Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Anti Neocon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ian St. John wrote:

This new 'policy' is effectively putting the U.S. at war with
the entire world and that is what it will end up doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think, you're 100% correct Ian.

When N. Korea collects $250MM from al Queda for a suitcase 5 kiloton
device which leaves a small mushroom cloud over S. Manhatten and a smoking
hole of "Wall Street", U.S. game over.

When China turns to Russia and the mideast rolls out the the red carpet
to them
for oil, U.S. game over.

Dollar dives, inflation goes post WWI Germany (because the U.S. makes
nothing
and buys all abroad), interest rates streak to shylock, corporations
dump all workers
on the street, small bus. has no buyers, capital flees U.S., China grabs
Taiwan and all
of SE Asia as its sphere of influence, Japan capitulates, Europe looks
the other way,
U.S. game over.

Uneducated, ignorant GOPS can't see it. ALL infotainment talking heads;
FoxNews
and CNN would be busy looking at the tiniest picture; the death/injury
toll from the
detonation. The world would see the far bigger picture and new world
order implications;

Central Banks all over the globe would dump U.S. treasuries and drop
kick the U.S. from
any notion of supposed "super power" status faster than you can say,
"welcome to the 3rd world, America!"

Get rid of of this insanely dangerous fool Bush/Cheney, ASAP.

Kerry/Edwards 2004 and 2008

Regards,

Marc Mulay
Former U.S. Naval Aviator/Officer 1981-1988







  #43   Report Post  
Ian St. John
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Anti Neocon wrote:
They'd be completely stripped of both tacic and strategy if they took
that advice ;-)


Hmm. I think that they were stripped of both tactics and strategy
regardless... {:-p)

Ian St. John wrote:

Actually the facts clearly do show that Bush acted prior to any
"Failure of Diplomacy" and without a visible or credible threat to
the U.S. I don't care how much you like fairy stories, you should
not promote them as reality.



  #44   Report Post  
*Anti_Neocon*
 
Posts: n/a
Default

*OPEN* *LETTER* to *NeoCons*

October 2004

Dear Mr. NeoConservative:

How is the flesh-eating parasite that infected your brain? Has it
starved to death yet?!

Anyway, let's dispense with the social pleasantries: After suffering
your inept missives,
I can't decide if syntax, logic, or control of your bowels is your
weakest skill so take a high
chair; face the blackboard, and pay attention as I explain the
'Theory Of _Why_ You Are A Pitiful ****weasel'...

In your disturbed youths, when it came to the attention of your primary
molester that you
excel in areas requiring dazzling ineptitude, _what_ ever possessed you
to seek written
dishonesty as the means by which to demonstrate your parasitic genetics?
Perhaps _you_
should run for US President? (Although I doubt many would take a
passive-aggressive
cattle molester with a fetid aroma handing out '****weasel For
President' leaflets seriously
--then again, W...).

Isn't it tragic that your mother wanted a daughter, but squirted-out a
human carbuncular
instead?

Insanity doesn't just run in your family, it does the heptathalon at
Olympic level. Contrary to
your impudent assertions, you slanderous ass nipples, I have
painstakingly analyzed your entire
position and thoughtfully considered each argument with a magnitude of
profound empathy,
wisdom and human compassion worthy of recognition by a Nobel Peace
Prize. I'd invoice you
for my effort, however since I'm finished with you, no reeking hot
afternoon dumpster in town
will have become a strange place to rest your obese frames and you'll
need all the pocket
change you can beg for!

In fact, after the first week in November, you will have the rest of
your miserable, fetid
existence to be envious of my superlative self. Until then, I firmly
suggest that you moderate
the severity of your fixation upon http://www.rotten.com/ lest it lax
your toungue-tip grip on
reality and send you plunging further into the abyss of irreversible
lunacy from whence you
were originally hatched.

Nature knows, you're already nigh-on ninety-nine percent back there with
this GW Bush
thing ;-) .

I hope this helps with your future insurance claims. Please be kind to
your pharmacist.

Your Idol,

Mr. Mulay
alt.guitar.amps

Remember, "the enemy of your toilet is not your friend".


  #45   Report Post  
*Anti_Neocon*
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Be careful young man.

Your passion can be insta-sucked into the enemy's arsenal leaving your
corpse
to join the billions preceeding you since home sapiens first began to
battle amongst
itself, -- ignoring the Four Horsemen.

Regards,

mvm

Vote: ABB

Ian St. John wrote:

Anti Neocon wrote:

They'd be completely stripped of both tacic and strategy if they took
that advice ;-)



Hmm. I think that they were stripped of both tactics and strategy
regardless... {:-p)


Ian St. John wrote:


Actually the facts clearly do show that Bush acted prior to any
"Failure of Diplomacy" and without a visible or credible threat to
the U.S. I don't care how much you like fairy stories, you should
not promote them as reality.








  #46   Report Post  
*Anti_Neocon*
 
Posts: n/a
Default

_If_ Kerry doesn't ****
up, then
2005 - 2012!

ANYBODY (DEMOCRAT) SEND GEORGE W. BUSH BACK TO TEJAS!

TRUE AS THE UNIVERSE W/ or W/OUT TECHNO PICS!

NO one deserved the stupidity of the USA falling to "W", in AD 2000
NO one deserved Hutu delivered "Justice"
NO one deserved Yugoslavian Serb "Justice" to Albanians
NO one deserved Hirohito's delivered "Justice"
NO one deserved Pol Pot's delivered "Justice"
NO one deserved Mao's delivered "Justice"
NO one deserved Stalin's delivered "Justice"
NO one deserved Hitler's delivered "Justice"

NO one deserve's Kharfor Sudan's "Justice"

The "justice" bit includes the sorry human beings exposed to Asshole
Columbus
and the U.S. Cavalry "Justice" delivered to NATIVE AMERICANS.

Human ****-headedness could go on for miles in this post. If you need that
either buy a copy of Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States
or eMail Zootwoman / Mary Stanley. Bruce Morgan won't be as intelligently
responsive, but he'll cut and paste enough to wish you never bothered ;-)

OK, Seriously (for me);

There is, never has been and never will be a "god" outside of _Your_ own
personal courage
and sense of decency as an honestly decent, good Human Being.

"Hell" is living in denial; allowing your meager circumstances to mark
your ultimate tombstone
as one who...lacked empathy. The ignorance and stupidity you and all who
surrounded you
since birth and its logical progression towards whatever level of
mindless war *you* allowed
yourself to engage in, will be perma-forgotten...

You think *you're* "unique" son? Some idiot of your unevolved
calibre, born
THE EXACT BIRTHDAY YOU CELEBRATE ANNUALLY;
_Month_, Day, Year10, 20, 200, 2000 B.C. -10, -20, 4000 B.C. is nameless
for the same
exact stupid reason you'll be. Hell.

"Heaven" is potentially; *NOW* within and *through* *you* and *your*
actions, *me* and
through my actions. Forget your and my pasts! *Now* and this day
*forward* are *the*
very stuff of which our mutual opportunity to live *HEAVEN* is made!
Forget "church"on
Sunday, "LIVE" and initiate *positive* *reciprocity* _ALL_ week long.
This and *every*
week, season in and out, all of your life. THAT'S "*Heaven*"

Christian/Jew/Muslim *"that"* ;-)

Living gracefully; applied empathy caused by the perspective afforded
by knowledge, the
resultant probability of good judgement and its logical progression
towards thoughtful
compassion. Applied "diplomacy" in the breach, enables cooler minds to
prevail.

Forstalling "hell".

Learn.

Regards,

Marc Mulay
U.S. Naval Aviator/Officer 1981-88

PS- In the end, we're *all* permanently forgotten by nature. Live by
what makes *you*
feel internally at peace and you will be living as close to "heaven" and
as far from "hell" as
our species ever contrived possible, irrespective of its biological,
planetary, evolutinary "roots".

Sadly, I suspect that the minority of our species have the capacity to
understand the forgoing
and even of them, a paltry minority will evidence the will, ability and
desire given circumstances
to ACT upon the truth you've just been exposed to.

Regards,

Marc Mulay
Guitarist/Musician 1975-Present
#3 Nationally Ranked College Boxer (Penn State) 1978
US Naval Aviator/Officer 1981-88
Nice guy, yet slayer of witless, dummy, republican whores



  #47   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...

Since Saddam was no threat to us, diplomacy had the desired effect for all
12 of those years.

Only if you weren't paying attention.


Or if your thirst for blood eclipsed your common sense.
  #49   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article 09Iad.29190$cJ3.16879@fed1read06, *Anti_Neocon* wrote:

*OPEN* *LETTER* to *NeoCons*

October 2004

Dear Mr. NeoConservative:

How is the flesh-eating parasite that infected your brain? Has it
starved to death yet?!

[remainder of diatribe snipped]

How typically liberal: being completely devoid of anything resembling a
logical argument, and long ago having utterly lost the debate over the issues,
he is forced to fall back on the long-time leftist stand of last resort,
namely childish name-calling and abuse.
  #50   Report Post  
Ilena Rose
 
Posts: n/a
Default


www.humanticsfoundation.com/AEI-PNAC.htm


  #51   Report Post  
Lloyd Parker
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...

I answered questions that were questions and answered mud-slinging with
mud-slinging. You snipped the mud I responded to, which makes you
dishonest. Typical fascist.

You didn't answer either question. You failed to answer the first

question,
and you responded to the second question with another question.


I responded; you didn't like the responses.


Snipping
the context is not dishonest.


It is when you snipped what I was responding to.


It is not needed, and, if you're having
trouble keeping up, it's all in Google, forever.

  #52   Report Post  
Lloyd Parker
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...

No, they were unsure; that's why they had the inspectors there. And now
we
know.


They don't have inspectors on Guatemala, but nobody knows for sure if they
have WMD. The reason for the sanctions was to force Hussein to allow
inspections, and to ensure that his WMD were destroyed and/or accounted

for.

And it turns out, the status was "defunct."

When, exactly, did you know that?


The important thing is, when should Bush have known it?


Towards the end, the inspectors were getting cooperation, as Kaye has
said.

"Towards the end" of a 12 year runaround, and only after it was clear that
Gore would not be president. Did you ever wonder why Hussein started
cooperating, all of a sudden?

If by "one or two" you mean zero.

When, exactly, did you know that?


Again, the important thing is when should Bush have known it?

To whom?

The authorization your congressman passed doesn't specify.


It specifies doing what's necessary (not just Bush's whim) to defend the US
(not for any reason Bush wants). There's nothing in there about invading
because Saddam was a mean man.


No, authorizing you to defend me if necessary is not the same as
authorizing you to launch a strike when I'm not threatened.

If you authorized me to strike against a "continuing threat", the way your
congressman did, it does.

Not when there was no continuing threat.
  #53   Report Post  
Kevin Singleton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...

Someone that incompetent isn't fit to be president.

Your Senators believed the threat to be "continuing". What does that make
them?

Congress got the intel the administration wanted them to have.

Congress is free to gather any information they wish. Arguing that Congress
didn't have accurate information is like arguing that ignorance of the law
is an excuse.

Just like the threat from Costa Rica invading us might.

Ooh. Maybe we should have a quick look down south.

Except they obviously had, as he had no WMD.

You're very perceptive, 12 years down the road. It's unfortunate that you
weren't quite so perceptive before the war.

So why not wait until the inspections are finished?

How long? Another 12 years? 20? 100, maybe? What's a "resolution",
without consequences? The UN is irrelevant, and this incident proves it.
Couple that with the rampant corruption, and there is no need for a
continued relationship with the UN. The body has failed in its mission,
leaving the US alone in the world to do what's right. So, we did. Hail to
the chief.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com


  #54   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Ilena Rose wrote:

www.humanticsfoundation.com/AEI-PNAC.htm


www.amishrakefight.org/gfy
  #55   Report Post  
David Gale
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ian St. John" wrote:
Kevin Singleton wrote:
The bill authorizing use of force does not require the president to
confer with the UN. Please, read it. At least once.


The Congress authorised him to help the U.N. Obviously he cannot help the
U.N by walking all over them and ignoring them. Of course he had to confer
with the U.N on whether the U.N. sanctions and inspections were working.

Ignorance is not a basis for good policy. Well, I guess that you think so
since you promote as much ignorance as you can find and spew.


Er, could you please quote the relevant section(s) of the resolution, to
back up these assertions? I can't seem to find "help the U.N." in my
copy...




  #56   Report Post  
David Gale
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lloyd Parker" wrote:
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:
When, exactly, did you know that?


The important thing is, when should Bush have known it?


What, becoming President makes one omniscient? Wow, that's a great perk.
Remind me to sign up for the job.

The authorization your congressman passed doesn't specify.


It specifies doing what's necessary (not just Bush's whim) to defend the

US
(not for any reason Bush wants). There's nothing in there about invading
because Saddam was a mean man.


Now, when I look at the phrase "as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate", I notice that it says that the president (Bush) determines
what is necessary, and what isn't. Of course, I could be wrong, and it
could mean, "as Lloyd Parker will determine was necessary a year and a half
from now".

If you authorized me to strike against a "continuing threat", the way

your
congressman did, it does.

Not when there was no continuing threat.


The authorization declared that there was a continuing threat. They
could've written that the President was authorized to use force "in the
event that a threat becomes imminent", but they didn't. They said that
there *is* a threat, and that it needed to be dealt with.


  #57   Report Post  
David Gale
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lloyd Parker" wrote:
"David Gale" wrote:
Read the question that I was answering. He asked who, besides Bush,
Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Cheney believed Saddam to be a threat. I
pointed out that most of the high-profile Democrats are on record

declaring
him to be a threat. Your claim that this is invalid because the

Democratic
party doesn't have its own intelligence agency is a complete

non-sequitor,
as well as irrelevant. Or would you claim that Powell has his own
intelligence agency? Rumsfeld?


They work for Bush. They said what Bush wanted them to say.


Which is why Powell, Rumsfeld, etc. have all said things that were rather
damaging to the president's image. Of course! It's all clear now!

Also, many of the quotes listed are from
before January, 2001; do you want to blame those on the man who was then
govenor of Texas?


Saddam had WMD at one time; that's not in dispute. But he didn't have

them
when Bush invaded; that's the issue.


But he was believed to have them. He had never proven that he'd destroyed
them, as was required. If I know I have a million dollars in my bank
account, and then my next statement indicates that I don't, and the bank
doesn't have any documentation about a withdrawal of funds, am I wrong, or
the bank?

But they did still believe that Saddam had WMDs, which was, as I pointed
out, the question I was answering. Whether that belief was correct or

not
is beside the point, since he hadn't asked who correctly believed Saddam

to
have WMDs.

It's easy enough to claim great wisdom in hind-sight, but the fact of the
matter is that before 2003, most of the world believed Saddam to have

WMDs.

Based on what? The US was the only one supposedly gathering this
intelligence. Why didn't we listen to the inspectors, especially Ritter?


Ah, of course. The Brits don't have an intelligence-gathering agency, the
Aussies rely solely on the CIA, and Poland, well, who can expect them to do
anything related to intelligence at all?

And, of course, you're still ignoring the fact that Saddam had failed to
show the destruction of the WMDs you admit that he had. If he couldn't show
that they were destroyed, what were we to assume? That he'd waved a magic
wand and turned them into pumpkins?

So, he was allowed to refuse to comply with the UN in order to deter

Iran?
I'm confused by this. The UN ordered him to disarm and prove to the

world
that he had done so; you claim that he did the former, but not the

latter,
in order to fake out Iran; the fact that not only Iran, but the rest of

the
world, including the US, was taken in is, however, Bush's fault.


The fact that Bush was so easily taken in by a third-world dictator

doesn't
mean he's not qualified to be president?


So, wait, is your case that Bush knew there were no WMDs, and lied about it,
or that he really, truly believed that there were WMDs, having been deceived
by Saddam?

You can't have it both ways--either he maliciously lied, and is a
manipulative genious, or he made an honest mistake, believing an enemy to be
as powerful as the enemy claimed he might be. Please pick which angle
you're going to go with.

So, breaking UN commands in order to deter a powerful neighbor is fine,


If not, the UN would have authorized military force.


....unless it were being paid off by the one breaking the commands. Oh,
wait, you deny that, too, even though it's documented in the Deufler report.

if
you're a tyrranical despot who tortures his own people for the fun of it,


Most dictators do. We supported most of them in the 80s and 90s. Heck,

we
supported Saddam in the 80s, so this wasn't a big deal to us then.


So we were wrong then. We aren't now. That's one of the weakest arguments
ever. "But Mommy, you didn't punish me for throwing food on the floor when
I was two; why should you punish me now that I'm thirteen?"


  #58   Report Post  
Kevin Singleton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...

I responded; you didn't like the responses.


It is when you snipped what I was responding to.


Best of luck, to you.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com


  #59   Report Post  
David Gale
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lloyd Parker" wrote:
And of course, it wasn't necessary. Bush lied to us, or was incompetent
and didn't know Saddam didn't have WMD. Either should disqualify him from
being president.


Or, potentially, becoming president does not, in fact, make one super-human.
Perhaps Bush looked at the exact same intelligence the congress looked at,
and made the decision that,
given:
a) Saddam is known to have had WMDs;
b) Saddam has not shown that he has destroyed said WMDs, despite repeated
demands by the UN that he do so;
c) Saddam celebrated the 9/11 attack on the US by terrorists;

therefore,
d) Saddam may want to help terrorists attack the US.
e) He may not have destroyed his WMDs.
f) He may, in fact, be funneling them to terrorists right now.

and, since,
g) terrorists were able to dramatically kill over 3,000 Americans in one
morning with a few box cutters.

well,
h) terrorists with WMDs would be a Really, Really, Really Bad Thing,

and so, especially because of b) (above),
i) Saddam is a clear threat to the continuing safety not only of the US, but
also the world.


  #60   Report Post  
Chris Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

According to David Gale :
"Lloyd Parker" wrote:
And of course, it wasn't necessary. Bush lied to us, or was incompetent
and didn't know Saddam didn't have WMD. Either should disqualify him from
being president.


Or, potentially, becoming president does not, in fact, make one super-human.
Perhaps Bush looked at the exact same intelligence the congress looked at,
and made the decision that,
given:


A bit more accurate:

a) Saddam is known to have had WMDs;


Is known to have had and used them in the past.

b) Saddam has not shown that he has destroyed said WMDs, despite repeated
demands by the UN that he do so;


He seemed to be doing the best he could once the posturing
was punctured. Even if there were inspectors _present_ when each
item was destroyed, it'd be impossible to prove that the inventory
they were ticking items off against was accurate. Or wasn't accurate.

Proving negatives is so darn difficult. Proving he _still_ had
them should have been a lot easier. But they failed.

I'm sure that the US would have about as much trouble trying to "prove"
that it had destroyed all of its CBW stocks as they have promised. The
book would have been a lot bigger than the one Saddam delivered.

c) Saddam celebrated the 9/11 attack on the US by terrorists;


Lots of people did.

therefore,
d) Saddam may want to help terrorists attack the US.


You need opportunity plus intent.

e) He may not have destroyed his WMDs.


There was no solid evidence that he hadn't. That _should_ have
been the easy thing to prove.

f) He may, in fact, be funneling them to terrorists right now.


May have. But the administration has failed to provide _any_
evidence whatsoever that he was. They've admitted as such - even
then.

and, since,
g) terrorists were able to dramatically kill over 3,000 Americans in one
morning with a few box cutters.


Anybody could do that with a few box cutters...

well,
h) terrorists with WMDs would be a Really, Really, Really Bad Thing,


Well, anybody with WMDs are a really, really, really bad thing.

Must we invade everybody who _might_ have some WMDs without any proof
whatsoever?

and so, especially because of b) (above),
i) Saddam is a clear threat to the continuing safety not only of the US, but
also the world.

--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.


  #61   Report Post  
Ian St. John
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Gale wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote:
"David Gale" wrote:
Read the question that I was answering. He asked who, besides Bush,
Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Cheney believed Saddam to be a threat.
I pointed out that most of the high-profile Democrats are on record
declaring him to be a threat. Your claim that this is invalid
because the Democratic party doesn't have its own intelligence
agency is a complete non-sequitor, as well as irrelevant. Or would
you claim that Powell has his own intelligence agency? Rumsfeld?


They work for Bush. They said what Bush wanted them to say.


Which is why Powell, Rumsfeld, etc. have all said things that were
rather damaging to the president's image. Of course! It's all clear
now!


It is impossible to even try to spin the truth about Bushes actions without
bringing to like some facts that are damaging. The problem is not in their
intent but the **** they have to work with..


  #62   Report Post  
Ian St. John
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Singleton wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...

Someone that incompetent isn't fit to be president.

Your Senators believed the threat to be "continuing". What does that
make them?


No. They were told by Bush that the threat was continuing. Too bad they
believed his horsepuckey.



  #63   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"David Gale" wrote:

If I know I have a million dollars in my bank account, and then my
next statement indicates that I don't, and the bank doesn't have any
documentation about a withdrawal of funds, am I wrong, or the bank?


Oh, that's easy: you're delusional. Or crooked. Or both. So, that's what
Bush did, eh? Nah, stealing and lying about a million would be chump
change to him.
  #64   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"David Gale" wrote:

I do *distinctly* remember the investigators reporting problems
getting access to sites, their finding evidence of the sites having
been cleaned out before their arrival, etc.


How distinctly do you remember the inspectors *begging* Bush for more
time to finish their work? Three weeks, IIRC.

Headline news it was here, bunky.
  #65   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"David Gale" wrote:

becoming president does not, in fact, make one super-human.


Nor, in Bush's case, half-fast.


  #66   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"David Gale" wrote:

I'm sure we have *very* detailed lists of all our weapons (I seem to
recall that, earlier this summer, there was a flap about the
government recalling old cannons that towns had in their town
centers), and can document exactly where, when, and by whom any
destruction of said weapons actually occured. And we're not even
under a UN mandate to prove that.


Boy, you are a pip.

2003 GAO audit of the Department of Defense...disclosed that some 62%
of all weapon systems in U.S. military inventories either didn't work,
did not perform to specifications, or were otherwise faulty.

This government cannot even account for all the plutonium it's produced.
Quite literally, TONS of the U.S.'s best bomb-grade stuff are missing.
If terrorists get nuke ingredients, guess where it probably comes from?

Confiscating cannon in town squares is a LOT like the idiotically
useless strategy of sending troops to invade a country that had nothing
to do with our horror story.
  #67   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Your Senators believed the threat to be "continuing". What does that make
them?


Bush dupes.
  #68   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Congress is free to gather any information they wish.


Completely untrue. The President is privy to far more intelligence than
the Congress.
  #69   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Arguing that Congress didn't have accurate information is like
arguing that ignorance of the law is an excuse.


Arguing that Bush used good information is like testifying to an untrue
alibi under oath. Arguing that Congress had any intelligence other than
what Bush chose to share with them and what was leaked is at best
disingenuous, and at worst, mendacious. I suspect the latter.
  #70   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

You're very perceptive, 12 years down the road. It's unfortunate that you
weren't quite so perceptive before the war.


Hundreds of thousands of voices in this country alone were screaming
that perception in the streets. Millions more around the globe echoed
them. Why didn't you listen before all these people were killed?


  #71   Report Post  
Lloyd Parker
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Kerry *self inflicted purple Hearts* Loser
wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
"Ian St. John" wrote:


Adding the island nation of Tuvalu just illustrates how feeble that

facade
really is.



He-he. Tuvalu, from the CIA world fact book:

Area: 26 sq miles (1/10 the size of Washington, D.C.)

Population: 11,468 (7/04 est.)

2 ethnic groups, no HIV, no deaths from AIDS, per capita GDP $1,100, no
agriculture, no permanent crops, one of the smallest and most remote
nations on Earth.

Yet, they still have a more realistic budget than the United States with
its immense deficit spending habit:

revenue: $22.5 million

expenditures: $11.2 million (2000)


So they only spend about $1000 per resident, hahahahah, I'll take that.
Make the US budget the same ratio, lets see 275 million people, not
counting the 100 million or so illegal spics, our budget should be about
$275 Billion. Cool!, my income tax would but cut by a factor of 10.
Yeah I'm rich, so you can bitch all you want about "the rich" getting a
tax cut, LOL.

If you didn't have Bush's defense spending and the interest on the debt
(mostly run up by Reagan and the 2 Bushs), you could have a big tax cut.
  #72   Report Post  
Kevin Singleton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ian St. John" wrote in message
...
They had to certify the absense. It is not enought that they cannot find
them. They have to check the last detail to ensure that nothing is
mislabeled.

In that case, the inspections were decades from being complete, because
there are literally thousands of square miles of desert that hadn't even
begun to be inspected. Do you realize that it is impossible to prove that
something does not exist? You can only prove that the WMD were not where
you looked, at the time you were looking.

Look here idiot. If I keep looking in the closet for my shoes and every
time
I look they aren't there, it may not prove that my shoes aren't in the
closet but what are the odds??

Do you think that's a reasonable example? Do you not understand that you've
only proven that your shoes aren't in the closet, and not that they don't
exist? Please, try and think for a second. Could the shoes not be
somewhere else? Somewhere you haven't been allowed to look? Do you really,
honestly believe that, just because the WMD weren't where the inspectors
were looking, that it proves that they don't exist, and that's good enough?
Even for something more dangerous than your shoes? Please. Try and think.

These are people that can tell by sampling the air in South Korea that
North
Korea is building gas centrifuges. Are these the sorts of people to miss
any
clues???

Of course. You can't even find your damn shoes. Hillary couldn't find a
box of records that were in the White House. There are still land mines all
over the world. You're not trying to think. You're just parroting
something someone read to you, aren't you?

So you figure that someone can move them around like a cheshire cat,
without
trace? What are you smoking?

Where _are_ your shoes? Of course "they" can be moved. In fact, WMD that
can't be moved are all but useless, if you stop to think about it.

more stupid **** deleted as it isn't any better

Or, more likely, **** that can't be refuted by someone who can't even find
his damn shoes.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com


  #73   Report Post  
Kevin Singleton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ian St. John" wrote in message
...
No. They were told by Bush that the threat was continuing. Too bad they
believed his horsepuckey.


So, you're willing to accept that 99 of America's most distinguished were
duped by George Bush, but you'd still accept two of them to run the country?

Of course, you would, you're Canadian!

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com


  #74   Report Post  
Kevin Singleton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Your Senators believed the threat to be "continuing". What does that
make
them?


Bush dupes.

So, you're willing to accept that 99 of America's most distinguished were
stupid enough to be duped by George Bush, but you'd still accept two of them
to run the country?

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com


  #75   Report Post  
Kevin Singleton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Congress is free to gather any information they wish.


Completely untrue. The President is privy to far more intelligence than
the Congress.

Then, it's still completely true, because Congress is still free to gather
any information they wish, as I said.

That makes you either stupid, or a liar. Your choice.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com




  #76   Report Post  
Kevin Singleton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Arguing that Bush used good information is like testifying to an untrue
alibi under oath. Arguing that Congress had any intelligence other than
what Bush chose to share with them and what was leaked is at best
disingenuous, and at worst, mendacious. I suspect the latter.

You paint your senators as foolish, ignorant bumpkins, not even as
intelligent as the president, yet you'd elect two of them to replace him?

What does that make you?

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com


  #77   Report Post  
Kevin Singleton
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...

Hundreds of thousands of voices in this country alone were screaming
that perception in the streets. Millions more around the globe echoed
them. Why didn't you listen before all these people were killed?

I couldn't hear them over the 99 senators saying "continuing threat".
--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com


  #78   Report Post  
Lloyd Parker
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...

Someone that incompetent isn't fit to be president.

Your Senators believed the threat to be "continuing". What does that make
them?

Congress got the intel the administration wanted them to have.

Congress is free to gather any information they wish.



How? The intelligence agencies all work for the executive branch.

Arguing that Congress
didn't have accurate information is like arguing that ignorance of the law
is an excuse.


No, but being lied to is.


Just like the threat from Costa Rica invading us might.

Ooh. Maybe we should have a quick look down south.

Except they obviously had, as he had no WMD.

You're very perceptive, 12 years down the road. It's unfortunate that you
weren't quite so perceptive before the war.


I never believe he had them, along with most of the world.


So why not wait until the inspections are finished?

How long?


The inspectors have said they were nearly finished.


Another 12 years? 20? 100, maybe? What's a "resolution",
without consequences?



The entity that passes the resolution should decide on the consequences,
no?

The UN is irrelevant, and this incident proves it.


Or that you're an idiot. I lean towards the latter.

Couple that with the rampant corruption, and there is no need for a
continued relationship with the UN. The body has failed in its mission,
leaving the US alone in the world to do what's right. So, we did. Hail

to
the chief.


America uber alles?
  #79   Report Post  
Lloyd Parker
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"David Gale" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote:
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:
When, exactly, did you know that?


The important thing is, when should Bush have known it?


What, becoming President makes one omniscient? Wow, that's a great perk.
Remind me to sign up for the job.


Don't we want our president to be a level or two above "deaf and dumb"?


The authorization your congressman passed doesn't specify.


It specifies doing what's necessary (not just Bush's whim) to defend the

US
(not for any reason Bush wants). There's nothing in there about

invading
because Saddam was a mean man.


Now, when I look at the phrase "as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate", I notice that it says that the president (Bush) determines
what is necessary, and what isn't.


Doesn't it go on to say "to meet the threat"?


Of course, I could be wrong, and it
could mean, "as Lloyd Parker will determine was necessary a year and a

half
from now".

If you authorized me to strike against a "continuing threat", the way

your
congressman did, it does.

Not when there was no continuing threat.


The authorization declared that there was a continuing threat.


Suppose Saddam had fully complied (to Bush's satisfaction) the next day.
The resolution would have still read the same. So would an invasion still
be authorized, in your view?


They
could've written that the President was authorized to use force "in the
event that a threat becomes imminent", but they didn't. They said that
there *is* a threat, and that it needed to be dealt with.


  #80   Report Post  
Lloyd Parker
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"David Gale" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote:
"David Gale" wrote:
Read the question that I was answering. He asked who, besides Bush,
Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Cheney believed Saddam to be a threat. I
pointed out that most of the high-profile Democrats are on record

declaring
him to be a threat. Your claim that this is invalid because the

Democratic
party doesn't have its own intelligence agency is a complete

non-sequitor,
as well as irrelevant. Or would you claim that Powell has his own
intelligence agency? Rumsfeld?


They work for Bush. They said what Bush wanted them to say.


Which is why Powell, Rumsfeld, etc. have all said things that were rather
damaging to the president's image.


Sure, now. Not last year. They were toeing the line.

Of course! It's all clear now!

Also, many of the quotes listed are from
before January, 2001; do you want to blame those on the man who was

then
govenor of Texas?


Saddam had WMD at one time; that's not in dispute. But he didn't have

them
when Bush invaded; that's the issue.


But he was believed to have them.


Suppose Bush "believes" Bahamas to have them? Is that enough for an
invasion?


He had never proven that he'd destroyed
them, as was required.


Prove you've destroyed all the cocaine in your house.


If I know I have a million dollars in my bank
account, and then my next statement indicates that I don't, and the bank
doesn't have any documentation about a withdrawal of funds, am I wrong, or
the bank?

But they did still believe that Saddam had WMDs, which was, as I

pointed
out, the question I was answering. Whether that belief was correct or

not
is beside the point, since he hadn't asked who correctly believed

Saddam
to
have WMDs.

It's easy enough to claim great wisdom in hind-sight, but the fact of

the
matter is that before 2003, most of the world believed Saddam to have

WMDs.

Based on what? The US was the only one supposedly gathering this
intelligence. Why didn't we listen to the inspectors, especially

Ritter?

Ah, of course. The Brits don't have an intelligence-gathering agency, the
Aussies rely solely on the CIA, and Poland, well, who can expect them to

do
anything related to intelligence at all?


Yeah, the Poles. Right.


And, of course, you're still ignoring the fact that Saddam had failed to
show the destruction of the WMDs you admit that he had.


Show you've destroyed everything illegal you ever had.


If he couldn't show
that they were destroyed, what were we to assume? That he'd waved a magic
wand and turned them into pumpkins?


That's what the inspections were for.


So, he was allowed to refuse to comply with the UN in order to deter

Iran?
I'm confused by this. The UN ordered him to disarm and prove to the

world
that he had done so; you claim that he did the former, but not the

latter,
in order to fake out Iran; the fact that not only Iran, but the rest of

the
world, including the US, was taken in is, however, Bush's fault.


The fact that Bush was so easily taken in by a third-world dictator

doesn't
mean he's not qualified to be president?


So, wait, is your case that Bush knew there were no WMDs, and lied about

it,
or that he really, truly believed that there were WMDs, having been

deceived
by Saddam?


I don't know, because Bush hasn't come clean.


You can't have it both ways--either he maliciously lied, and is a
manipulative genious, or he made an honest mistake, believing an enemy to

be
as powerful as the enemy claimed he might be. Please pick which angle
you're going to go with.


Either one is reason he shouldn't be president. He's either a liar or a
dupe (as Goldwater said about Reagan regarding Iran-Contra.)


So, breaking UN commands in order to deter a powerful neighbor is fine,


If not, the UN would have authorized military force.


....unless it were being paid off by the one breaking the commands. Oh,
wait, you deny that, too, even though it's documented in the Deufler

report.


The Security Council authorizes force, not the Secy-Gen.

if
you're a tyrranical despot who tortures his own people for the fun of

it,

Most dictators do. We supported most of them in the 80s and 90s. Heck,

we
supported Saddam in the 80s, so this wasn't a big deal to us then.


So we were wrong then. We aren't now. That's one of the weakest

arguments
ever. "But Mommy, you didn't punish me for throwing food on the floor

when
I was two; why should you punish me now that I'm thirteen?"


So what had changed? "Mommy, you said it was OK to throw food on the floor
last year and when I do it now, you punish me." "Well, I thought you might
have a pistol in your pocket now"?
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT (yeah, right!): Politics Tom Watson Woodworking 140 September 4th 04 05:02 PM
Political Campaign Funding ??? Metalworking 103 August 12th 04 03:30 AM
Moisture Cure Urethane (Moisture Cured Urethane) Moshe Woodworking 6 September 5th 03 06:50 PM
Garage Door Work question Rich Greenberg Home Ownership 0 August 6th 03 02:12 AM
Garage Door Work question user Home Ownership 2 August 6th 03 12:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"