligence.. all they could find in Iraq after a year and a half is this? Even with the "undeniable proof" that existed? If there were weapons of mass destruction that were "located" by satellite as was implied in Colins presentation right before the war, and the "smuggled to Syria", wouldnt the US have "undeniable proof" that Syria has them too?
If the weapons were such a reason to go to war in 98, why couldnt the US trace these with all the technology they have. They can pinpoint a fly from outter space, yet cant find "stockpiles" of weapons.
After a year and a half... i cant believe im still seeing attempts in justifying this imperialistic quest for oil control, shrouded under a veil of fear, lies and assumptions
| quote: |
5. There's an entire ing country to look through! How quickly do you expect them to work!? It's like looking for a contact lens on a football field, and I'm very surprised they've found ANYTHING up to this point! What were you expecting, a 50-foot-high flashing neon sign that says "THIS WAY TO WMDs" pointing to a huge warehouse full of nuclear warheads? |
Like I said, if Powell's presentation infront of the security council before the war was considered "proof" of where these weapons were manufactured and transported int he trucks that were also in the satellite pics.. why are they not found yet?
ANy superior officer in the US intelligence sector would surely MONITOR the TRANSPORTATION of these weapons right??
that way.. they dont have to look in the "ENTIRE ING COUNTRY"!
| quote: |
Maybe you'd like to take Saddam up on his word that he instantly disarmed himself and his country while no one (including the U.N.) was looking, but frankly I'm glad that there are some people who would rather not take that risk. Answer the question, Cyrus: if Iraq doesn't have the weapons, WHERE ARE THEY? |
As days go by.. im actually beginning to think that the weapons may have been destroyed or just sold to other nations right after Bush Sr. finished off his death-capade in Iraq in 91. But no one will really know what happened to the weapons.
Tell me this Diginut.... do you honestly think that the US would spend 130 billion dollars to go to war just to remove "weapons of mass destruction"?:haha: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Tell me this Diginut.... do you honestly think that the US would spend 130 billion dollars to go to war just to remove "weapons of mass destruction"?:haha: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
No, we should really wait until Chicago, New York City, or Detroit is a crater due to a nuclear weapon supplied by Saddam to a terrorist...by then our faces will be melting off due to the fallout, or our corpses will be rotting due to death induced by biological or chemical poisoning. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
No, we should really wait until Chicago, New York City, or Detroit is a crater due to a nuclear weapon supplied by Saddam to a terrorist...by then our faces will be melting off due to the fallout, or our corpses will be rotting due to death induced by biological or chemical poisoning. |
Here you have it folks... the product of FEAR |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
No, we should really wait until Chicago, New York City, or Detroit is a crater due to a nuclear weapon supplied by Saddam to a terrorist...by then our faces will be melting off due to the fallout, or our corpses will be rotting due to death induced by biological or chemical poisoning. |
You're very right on one point. Mainly that WMD in the hands of a terrorist would be very bad. However, you're very wrong on the other... that it would be supplied by Saddam. How many times have we heard people from the Bush administration use the names Al Qaeda and Saddam together in the same sentence? How many times have they laid false claims that Saddam was harborting terrorists? I can recall another poll in the past which surveyed Americans as to their beliefs in the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda and again over 50% of the people believed there was a link. Why you ask? Because once again the American propaganda machine was churning at full capacity doing its best to instill the association between them. When you mention the names together enough times, people start to assume their's a link... especially when they don't read between the lines.
Does the link exist? Read for yourself:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...s&oneclick=true
"The conclusions that al-Qaeda and Iraq had no cooperative relationship run counter to repeated assertions by President George W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials. The claims that bin Laden and Saddam were in league were central to the administration's justification for going to war in Iraq."
Or what about the National Security advisor's position on the matter:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.ph...ar_on_Terrorism
"Later that year, in September Rice was still insisting that the links had existed despite the lack of evidence being found. “No one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad," she claimed on NBC’s Meet the Press program"
Was this once again "faulty intelligence"? Not to mention from the country that spends more money on defense than every country combined.
It doesn't take a genius to speculate that if the US could tie Saddam to Bin Laden, then it would easily strengthen its case for war at home. However, the link isn't there.
-Your Mother |
|
|
| d!abolic |
| Gotta love how he plays it off though. Just confidently looks at the other guy as if he's saying the wisest thing in the world, and the other guy just mumbles 'ok...'. Reminds me of the 'do you concur' scene from Catch Me If You Can. |
|
|
| maxtuh |
HOLY !!
I started this thread as joke, its turned out to be a political debate.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| maxtuh |
| quote: | Originally posted by Frequency
"If I were in his shoes, I would at least get an education."
Haha, I'm such an ass sometimes.(karma's gonna bite me in the ass someday, I know it) ;)
Anyways, awesome clip. Kinda reminds me of that time when Chretien did his little bit about "proof". Good times, good times...
As for Bush himself, well... I only like him for his comedic value. :haha: |
Oh sorry sir, engarish isnt my first language.
I am a ESL student at risk :D |
|
|
|
|
