Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
*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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
_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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"David Gale" wrote: becoming president does not, in fact, make one super-human. Nor, in Bush's case, half-fast. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote: Your Senators believed the threat to be "continuing". What does that make them? Bush dupes. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT (yeah, right!): Politics | Woodworking | |||
Political Campaign Funding | Metalworking | |||
Moisture Cure Urethane (Moisture Cured Urethane) | Woodworking | |||
Garage Door Work question | Home Ownership | |||
Garage Door Work question | Home Ownership |