Old 11th July 2003, 05:46   #81
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Bush will win, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your standpoint. I mean the domcrats have so many options, including Al Sharpton, winner of the racist of the month club.
Good luck, Democrats. Of course, the Libretarians have even less of a chance, but if I don't vote, someone else will.
Wait, that came out wrong.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 08:10   #82
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Might I add that no one has proof of the so called forging of documents or lying.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 12:15   #83
DracoVulpine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: That place...y'know...over there
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by Starbucks
For the people who hate bush, do you hate him because he doesn't know that he is lying? Or do you hate him because there's no one else to blame but the president?
I dislike Bush as a president. I do not hate him personally because I don't know/interact with the fellow. All I see is what he does with/to the country. You leave out one option here, Starbucks. That being that Bush actually knows he's lying. Because, he does. Whether you use the example of the lack of WMDs, his lying to the US about his tax cut being a stimulus to the economy, or what have you.

I don't hate him 'because' he's the president...I just hate what he's done since he became president...well...everything AFTER stomping Afghanistan into the ground...and technically, I have no issues with Saddam being gone, I just really dislike the fact that we were lied to about the reason. That and other things he's done 'in the name of fighting terrorism' and 'to stimulate the economy'...the fact that we're putting conditions on giving aid money to Africa for AIDS research, the thing where we cut aid to countries because they didn't sign onto an agreement the US wanted regarding the ICC...it goes on from there.
DracoVulpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 12:16   #84
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
I'm gonna vote for Gephardt because when he's President he'll do "executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90124,00.html

Bush will win because the Democrats continue to fail to put forth any sort of inspiring or effective leadership.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 15:01   #85
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
wow. that is so blatantly arrogant, i cant believe it (oh wait, hes a politician) gephardt just lost my vote.

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 15:07   #86
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally posted by oNaMiSsIo
bush will win for two reasons (before you jump on me let me just say that i dont want him to win, i just know he will)
1. hes fundraising something like 6x the nearest democratic candidate
2. there are so many dems to choose from, support will be fractionalized.
I don't disagree, but I don't agree either. I'm old enough to remember July of 1991, after Gulf WarI when Bush Sr., approval ratings were at 70 per cent, there were about eight Democratic contenders, and I had never heard of Bill Clinton. The last election demonstrated that all the rules have changed since 9/11, so who the hell knows... but if the economy doesn't pick up, and we're still stuck in Iraq (they're saying we'll be there for years) with a soldier or two being killed every day, he might have some problems. As it is, I would really be suprised if the next election turns into a triumphant coronation like Reagan's landslide in 1984.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 15:34   #87
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
theres a lot of things that could cause trouble for bush in the elections, but most of them are only possibilities, not realities. the daily iraq toll is something horrible of course, but unless it gets more play in the press it really wont effect elections tremendously. if bush's lying to get us into iraq becomes an "iraqgate" (officially coined here! ) then that would obviously be a problem. the market is technically a bull market now, but with unemployment the way it is, technicality doesnt matter. i would love to see the news media start making some kind of a stink about all of the civil liberties that have been stripped from us, but i dont know if politicians will capitalize on it for fear of not being seen as "tough on crime".

all of these could be factors that could lose bush the election, but i really dont see him losing (as much as i would like to)

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 15:46   #88
DracoVulpine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: That place...y'know...over there
Posts: 31
Honest reaction...yes...Bush will be president again. Can't blame me for hoping otherwise, can you?

Why?

Funding is a big part of it. He just gave the rich a nice tax cut, so they're donating more to make sure he keeps doing the same.

Stupidity on Democrats parts...such as the comment on the Supreme Court. They're trying to play 'cowboys', imitating Bush's style...and don't know how, so they end up coming off sounding bad. Some might not be doing this, but there are too many of them for me to tell right now, which is another problem with the Democratic party at the moment.

Our government is based on checks and balances. When one party controls two out of three of the branches...the system breaks down a bit. We forgot all the entire 'party' thing for a bit after 9/11...we were a nation united. Now, we seem to be fractured even more than ever, especially where party lines are involved.
DracoVulpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 16:03   #89
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
Dean for Prez!!!

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 17:26   #90
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
i stil say we jsut bring back clinton.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 17:53   #91
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
I will be voting for Bush...in the first presidential election I can vote in...unless a better candidate shows up.

God help us if Al Sharpton becomes president...that will truly be when hell freezes over.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 18:13   #92
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Why shouldn't Bush have a problem? The economy sucks, and Iraq is looking more like a quagmire everyday. I think that all it would take for Bush's prospects to go south is for a credible candidate to emerge on the Democratic Side, and for things to not change-- but things always change, so the question is how they'll change.
I'm telling you, Daddy Bush looked much better at this point in his administration. It was the summer of T2, and I remember an editorial cartoon featuring Daddy Bush in a leather jacket with a big gun pointed at the head of a frightened, wimpy, Democratic donkey, and the caption was "Hasta la vista, baby!"

It's not going to take much play in the press, just the steady drip drip drip of "another soldier was killed today in Iraq" day in and day out-- but if it coninues long enough, believe me, it'll get more play in the press. The idea that Bush deceived us gives congressmen who voted for the war, probably knowing full well that Bush was lying at the time, a way to distance themselves from their own positions.If it gets bad enough (it probably won't) he could find himself all alone. Certainly, if the situation deteriorates, it gives Democrats who supported the war a way to criticize him without appearing hypocritical. And if the economy doesn't pick up, that's when having both houses of congress becomes a liability for the Democrats, because there won't be anybody to blame.

The Democrats in the field who I've heard of don't really thrill me, so I'm hoping for one of the ones I haven't heard of to be the next Clinton. Right now I also like Dean. He was governor (of Vermont, right?} six times, so he must know something about winning elections... and that's what I'm looking for.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 19:36   #93
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
the press seems to think dean is a no-chance candidate, but i for one believe that he is the most promising candidate. his website is pure liberal bliss.

although i must confess that the first time i heard of him was from Doonesbury

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 06:06   #94
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
You're all idiots.
j/k.

I have nothing good to say. It's late.
Forgive me, Spidermonkey, for interrupting your wishfest. Dean won't be elected because he's an asshole. Pure and simple. Just look at him. I can tell he's an arrogant prick just from his face on his own webpage.

Look at him:

"Man, sitting on my pen is sooooo cool."

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 06:20   #95
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
Although I don't agree with some of bush's policies, I don't hate him (as a president) for that. Our president is our president. I just beleve that he is making some bad decisions. But who knows, does 911 sound like a good justification?
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 07:42   #96
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
You need to stop parading around your lying excuse as if it were a fact. He wasn't lying. He was relying on evidence from both a hystorical stand point and an intelligence stand point. And the fact that you haven't heard the white house address the issue proves that it isn't fact. Also, Saddam could have easily dismantled his weapons programs when he saw the war coming...thusly pulling of a good PR stunt...you don't want to fall for it, do you?

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 11:30   #97
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
Quote:
You need to stop parading around your lying excuse as if it were a fact. He wasn't lying. He was relying on evidence from both a hystorical stand point and an intelligence stand point. And the fact that you haven't heard the white house address the issue proves that it isn't fact. Also, Saddam could have easily dismantled his weapons programs when he saw the war coming...thusly pulling of a good PR stunt...you don't want to fall for it, do you?
Are you talking to me? Just wondering because I totally agree with everything you say.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 14:25   #98
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Hey at least Dean's got a weblog and he's trying to gain favor with the internet generation, I applaud his tech savviness, or the tech savviness of his campaign people at least. I don't actually see any entries in the blog by Dean himself.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 16:05   #99
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
Quote:
Originally posted by tiger84
You need to stop parading around your lying excuse as if it were a fact. He wasn't lying. He was relying on evidence from both a hystorical stand point and an intelligence stand point. And the fact that you haven't heard the white house address the issue proves that it isn't fact. Also, Saddam could have easily dismantled his weapons programs when he saw the war coming...thusly pulling of a good PR stunt...you don't want to fall for it, do you?
i really dont understand most of this... but i'll try with what i can grasp. the evidence he was relying on was highly untrustworthy. the night before the state of the union, bush's officials called the CIA and asked if they could attribute the intel about saddam buying uranium from nigeria to them. this already was out of protocol, because they usually have the CIA, FBI, ect screen important speeches like the state of the union weeks in advance. the CIA summarily refused to have the intel attributed to them, because they said it was not reliable at all. even though the CIA refused to verify this statement that bush wanted so desperately in the state of the union, the administration kept it in the speech anyway, saying that "if it was wrong they could pin it on the British" (-anonymous quote from a senior official courtesy of CNN Headline News) again, this is highly irregular, it is extraordinarliy rare for a the president to quote foreign intelligence in the state of the union address.

actually, i have heard the white house address the issue.

lastly, i find it kind of a non sequitur (sp?) that saddam would order the dismatling of weapons as a war was being started. you know, its hard to imagine a dictator saying something like "The infidels are attacking!! Quickly, destroy our weapons!!!" besides the common sense arguement, the mere time period that it would take for saddam to break down his weapons is too much, considering the amount of time between the beginning of the war and the conquering of baghdad. it takes time and money to break down these weapons, not to mention the appropriate facilities. i seriously doubt that saddam would pour all of those resources into a "PR trick" when he had bombers flying in by night trying to assasinate him and destroy his regime.

and the last statement "you dont want to fall for it, do you?" i dont understand. i dont want to fall for what? the pr trick? as stated above, there is no reasonable explanation for there ever being a pr trick.

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 20:04   #100
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by Starbucks
Are you talking to me? Just wondering because I totally agree with everything you say.
Nope, I was talking to the people who are.

As for the PR stunt. He had plenty of time to pull it off. We all saw the war coming for about 6 months, maybe even a year. And all his programs were designed to be mobile which would make the task much easier. He could have started long before the war. And it does make sense. What would be to his advantage more, attacking us with said weapons, or dismantling them to make the US look bad. It would have to be the later of the two. Even if he was dead, he would still have his revenge.

Now that I have read your article. It seems to me the White House wasn't lying. Your article even says many officials believed in the material they had and that such judgements were well made. Their is also a weakness in the article. It is only using one piece of intelligence to make its case. There is so much more intelligence on Iraq than just attempted procurement of U from Niger. You could also blame Niger, since they're the ones who forged the document.

As for the State of the Union Address. Yes it is checked many times over, weeks before the actual event, but I have no doubts that it is constantly revised right up until the president gives the speech. So much can change in a matter of days, let alone weeks.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 21:28   #101
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
Quote:
Originally posted by Starbucks
I just beleve that he is making some bad decisions. But who knows, does 911 sound like a good justification?
that soudns like horrible justification. 9-11 was planned years before the attack, and years before bush was persident. Bush did not cause 9-11, so that is, again and still, horrible justification.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 02:30   #102
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
You can't blame 9 11 on Bush, but you can blame Clinton for defunding the military to the point where we were easily attacked.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 02:32   #103
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
fickle, and how do you suppose the military was going to defend against the 9-11 attack? shoot the civillian aircraft down whilst it was still above new york? somehow have a squad take over the plane whilst it was mid-flight?
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 02:37   #104
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
I have a hard time believing Clinton had no idea about this guy Osama, while the dude was rummaging outside of our country, sending people in, to kill thousands of people. I mean, where were we before this asshole hurt us?

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 02:47   #105
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
We've known about him for a long time, but we never had any reason to go after him. There was never a real large scale attack on US soil, so we minded our own business (to an extent). 9-11 provided us with at least a platform which would allow it to at least be politically safe to go after him. There is jsut too much red tape. It's liek with gangs. Police, civilians, everyone may know that georde of the red towl gang arranged for fred of the blue rag gang to be shot, but if nobody steps up at witnesses, and if there is no real hard proof, there is nothing they can do (again, to an extent). The attack was also planned many years in advance. The people who flew the planes lived in flordia for a number of yeard before even going to the flight schools down there, and their neighbors said they were outstanding members of teh community as well. It was a well planned, near-perfect plan. But back to the point, even though this may not hve been osoma, it at leat provided us with enough coincidental evidence to make it publicly acceptable to go after him. And it is my beleif that the attack is a main purpose that we are taking such bold strides in teh middle east.

it is a well known fact that majority of the middle-east doesn't liek the US, along with a lot of the world, but before th attack it was kind of that. They didn't like that, but that was it. Now we have been attacked, and on our own soil, and it all happened right under our noses. It showed that it _was_ possible to attack the US, and that to an extent, get away with it. What we are doing now is getting our pride back. "You may have suckered pucnhed us once, but we are going to hit back ven harder, but we arn't going to stop with one punch, we are going to kep punching" and that is what we are doing, one-by-one, knocking out any country/indivudual that may possible haev the ability to strike down the US again.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 02:59   #106
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
So it took thousands of people to die before anyone did anything because Clinton didn't care. I find that horrible. We should have prevented the problem instead of waiting it out.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 03:05   #107
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
not that clinton didn't care, but what coudl he do? tax payers don't take kindly to having to pay more to send troops over seas because somebody "might" be a thread to our security. the last attack on us was pearl harbour, and that was not only a logn time ago, but it was a whole country, not a terrorist group. to the rest of america "we showed what happens when you attack us! To even attempt it again woudl be suicide!" We thougth the a-bomb gave us international mmunity to ever being attacked again, becuase we are ignorant and arrogant like that. To even suggest that we were weak, well that was jsut out of the question. Now that we have been attacked, we are all for going after everyone and anyone that may attack us again.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 03:11   #108
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
but we sent people over in Bosnia and no one batted an eye until it got all fucked up.
Look at Black Hawk Down. Those troops went in underprepared because Clinton cut funds.
All I'm saying is it took massive death before anyone wisened up to the problem, which boggles my mind. When I become president, all these things will change.
voteforme.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 03:17   #109
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
lol, you haev my vote, only if i can be vice president

(i cant debate because black hawk down was when i was still too young to care abou politics and whatnot)
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 03:44   #110
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
tiger84 - i'll not quote your entire post, you can look up to see what i am responding to.

Firstly, your arguement about saddam possibly destroying his weapons before the war doesnt make any sense to me. if he was willing to destroy his weapons before zero hour was up, why didnt he show the world that he was doing so in order to strip bush of the one internationally legal way to declare war? if saddam had come out and told everyone that he was destroying his weapons as you suggest he was, his entire country would be saved. bush wouldnt have a leg to stand on in the UN, and he and his allies would have to find a new way to sell the war to the world. if you are suggesting that saddam dismantled his weapons when he was told to but didnt let anyone know about it just so bush could declare war and not find WMD as a big PR trick, thats nonsensical.

your entire response to the article is based on a quote from a desperate man trying to defend himself from the inquiry. the actual text of the article contains quotes such as
Quote:
Fleischer's remarks follow assertions by an envoy sent by the CIA to Africa to investigate allegations about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The envoy, Joseph Wilson, said Sunday that the Bush administration manipulated his findings, possibly to strengthen the rationale for war.
and
Quote:
Yet nearly a year after he had returned and briefed CIA officials (on the fact that the intel on nigeria was untrustworthy), the assertion that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Africa was included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address.
teh "weakness" you refer to is, i think, actually a confusion as to what the topic is. i am talking about teh fact that bush lied in the state of the union address, not the entire rationale for iraq (i can argue that too, but lets finish this first ) as for blaming niger for forging the document, i would take issue with those who conveniently choose to believe a forgery to use it as a case for war. i got this story from the top of google news. it proves that bush and co. knew all about the intel being unreliable three months before they decided to put it in the state of the union. it also gives reference to the idea that Tenet was supposed to have looked over the state of the union and cut that piece out. the problem is, they never gave him a copy of the speech to look at. he is taking the fall for bush's ardent use of the crappy intel because he is not an elected official and it will have little effect on him whether people think he messed up on editing something.

ps. hey cool, the article i used is to be in tomorrow's paper. awesome

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 04:33   #111
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
what was the lie in the state of the Union address?

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 05:06   #112
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
that iraq was trying to buy enriched uranium from nigeria, presumably for their "nuclear program".

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 05:15   #113
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by dlinkwit27
We've known about him for a long time, but we never had any reason to go after him. There was never a real large scale attack on US soil, so we minded our own business (to an extent). 9-11 provided us with at least a platform which would allow it to at least be politically safe to go after him. There is jsut too much red tape. It's liek with gangs. Police, civilians, everyone may know that georde of the red towl gang arranged for fred of the blue rag gang to be shot, but if nobody steps up at witnesses, and if there is no real hard proof, there is nothing they can do (again, to an extent). The attack was also planned many years in advance. The people who flew the planes lived in flordia for a number of yeard before even going to the flight schools down there, and their neighbors said they were outstanding members of teh community as well. It was a well planned, near-perfect plan. But back to the point, even though this may not hve been osoma, it at leat provided us with enough coincidental evidence to make it publicly acceptable to go after him. And it is my beleif that the attack is a main purpose that we are taking such bold strides in teh middle east.

it is a well known fact that majority of the middle-east doesn't liek the US, along with a lot of the world, but before th attack it was kind of that. They didn't like that, but that was it. Now we have been attacked, and on our own soil, and it all happened right under our noses. It showed that it _was_ possible to attack the US, and that to an extent, get away with it. What we are doing now is getting our pride back. "You may have suckered pucnhed us once, but we are going to hit back ven harder, butagain.
Actually, Osama was offered to Clinton and he didn't take it. I'll have to look for more details. When I get them I'll post them.

oNaMiSsIo. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that Saddam is/was a rational person. He isn't/wasn't.

Quote:
The committee, however, cleared ministers of deliberately misleading lawmakers.
Quote:
Blair said Tuesday he had made a valid case for military action.

"I refute any suggestion that we misled Parliament or the people," Blair told the House of Commons Liaison Committee, stressing he stands "totally" behind the case he made for war.

"I am quite sure we did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein because not merely was he a threat…to the wider world but it was an appalling regime that the world is well rid of."
Quote:
"The jury is not out at all," Blair retorted Tuesday. "There is no doubt that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction."

Blair said Tuesday he had no doubts that evidence of weapons of mass destruction programs would be found in Iraq, but said his case would not be weakened if no weapons were found.
Quote:
The Australian Broadcasting Company reports Prime Minister John Howard, while continuing to express confidence in the prewar intelligence, is distancing himself from the data passed to him by the United States and Britain.

"I had discussions myself with senior figures in the intelligence community, very senior figures in both countries," Howard said. "I believe that they believed very strongly in their judgments…We had lots of material put to us over a period of months and it built a case, necessarily judgments had to be made by the agencies."
It's not lying if you firmly believe what you are saying.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 05:26   #114
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
You can't honestly believe that Bush and his speech writers are as dumb as the Iraqi minister of Information. I'm sure that he was given substantial info that brought him and his people to that conclusion.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 05:38   #115
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by Fickle
You can't honestly believe that Bush and his speech writers are as dumb as the Iraqi minister of Information. I'm sure that he was given substantial info that brought him and his people to that conclusion.
What do you mean. I though Iraq won the war. From what I heard from the Iraqi minister of defense, they total kicked our ass.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2003, 17:37   #116
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Did somebody mention that the cost figure was apparently lowballed by half?
So lets recap: with deficits already so out of control that they have to rewrite the laws when they go over the legal limit, this guy cuts taxes, and then sells us this incredibly expensive war, which is almost certainly doing as much to enhance OSama Bin Laden's status in the Arab World as 9/11 did to enhance Bush's standing at home. To the the more radical Arabs, it must look like the United States is now physically occupying Muslim nations, instead of using surrogates like in Israel. These people must be lining up for suicide attacks.

Of course, Saddam was a bad man. Even those who opposed the invasion hoped that it would succeed. This might have turned out a lot better if the aftermath of the invasion had been as carefully planned and orchestrated as the merchandizing of the invasion. This is a disaster... and it's a disaster that our children and grandchildren will be expected to pay for. Which will be okay, I guess... unless they have their own problems.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th July 2003, 02:10   #117
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
I would mention anything, but you ignored me, so How could you tell?

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th July 2003, 02:10   #118
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
tiger84-

as for saddam not being rational, i believe he is highly rational, just evil. i can see this grinding to a halt pretty soon, agree to disagree?


in addition, all of your quotes now refer to Tony Blair's problems in England. am i to take this as a concession on the america front?

i really wasnt talking about the brits when i said "state of the union", but i'll play along. again, all of these quotes are from men trying to cover their own asses. it is, to me, about as reliable as "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Unless they can provide proof that they are innocent of misleading the people, the proof right now points to them being guilty.

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th July 2003, 02:20   #119
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Guilty until proven innocent isn't how the US works, oNaMiSsIo.

Remember? Social Studies? That big long letter we wrote, and then the big thing about how our country works?

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th July 2003, 02:39   #120
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
i didnt say guilty till proven innocent.
read it again. night now, the evidence points to them being guilty. unless they can come up with evidence to show that they are innocent, then they are guilty.

if we wanted to place this in a court setting, the prosecutor has satisfied the burden of proof, now the defendant has to disprove the prosecutor or provide a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately for bush, the real world does not hesitate to convict regardless of meaninful doubt, so he must disprove the evidence agaisnt him.

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump