Enjoyed your rant, bowfinger. Was with you on all points. With such accuracy you must be a stringwalker.
Way to (not so) deftly change the subject. You ignore my point and simply shift the conversation to one of your choosing. You'd be a great addition to the High School Forensics team ...
Links?
Point taken, but let's not forget that the reason we were given for this war was "danger to the American people" and "weapons of mass destruction." Neither of which have been proven or come to term. We have yet to find WMD, and a direct threat to the American people can be found in countless countries across the world (even our allies), so one has to question our jump to regime change in Iraq, while others (Egypt, Pakistan to name a few) go untouched and even aided.
Not to mention the fact that as of yet I have seen no conclusive proof to show that Iraq was a direct threat to the US. Other than a meeting with al-Qaeda(?) and a vial of something that Colin Powell seemed to be "sure" was in Iraq in mass quantities, which we still haven't found.
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,875
- 282
- 126
Hey glad you flushed, that means you are a conservative. If I have to post links to what Bush has accomplished and you are totally without clue, frankly Ill pass. I dont teach kindergarten.
There is a search button on here, cnn.com, foxnews and the bbc. May I be the first to suggest that you use them.
"Good point. We also lost more in Vietnam, more in Korea, more in each World War, the Civil War, and the Revolutionary War. We lose more people in traffic accidents each year. We lose more people to heart disease each year. Heck, we lose more people to old age each year."
"All of which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Iraq!"
You missed the point, then. They simply didn't lose many civilians. THAT'S the point!
"Get it through your head, hindsight is 20-20. GW pushed this war on the grounds of WMD, and now that he can't find any he's shimmied over to putting more emphasis on the issue of "liberating the Iraqi people." You, and I, and the rest of the American public are being manipulated and you refuse to open your eyes."
It was, and is, about Hussein's non-compliance. WMDs WILL be found. But if CaptnKirk wants to keep using these retarded methods to prove that the civilian deaths will be three times higher than they actually are, I have every right to use ridiculous methods to prove they won't. 2,650 is the current number, with a link from a source biased against the coalition. That ain't many!
"So what is his attraction? You would raise holy hell about a Democrat with any one of these flaws. Look at Clinton. He lied about sex - just like everyone else - and you crucified him."
He won the primaries, he gets to run for the top job. That's it. He'll forward the GOP's agenda. That is all. It ain't complicated. We put Dole up for election, a man of the highest character and intellect. That sure went over well.
You can't win your issues if you can't get elected.
Clinton sexually harassed Jones, then figured he could get away with it. It was his party that pushed for these lame ass sexual harassment laws in the first place! That he got strung up by his own petards is what I'd call justice. He SO deserved it!
"All of which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Iraq!"
You missed the point, then. They simply didn't lose many civilians. THAT'S the point!
"Get it through your head, hindsight is 20-20. GW pushed this war on the grounds of WMD, and now that he can't find any he's shimmied over to putting more emphasis on the issue of "liberating the Iraqi people." You, and I, and the rest of the American public are being manipulated and you refuse to open your eyes."
It was, and is, about Hussein's non-compliance. WMDs WILL be found. But if CaptnKirk wants to keep using these retarded methods to prove that the civilian deaths will be three times higher than they actually are, I have every right to use ridiculous methods to prove they won't. 2,650 is the current number, with a link from a source biased against the coalition. That ain't many!
"So what is his attraction? You would raise holy hell about a Democrat with any one of these flaws. Look at Clinton. He lied about sex - just like everyone else - and you crucified him."
He won the primaries, he gets to run for the top job. That's it. He'll forward the GOP's agenda. That is all. It ain't complicated. We put Dole up for election, a man of the highest character and intellect. That sure went over well.
Clinton sexually harassed Jones, then figured he could get away with it. It was his party that pushed for these lame ass sexual harassment laws in the first place! That he got strung up by his own petards is what I'd call justice. He SO deserved it!
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
That's too bad. If you truly believe in Bush so strongly, you're missing a chance to stand up for your man, maybe educate a few of us in the process. I've never heard that he's accomplished anything without dad's connections, but I'm no expert. Think about it, see what you can come up with.
By the way, I sincerely don't get what people see in him, and I'd really like to understand.
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Originally posted by: Ornery
"So what is his attraction? You would raise holy hell about a Democrat with any one of these flaws. Look at Clinton. He lied about sex - just like everyone else - and you crucified him."
He won the primaries, he gets to run for the top job. That's it. He'll forward the GOP's agenda. That is all. It ain't complicated. We put Dole up for election, a man of the highest character and intellect. That sure went over well.You can't win your issues if you can't get elected.
That's all true, but it doesn't answer my question. What do people see in him? Why did he win the primaries? What's the attraction? I'm not trying to bait anyone; I'm trying to figure out why people support him in spite of all of the flaws and issues so many of us see. Is it blind party loyalty, or is there something else?
Glad to hear it from a qualified Lieutenant Brigadier Armchair General such as yourself. Your hubris is laughable.
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
If that's really your point, you chose a terribly callous way to trivialize the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
I thought you might be one of the many gullible people who bought into Bush's lie about Iraq's connection to 9/11. Glad to hear you're not.
Beats me too. I just vote for the candidate(s) who are going to pass or veto the same issues I would.
This coming from the a qualified Lieutenant Brigadier Armchair General who claims they wont be found. Your hubris is laughable.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Moonbeam, The Kingdom of Christ is not of this Earth.. He will, as I understand it, return and then all Hell will break loose... I'll not be here to see it... wonder If there is HDTV in Heaven??? or even if I'll care???
Athanasuis, You postulate a query with a differnce... Clinton action was legal... Bush action illegal... if you agree to the rule of international law and the UN... The outcome of an illegal act is subordinated to its illegality... think about the holder in due course of some benifit or other that originally was illegaly taken from the original holder... It gets a bit sticky but the rule of law must prevail over anything here on Earth..
Athanasuis, You postulate a query with a differnce... Clinton action was legal... Bush action illegal... if you agree to the rule of international law and the UN... The outcome of an illegal act is subordinated to its illegality... think about the holder in due course of some benifit or other that originally was illegaly taken from the original holder... It gets a bit sticky but the rule of law must prevail over anything here on Earth..
Never have I said that they "wont be found." Only that they haven't yet, which, until they are (or aren't), serves only to discredit the US in the international community. Nice try though.
And in your constant opinion they wont be found and anyone who claims they will be found is wrong. Right now they have not been found, some here think they will, some dont. Neither party is wrong at this point.
Again, nor have I ever said that they "won't be found." Are you capable of arguing a point without claiming your adversary has said things that he hasn't in order to make your side of the argument easier to prove?
He's still got links to terrorism:
- Disarming him was reason enough, but from funding terrorists to direct Iraq-Al Qaida Links this POS was allowed to live years longer than he should have been.
"...trivialize the deaths of thousands of innocent people."
Is it conceivable this war could have been won with fewer civilian deaths? 9-11 drove home the point that scum like Hussein and his terrorist kin, don't need much reason or weapons to inflict a LOT of damage instantly. He was given every opportunity and years to avoid bloodshed and sanctions. Why give the POS any more time? Why should we risk it? Again, he could have avoided ALL of this!
"The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials, the newspaper said."
You spuds and the quote button
"The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials, the newspaper said."
Don't tell me, let me guess. "Again, nor have I ever said that the connection "won't be found."
IMO, it speaks for itself:
"The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials, the newspaper said."
Don't tell me, let me guess. "Again, nor have I ever said that the connection "won't be found."
IMO, it speaks for itself:
- The paper said the documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaida based on their mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia.
The meeting went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad, the newspaper said.
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Minor quibbles on two points, but I mostly agree with you. First, (from that article) Iraq wasn't really "funding terrorists" as you suggest; they were rewarding the families of suicide bombers. They aren't the only ones doing this, but it is certainly reprehensible behavior. Second, the "direct Iraq-Al Qaida Links" is only one link so far, and it's not clear what, if anything became of it. It is a significant discovery and I am really interested in seeing what more they find.
Sorry, in my book, two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, Hussein was scum, but how does that justify the U.S. killing and maiming thousands of innocent men, women, and children whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Saddam was evil, but his people paid the price. Even if the net effect is fewer Iraqi deaths over the next ten years, that blood is on our hands. Of course, if we can't stabilize the situation in Iraq and it degenerates into a civil war, there may be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
Time was on our side. There was no imminent danger. There was no reason to rush to war. (IMO, of course.)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter