iraq

dobby

Member
May 17, 2003
28
0
0
hey there when the war started i was up to date with what was happening, now i don't have a clue is it over, who is dead,
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush's credibility is dead.


In some ways you are right, ie. the reason we went into Iraq kept changing. In other ways you couldn't be more wrong, because now the world knows that when Bush says he's going to do something it's going to happen.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush's credibility is dead.


In some ways you are right, ie. the reason we went into Iraq kept changing. In other ways you couldn't be more wrong, because now the world knows that when Bush says he's going to do something it's going to happen.
OK - lets see some "examples" where BUSH changed his story about the reasons for invading Iraq. It seems to me that the media(and the arm chair commanders) was/were the ones that kept changing things;)

Like you guys always like to spout "I'll believe it when I see (hear) it" - give me some proof of Bush waffling on Iraq, and I'll believe it.

CkG
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
I agree that the world now nows that Bush will carry out his hidden agendas even if he has to manufacture facts to fit his cause. And everybody now knows that small mind has a big gun. And a big lable machine! If you are from the U.S. and question his policies you are labled a traitor. If you're one of those wimpy foreigners, you'll be subject to schoolboy type taunts and torments like like those heaped on the French.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
CADkindaGUY

Bush never waffled on his intention to invade Iraq. He did make it clear that they had WMD and that made them such a fearfull threat that he had to act. After several attempts to "prove" the danger using bogus reports, he basically said "trust me, I know". Then bingo! No WMD! The story now is forget about WMD, we liberated an oppressed people and that's good enough. The idea that the U.S. can and will destroy the government of a soveriegn nation and has the right to wage "pre-emptive" war is a radical and dangerous change in U.S. policy. And I personally find it appalling that Bush feels that such actions can be justfied by whatever he thinks is OK at the moment. Bush now looks like a loose cannon to a lot of people in the world.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush's credibility is dead.


In some ways you are right, ie. the reason we went into Iraq kept changing. In other ways you couldn't be more wrong, because now the world knows that when Bush says he's going to do something it's going to happen.
OK - lets see some "examples" where BUSH changed his story about the reasons for invading Iraq. It seems to me that the media(and the arm chair commanders) was/were the ones that kept changing things;)

Like you guys always like to spout "I'll believe it when I see (hear) it" - give me some proof of Bush waffling on Iraq, and I'll believe it.

CkG
First, Bush wanted Saddam out. When that became untenable, then we had 1441. Remember that? We know he has this, we know he has that, etc. We are going in to disarm Iraq. When Ari was asked (and I heard this, not read it on some random web site) how it was about regime change, but now disarmament, Ari replied with a straight face (remarkable too) that if Saddam changed his ways and disarmed, that was regime change. WTF? Anyway, it was not about liberation, it was now about disarmament. 1441. The evening of the war I heard Ari say that the battle for the disarmament of Iraq had begun. Bush just a little later came on and announced the operation for the liberation of Iraq had begun. Obviously Bush's thesarus list diasarmanent and liberation as interchangeable. Operation Disarm Iraq? Nope. Not a chance.

My take-
Bush wanted Saddam dead or alive, and he pretty much said they do in Texas. That didnt fly, so

Bush wanted disarmament. Well, to do this, Bush and Co. invented Weapons of Mass Destruction. WMD's. Get everyone worked up over weapons to frightening to contemplate. Create fear. Americans love to be afraid it seems. People in general turn into sheep when threatened. Save us! Save us! So, Bush did just this. Saddam was so dangerous that we were going to attack no matter what the UN or anyone else said. It has been noted that Bush asked permission before attacking. Well, that only matters he didnt launch an invasion. He had every intention of invading if he did not get exactly what HE wanted. If Saddam disarmed, then Iraq could have remained in his control. This was about disarming Saddam. Well, if the Iraqis lived under him, that was not our business any more than Zimbwe. So...

We have invasion imminent. Problem was that there were no significant WMD's. The threat was exaggerated, so you would buy it, just as you have. Now what? Well, Operation Iraqi Freedom! It was about liberation, just as Bush said all along.

HappyPuppy is exactly right. Any justification and lie that Clinton would be proud of would do. Lies got Clinton a BJ, and Bush a war. Bush also demonstrated with this tactic that no country he wished to go after is safe. He will have you eating out of his hand again. Of course you could say that regime change is disarmament is liberation, but that depends on what your definition of is is.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,745
5,173
126
Cad: Like you guys always like to spout "I'll believe it when I see (hear) it" - give me some proof of Bush waffling on Iraq, and I'll believe it.
-------------
Well Hay laid it out for you, Cad, so now I'm sure you believe. Please post back and confirm. Thanks.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Cad: Like you guys always like to spout "I'll believe it when I see (hear) it" - give me some proof of Bush waffling on Iraq, and I'll believe it.
-------------
Well Hay laid it out for you, Cad, so now I'm sure you believe. Please post back and confirm. Thanks.
I didn't see any "proof" All heard was Hay's interpretation of what he saw/heard. I'm not saying that popular opinion didn't sway what Ari or "the Bush camp" focused on, but show me proof that Bush ever waffled. You guys attack his character without ever looking beyond the sound bites that are fed you.

Again - Prove to me that Bush waffled on his Iraq policy ;) The truth is out there - find it;):p

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,745
5,173
126
See Hay, like I alluded to in another thread, you can lead a horse to water....

Cad, define waffled please.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
When listening to Powell at the UN on the radio, I listened to NPR, which broadcast more of the proceedings than anyone else. Regarding TV, my soundbites came not from Fox, or even CNN, but C-Span. Yeah every minute of it including watching people set up the microphones before the briefings. We could debate motivations for the changes CADkindaGUY, but that the emphasis changed is a matter of public record. Others here like to link to pages and pages of material, but that is not my style. Assuming your attention and access to news equalled mine, you know what I said is true. If I linked to a dozen papers, then you could argue they are biased or I am presenting someone elses perspectives not facts. Well, the Ari reference still holds, and I daresay that many here know exactly what I am referring to. BTW, I will state my bias. It is an anti-liar bias. I did not like it when Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, I did not like it when Nixon did it, I did not like it when Clinton did it, and I do not like it when Bush did it. A President lying to achieve a personal objective is a despicable President. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. All the same to me. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to increase US involvement in Vietnam, and Bush lied about WMD's to get at Saddam. That the outcome was different justifies neither.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Hayabusarider,
Your above post does provide means to sever the anchor of political Bushisms. Be free to explore you all go forth and test for reality... use Hay's post as a map... seek and ye shall be free..

Moonster,
The anchor is hard to loose... may take awhile to rust away.. the torch has not the flame to cut... me thinks.
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
It is not the end result that I object to in Bush vs Saddam, it is the means by which that end was attained. If the most powerful man in the world is allowed to manipulate the people he has sworn to serve through lies then what will be his next action? The morality and ethics of the Pres. of the U.S. should be above reproach and reasonable question. As Hayabusarider pointed out, Bush is not the first President to tell the big lie. Johnson did it by telling the American people that he was beginng withdrawl of U.S. troops from VN, while at the very same moment he had tens of thousands of additional soldiers and Marines on ships and commercial aircraft enroute to bolster the existing forces we already had there. I'm not going to get into Nixon's lies about his knowledge of Watergate, he lied, he got caught and he resigned an exposed man. Clinton and his lies and subterfuge we all know about. I hate them all for their lack of honesty and candor.
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Happy, I love a man who hates a lie.

A pencil without lead is a straw.

Just so long as your love doesn't produce a woody!:Q

OH MY GOD! I think I was just complimented by Moonbeam. AARGGH! My reputation is forever tarnished. How shall I ever live this down?;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
See Hay, like I alluded to in another thread, you can lead a horse to water....

Cad, define waffled please.
The horse and water reference you guys are using does work both ways ;)

Moony- Waffle is in reference to "Bush's credibility is dead. "

Have we done what Bush said we were going to do in regards to Iraq? -YES
How then does Bush's credibility suffer? Because the press says so? -Ha!
I'll give you that we haven't found "WMD" yet, but that is only one aspect of this WAR ;) and there is still much more to find in Iraq.
Bush's credibility is only "dead" in the eyes of Bush Bashers who will never change their mind. Is his credibility being questioned by other (rational) people? Sure, but they still can't prove Bush was lying or misleading the US.

Horse to water:
A man says he has WMD, Man uses WMD, Man won't show proof of destruction of WMD.... And who won't drink?


CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
When listening to Powell at the UN on the radio, I listened to NPR, which broadcast more of the proceedings than anyone else. Regarding TV, my soundbites came not from Fox, or even CNN, but C-Span. Yeah every minute of it including watching people set up the microphones before the briefings. We could debate motivations for the changes CADkindaGUY, but that the emphasis changed is a matter of public record. Others here like to link to pages and pages of material, but that is not my style. Assuming your attention and access to news equalled mine, you know what I said is true. If I linked to a dozen papers, then you could argue they are biased or I am presenting someone elses perspectives not facts. Well, the Ari reference still holds, and I daresay that many here know exactly what I am referring to. BTW, I will state my bias. It is an anti-liar bias. I did not like it when Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, I did not like it when Nixon did it, I did not like it when Clinton did it, and I do not like it when Bush did it. A President lying to achieve a personal objective is a despicable President. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. All the same to me. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to increase US involvement in Vietnam, and Bush lied about WMD's to get at Saddam. That the outcome was different justifies neither.
I know what you are trying to refer to, but it still doesn't mean that Bush lied to anyone. You can choose to think he lied to us all about his reasons for invading Iraq(WMD) but I think you are trying put Bush's decision to go to war on one thing (WMD) which I find laughable. There are/were many things which lead up to this war and WMD was put at it's forefront in the wake of 911, but that doesn't mean it was the ONLY reason for this war - and Bush never stated that it was the ONLY reason for this war.

I'm done with this crap - If you want to believe that the whole war was based solely on WMD then so be it - but you are wrong.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Happy, I love a man who hates a lie.

A pencil without lead is a straw.

Just so long as your love doesn't produce a woody!:Q

OH MY GOD! I think I was just complimented by Moonbeam. AARGGH! My reputation is forever tarnished. How shall I ever live this down?;)
Use woody pencils to record the events of a moonless night.;)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
When listening to Powell at the UN on the radio, I listened to NPR, which broadcast more of the proceedings than anyone else. Regarding TV, my soundbites came not from Fox, or even CNN, but C-Span. Yeah every minute of it including watching people set up the microphones before the briefings. We could debate motivations for the changes CADkindaGUY, but that the emphasis changed is a matter of public record. Others here like to link to pages and pages of material, but that is not my style. Assuming your attention and access to news equalled mine, you know what I said is true. If I linked to a dozen papers, then you could argue they are biased or I am presenting someone elses perspectives not facts. Well, the Ari reference still holds, and I daresay that many here know exactly what I am referring to. BTW, I will state my bias. It is an anti-liar bias. I did not like it when Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, I did not like it when Nixon did it, I did not like it when Clinton did it, and I do not like it when Bush did it. A President lying to achieve a personal objective is a despicable President. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. All the same to me. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to increase US involvement in Vietnam, and Bush lied about WMD's to get at Saddam. That the outcome was different justifies neither.
I know what you are trying to refer to, but it still doesn't mean that Bush lied to anyone. You can choose to think he lied to us all about his reasons for invading Iraq(WMD) but I think you are trying put Bush's decision to go to war on one thing (WMD) which I find laughable. There are/were many things which lead up to this war and WMD was put at it's forefront in the wake of 911, but that doesn't mean it was the ONLY reason for this war - and Bush never stated that it was the ONLY reason for this war.

I'm done with this crap - If you want to believe that the whole war was based solely on WMD then so be it - but you are wrong.

CkG
In all the above exists the notion of "plausable denial". If one is crafty enough one can sorta say just about anything and sorta do just about anything so long as he has plausable denial to defend his position if it becomes unfavorable or challenged.
Daniel Ellsberg and the pentagon papers for instance.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,745
5,173
126
Happy pines (there's a pun hidden here) for the day when he could get a woody.

CAD you are a cad. Bush is a big fat liar. He lied about why we needed to attack Iraq. It's an obvious lie because we didn't need to attack Iraq. There was no threat. No threat. No threat. They weren't even a threat when we attacked them. That's when most threats are their most dangerous, no? Bush lied. He lied to congress and they believed him and voted to give him the go. He lied, Bush is a liar. The words that come out of his mouth had nothing to do with the truth. They fabricated evidence, copied garbage off the web made up stories about African uranium. It was a big fat lie. Bush conned the American people into a war they didn't want or need. He deceived the nation and in doing so caused a war. Lots of people are dead because of his lie. Lots of American soldiers who weren't told the truth. It's horrible, it's evil, but of course to you it's just fine. Why not, you don't like the implications. You were a sucker. You swallowed the bait. You bought in hook line and sinker. You got played for a chump. I would be hot of this thread too.

What you want to do is pretend that there were lots of reasons to go to war in Iraq, that the stated reasons were just a small part of a bigger truth. The war was sold on that small part, not the bigger package. That?s the point. The real reasons for the war had to be concealed because the American people would have said no. The Republicans don't trust the American people. They are too stupid to even vote for Bush for President, he lost you remember, how could they possibly be trusted to go to war against Iraq for nuanced complexities like a New American Century. Nope stoke their fear and feed them lies; it's not really immoral because God is on our side and we can do no wrong.


 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
What happened? Bush accomplished the Neoconservative Agenda item of eliminating Saddum to achieve another foothold in the oil rich Persian Gulf, to create a few economic opportunities and to make another step toward eliminating Islamic competition in that area.

We were told Iraq was a serious threat yet I never felt threatened by them. Even Iraq's neighbors didn't feel very threatened and opposed war.

Buy hey it's a "win win". The Iraqi people are less oppressed and hopefully will see a brighter future. Of course to ensure this the US will need to build several military installations within their country and maintain a presence there so long as there is hostility. I predict hostility in perpetuity but we'll hope for the best. Oh and make use of "their" natural resources to help flip the bill. Sounds fair eh?

The U.S. now spends nearly $10 billion per year in ongoing operations in Afghanistan. That conflict is still ongoing. Last month the Taliban managed to take 2 districts on the Pakistani border and we've lost around 30 soliders thus far, several just recently. Some soliders in the field aren't allowed to aggressively fight back in fear of creating U.S. casualities.

No idea how much Iraq will cost per year but hey the economy is doing so great I'm sure there's more than enough money to deal with that. Bush's 2003 budget is 22% higher than just two years ago and Congress continued to spend as if money grows on camels. So it's covered.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
What happened? Bush accomplished the Neoconservative Agenda item of eliminating Saddum to achieve another foothold in the oil rich Persian Gulf, to create a few economic opportunities and to make another step toward eliminating Islamic competition in that area.

We were told Iraq was a serious threat yet I never felt threatened by them. Even Iraq's neighbors didn't feel very threatened and opposed war.

Buy hey it's a "win win". The Iraqi people are less oppressed and hopefully will see a brighter future. Of course to ensure this the US will need to build several military installations within their country and maintain a presence there so long as there is hostility. I predict hostility in perpetuity but we'll hope for the best. Oh and make use of "their" natural resources to help flip the bill. Sounds fair eh?

The U.S. now spends nearly $10 billion per year in ongoing operations in Afghanistan. That conflict is still ongoing. Last month the Taliban managed to take 2 districts on the Pakistani border and we've lost around 30 soliders thus far, several just recently. Some soliders in the field aren't allowed to aggressively fight back in fear of creating U.S. casualities.

No idea how much Iraq will cost per year but hey the economy is doing so great I'm sure there's more than enough money to deal with that. Bush's 2003 budget is 22% higher than just two years ago and Congress continued to spend as if money grows on camels. So it's covered.
I'm getting depressed again.. Here I thought all was ok... I heard Bush assure me and now I wonder.. just paranoid I guess... seeing what isn't.. Bush assure me again.. please!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY