Why Bush Should be Impeached

[cattyfan]

Let's see what happens in Novemeber 2006.


Well, the democrats will run a ticket with ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and they will lose, receiving the flat-out smack-down they deserve.

[aikido7]

It is though, isn't it? You can actually KNOW how many people were killed, you can look to alternative places for information, and you can actually SAY what you want without been shot dead.

I may not agree with the war, or with the administration, but you won't hear me say that the country isn't good.

The last time I checked, the US Congress Authorized the use of military force in Iraq. You know, the Senate and the House... the people you and the rest of America voted for. It's not just the President you seem so eager to deface. If you don't like their decisions, then don't put them in again. What's funny is that America voted Bush in AGAIN!

I don't disagree with everything you say... but I don't agree either. Keep up the alternate viewpoints though, lets us all know that this country really IS great!Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows.

Anyone who challenges your beliefs is not defacing America. These are people who are still allowed to entertain doubt, arising from awareness and common sense.

In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers took what is universal in the human heart and brought it to bear on the formation of a new nation among the powers of the earth. A sense of pride in God's creation is not "nation-specific." It springs from the song of every human heart. Our country's Declaration of Independence is universal--it touches a part of all of us. Not just Americans, but people worldwide.

I can't answer the following questions. They're between you and the rag-and-bone shop of your deepest human heart, if you wish to entertain them.

Is there REALLY a difference between supporting the country you love and hating the sins of your country? Can a child still love his father who is a criminal? A drug addict? An unwise parent? Are the citizens who stood up against George Bush and America's certain quagmire-to-be unpatriotic? Are the citizens, military generals, soldiers and members of congress who have changed their opinion in the last three years allowed to do so without becoming unpatriotic? If "rocking the boat," following the truth wherever it may lead and criticism and dissent are still to be considered a necessary and hard-fought privelege in America, why is there such an outcry when good citizens disagree with their country?

We hold and hoard our little illusions around us like members of our own little family of truth. As I write this I am reminded of Jesus' fierce attacks on family values. We are continually being called to join another family--a wider and more open family which exists beyond our parochial view of reality. And sometimes we have to be dragged kicking and screaming into that light.

The collective hue, cry, mockery and judgement on this forum by those who would refuse others their address of grievance, criticism or questions hide a facist agenda--whether political or religious. A lot of Americans (not to mention people in other nations) are starting to belatedly and alarmingly realize some common ground:

There is no difference between a goverment of democracy and a goverment of repression except that democracies pay lip service to dissent and overtly repressive governments forbid it. But in the end, both types of government do what they want and what they can get away with....

[Jukia]

Well, the democrats will run a ticket with ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and they will lose, receiving the flat-out smack-down they deserve.
Well we will just have to wait and see. That's why they play the game.

[aikido7]

Originally Posted by cattyfan:

Well, the democrats will run a ticket with ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and they will lose, receiving the flat-out smack-down they deserve.

Well we will just have to wait and see. That's why they play the gameIt's not a game. Two plus two still equals four. And that goes for 2006. Not 2008.

[Morpheus]

In reality the majority who subscribe to this forum have become quite proficient in doublespeak. If tomorrow Big Brother, (oops), Bush, said that Osama Bin Laden is now our ally and that we are in a war with Chile for their newly discovered atrocities, these followers might question it for a few days, but after hearing it repeated over and over they would surely soon believe that that is the way it had always been. Sheep aren't easy to train, but they are easy to lead.

[On Fire]

What's it like on your home planet, Dorkeous?

[Morpheus]

What's it like on your home planet, Dorkeous?I am surrounded by mindless blind monsters with huge useless mouths. They seem oblivious to their surroundings, but are extremely dangerous since they wobble about continuously crashing into things. They are herded by other more vicious creatures who use them to crush their enemies. The herders are responsible for keeping the monsters fed; but that is easy since the beasts are satisfied being fed on the herders crap. They simply smile appreciatively with their huge mouths and continue to follow, hoping for more of the same. It is a dangerous place and I anticipate that it will soon become a desolate wasteland. Those of us who can see and think at least have the hope of excaping this place and returning to our homeland. You see, we are just travellers here; this is not our home.

[On Fire]

Those of us who can see and think at least have the hope of excaping this place and returning to our homeland.
Escaping, maybe. Spelling, not so much.

You see, we are just travellers here; this is not our home.
Oh, so you'll be heading back to Cuba soon, eh?

[Skeptic]

Looks like a just war to me:

1. Just cause: Stopping the massacre of a large number of people or the systematic long-term violation of human rights of life liberty and community is a just cause. There was no on-going massacre of a large number of people in the years leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion. Saddam's atrocities happened in the late 1980s. Therefore, there was no massacre to stop and Saddam was unlikely to engage in any massacre while he was boxed in, with UN inspectors on the ground, and with the U.S. and international community closely monitoring him 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. There were regular U.S. bombings of Iraq in the months leading up to Bush's official invasion of Iraq. If Saddam had been committing any ongoing massacres during that time, we would have known about it.

There are several countries that have systematically violated human rights for many years, but this does not justify invading such countries, killing many thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process.

2. Just authority: All of the necessary authorities that have the right to speak into such an action must approve it, and this approval must come without coercion or deceit. A vast majority of nations, as well as the population of the planet, did NOT approve of Bush's unnecessary invasion. There is plenty of good reasons to strongly suspect that the U.S. Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion DID involve coercion and deceit!

3. Last Resort: All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention have to have been exhausted. All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention had NOT been exhausted!!

4. Just intensions: The intended final outcome must be to secure a just peace. There are good reasons to suspect that Bush & Co's intentions were NOT simply to "secure a just peace."

5. Probability of Success: It is wrong to enter a war that will likely kill many people if there is no certainty that the probability of success is very high. Exactly one of my points! There WAS no certainty that the probability of success was high! As we can see from our current quagmire in Iraq, "success" is a long way off. So much for "Mission Accomplished."

6. Proportionality of costs: “proportionality requires that the total good achieved by victory will outweigh the total evil and suffering the war will cause.” No one should prescribe a cure that is worse than the disease. Exactly one of my points! Just before Bush's invasion, there was no evil or suffering in Iraq that was so great that it warranted a proportionately massive military invasion that everyone knew would necessarily result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children. This is not to say that Saddam was not a brutal dictator who needed to be removed from power, or that no people suffered under his regime. But, in the months leading up to Bush's invasion, the magnitude of Saddam's brutality and resulting suffering did NOT warrant a massive military invasion that everyone knew would necessarily result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

If the alleged WMD threat from Iraq had not been an issue, NO member of Congress would have approved of Bush's invasion merely to overthrow a brutal dictator and reduce the suffering of the Iraqi people!

7. Clear announcement: There must be a clear announcement of a government’s intensions to make war. The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun. (source (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0602-25.htm))

So much for "a clear announcement of a government’s intensions to make war."

8. The war must be fought by just means: The warring country will not purposefully inflict great casualties on innocent civilians and will not use means that aren’t proportional to the fighting. To say that Iraq's military was NO MATCH for U.S. and British forces is a massive understatement! We had been bombing the hell out of Iraq for the past several years before Bush's unnecessary invasion! Anyone who thought that thousands of innocent civilians would not be killed during Bush's invasion must have been on major mind-numbing drugs!

"Fought by just means" my @ss!!

[On Fire]

There are none so blind as those who wear rags over their eyes.

[Skeptic]

There are none so blind as those who wear rags over their eyes. Why don't you remove those right-wing rags from your eyes?

[Morpheus]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

Why don't you remove those right-wing rags from your eyes?

Don't just love seeing how blatantly racist the evangelical right is?

[aikido7]

Looks like a just war to me...Are you aware, On Fire, that the doctrine of "just war" was a creation of Augustine?

Are you further aware that its expression and development came out of the historical fact that the Roman Emperor Constantine came to realize "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and conveninetly converted to the new faith called "Christianity"?

Do you further realize that Constantine later saw fit to pour molted lead down the throat of a relative because he felt betrayed by some family/political treachery?

Do you not see that when empire and Jesus fall into bed with each other, control, domination and expansion then need to be justified?

That there must be "fixing of the facts" to support an actual gospel-based myth of violence being necessary and redemptive?

I think when Jesus said "love your enemy" he was not saying anything about hurting others. You are certainly welcome to parse Jesus' words to actually mean "love your enemy unless there is a justifiable reason to kill him."

But that would be hypocritical, morally wrong and UNCHRISTIAN.

Wouldn't it, On Fire?

[7cworldwide]

Don't just love seeing how blatantly racist the evangelical right is?

For the record, I am a white, evangelical, right-winger and I am absolutely NOT a racist. My wife isn't even white.

:hammer:

What a useless thread this is...

[Skeptic]

What a useless thread this is... As long as there is a possibility that someone can be persuaded by the evidence that Bush misled Congress and the American people about the alleged threat Iraq posed before he invaded, then this thread serves a purpose.

Bush will not likely be impeached.

But this does not mean he shouldn't be impeached.

[Delmar]

For the record, I am a white, evangelical, right-winger and I am absolutely NOT a racist. My wife isn't even white.

:hammer:

What a useless thread this is...

I doubt he will accept that as evidence.

[Skeptic]

I doubt he will accept that as evidence. Could evidence ever convince you that Bush misled Congress and the American people about the alleged WMD threat Iraq posed?

[Delmar]

Could evidence ever convince you that Bush misled Congress and the American people about the alleged WMD threat Iraq posed?

Yes, but I doubt if I could be convinced that taking out Saddam was a bad thing.

[Lovejoy]

Don't just love seeing how blatantly racist the evangelical right is?
Universal statements condemning a group you cannot possibly know every member of? What is that an example of, I wonder?

[aikido7]

Universal statements condemning a group you cannot possibly know every member of? What is that an example of, I wonder?An example of a generalization, I imagine.

Perhaps its meaning might hit home to you if it were instead phrased as "Don't you just love seeing how blatantly racist (generally speaking) the evangelical right is?"

What do you think, Lovejoy?

[Crow]

Don't just love seeing how blatantly racist the evangelical right is?

One more insinuation that a member or a general portion of the membership here is racist without just cause, and you will be looking for another message board to troll.

[aikido7]

One more insinuation that a member or a general portion of the membership here is racist without just cause, and you will be looking for another message board to troll.Good. Now we can all get back to watching TV....











I wonder who's the latest missing white woman this week?

[Crow]

Good. Now we can all get back to watching TV.....

Whatever floats your boat.

[Lovejoy]

An example of a generalization, I imagine.

Perhaps its meaning might hit home to you if it were instead phrased as "Don't you just love seeing how blatantly racist (generally speaking) the evangelical right is?"

What do you think, Lovejoy?
The statement would be on stronger ground, for sure, though I would still not be convinced of its accuracy. The fact is, its current wording leaves the poster with nothing to stand on, as generalizations are too instrinsic to all forms of bias and bigotry. I do accept that there are racists in the chruch, and that some denominations claiming conservative and evangelical affiliations are built on racism. But not all, or even most. My church (which is quite large) is both conservative and evangelical, and we have Hispanic and Korean services, an Ethiopian missionary and pastor, etc. I don't see it. I reject it. I also question the poster's motive in his statement.

[Delmar]

Could evidence ever convince you that Bush misled Congress and the American people about the alleged WMD threat Iraq posed?

Month after month we see more Iraqis and US solders die at the hand of extremists, who cannot tolerate the thought of a free Iraq. Month after month you gleefully chalk all of those deaths up as the fault of President Bush. I honestly believe that if you have it your way we will pull our troops out before the new government of Iraq is ready to defend it's people, and while You and I and the whole world will be sickened by the replay of the Cambodian " killing fields" in the middle east, The whole time you and your kind will secretly be rejoicing because you will finally have the ammunition to decimate George W Bush in the history books!

[simply one]

Month after month we see more Iraqis and US solders die at the hand of extremists, who cannot tolerate the thought of a free Iraq. Month after month you gleefully chalk all of those deaths up as the fault of President Bush. I honestly believe that if you have it your way we will pull our troops out before the new government of Iraq is ready to defend it's people, and while You and I and the whole world will be sickened by the replay of the Cambodian " killing fields" in the middle east, The whole time you and your kind will secretly be rejoicing because you will finally have the ammunition to decimate George W Bush in the history books!

IT IS THE FAULT OF GEORGE W. BUSH. WITHOUT HIS MISLEADING GETTING US INTO THE QUAGMIRE IN THE FIRST PLACE, THESE INSURGENTS WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN KILLING CIVILIANS EVERYDAY.

I agree, Saddam was a bad guy. BUT there are many dictators out there today who are much worse than him. WIth constant US and international surviellence, the chancce of him trying to pull some kind of mass murder again was about zero. It would have been much less bloody for us to keep up watching him and keep inspectors on the ground until he died (which would only be a decade tops) and then PEACEFULLY create a democracy.

Instead, Bush felt the urgent need to invade another country.

The insurgents DO NOT HATE FREEDOM. The right-wing rhetoric in you is showing in that statement.

Let me pose you a question, theoretically: if another country invaded America, basically decimated all the utilities and civil services, disrupted the police force, decimated the economy, and bombed out half a city, and let in swarms of foregin terrorists by destroying security THEN said that you were now free and everything was happy and friendly, would you be pissed?

Being a freedom loving American myself, I'd have to say that I'd be pretty pissed with anyone who occupied my country and then called us "free". The insurgents do nto hate freedom. They hate the Americans who came to their country, seemingly Imperialist American invaders, and basically decimated the country, killed tens of thousands of civilians, and then said that the Iraqis were free.

Unlike the majority of Americans, who, sheep-like, follow their imperical leaders' double-speak, the majority of Iraqis feel that they have been violated, and are fighting against what they see as and evil Imperialist empire.

INSURGENTS DO NOT HATE FREEDOM. THEY HATE THE FACT THAT THEIR COUNTRY IS BEING OCCUPIED BY OVER 125,000 FOREIGN SOLIDIERS.

[Delmar]

IT IS THE FAULT OF GEORGE W. BUSH. WITHOUT HIS MISLEADING GETTING US INTO THE QUAGMIRE IN THE FIRST PLACE, THESE INSURGENTS WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN KILLING CIVILIANS EVERYDAY. No Saddam and his boys would still be rapeing and killing them!

I agree, Saddam was a bad guy. BUT there are many dictators out there today who are much worse than him. WIth constant US and international surviellence, the chancce of him trying to pull some kind of mass murder again was about zero. It would have been much less bloody for us to keep up watching him and keep inspectors on the ground until he died (which would only be a decade tops) and then PEACEFULLY create a democracy.

Instead, Bush felt the urgent need to invade another country.

The insurgents DO NOT HATE FREEDOM. The right-wing rhetoric in you is showing in that statement.

Let me pose you a question, theoretically: if another country invaded America, basically decimated all the utilities and civil services, disrupted the police force, decimated the economy, and bombed out half a city, and let in swarms of foregin terrorists by destroying security THEN said that you were now free and everything was happy and friendly, would you be pissed?

Being a freedom loving American myself, I'd have to say that I'd be pretty pissed with anyone who occupied my country and then called us "free". The insurgents do nto hate freedom. They hate the Americans who came to their country, seemingly Imperialist American invaders, and basically decimated the country, killed tens of thousands of civilians, and then said that the Iraqis were free.

Unlike the majority of Americans, who, sheep-like, follow their imperical leaders' double-speak, the majority of Iraqis feel that they have been violated, and are fighting against what they see as and evil Imperialist empire.

INSURGENTS DO NOT HATE FREEDOM. THEY HATE THE FACT THAT THEIR COUNTRY IS BEING OCCUPIED BY OVER 125,000 FOREIGN SOLIDIERS. Killers are coming in from every country in the region and they are killing far more Iraqis than Americans but I'm sure they are only doing it because they don't like the American presence.
:kookoo:

[simply one]

No Saddam and his boys would still be rapeing and killing them!

Saddam stopped the atrocities when the international community started monitoring him 24/7. So, basically, the US invasion was uneeded because with intense international scrutiny AND UN inspectors on the ground, Saddam was not commiting any more atrocities.

Killers are coming in from every country in the region and they are killing far more Iraqis than Americans but I'm sure they are only doing it because they don't like the American presence.
:kookoo:

They are killing because they object to the American presence, and they are running by a principle which our own president has espoused: "If you're not with us, you're against us".

Besides, they are pressed against the wall, and see the only way to attract attention to their cause is by killing and making an undeniable statement. As to why their killing Iraqis, they feel that the only way to draw attention is to kill, and whose easier to attack? Unarmed civilians, or US solidiers decked out with body armor and machine guns???

I'm sure they're doing it because they hate the "imperialist" American presence.

And I;m also sure that you have blinded yourself with right-wing propaganda. :kookoo:

[7cworldwide]

And I;m also sure that you have blinded yourself with right-wing propaganda. :kookoo:

...no more than you've "blinded" yourself with left-wing propaganda. It goes both ways ya know. You choose to ignore at least as much (if not more) than any right-wing Christian.

:kookoo: ...and a kookoo for you. Let's be fair. :D

[simply one]

...no more than you've "blinded" yourself with left-wing propaganda. It goes both ways ya know. You choose to ignore at least as much (if not more) than any right-wing Christian.

:kookoo: ...and a kookoo for you. Let's be fair. :D

Anyways, I may admit to taking in some left-wing propaganda BUTTTTTT I've focused much more on the facts. And the facts are:

1) George Bush and Co. said they were invading because Iraq had WMD and connections to Al Queda

2) Iraq DID NOT (to date, 2.5 years later) have WMD or links with Al Queda. Depsite whatever WorldNetNews says.

3) 1700+ US soldiers and 25000+ Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the invasion and the resulting lack of security in Iraq

4) The war was NOT a necessary final resort at the time (no matter what right-wing media says). We had NOT exhausted all the options. Saddam was NOT going to commit atrocities with the international eye on his every move, fighters flying over on surveillence, and UN inspectors on the ground.

[simply one]

almost forget.

You and your silly right-wing ultra-propaganda, misleading this country. :kookoo: (there, 2 each)

the people will wake up in 2006!!!

[Skeptic]

Yes, but I doubt if I could be convinced that taking out Saddam was a bad thing. I have yet to hear anyone who was opposed to Bush's invasion say that Saddam was not a brutal dictator or did not need to be removed from power!

The question is NOT whether taking out Saddam was good or bad. The question is, in March 2003, was it SO URGENT to take out Saddam that he just HAD to be removed immediately by launching a massive invasion that everyone knew would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children? Of course Saddam needed to go! But, did he need to go so urgently, in March 2003, that there was absolutely no time to pursue other options - including continuing to box him in and closely monitor his activities 24/7 by the U.S. and international community?

Those who support Bush's invasion tend to focus on how good it was to get rid of bad-boy Saddam. Those who opposed Bush's invasion tend to focus on how unnecessary or immoral it was to get rid of bad-boy Saddam by invading Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people, as well as our brave troops!

The bottom line is that there was no urgency to oust Saddam in the manner we did, in March 2003. Bush said there was "no doubt" that Saddam had WMDs. He and his top aides knew there was doubt in the intelligence community, but preferred to mislead Congress and the American people into believing there was no doubt. By giving the impression that there was no doubt, Bush helped create a sense of urgency when there actually was no real urgency. This kind of misleading by a President is one of the greatest abuses of power and influence that a President can make!

Yet, Bush supporters tend to ignore such misleading in order to support "their man" in power. Bush supporters tend to see a Bush Presidency as an opportunity to move our country and government in a more conservative direction on domestic and moral issues. Most think he is doing a good job in the so-called "war on terrorism," while ignoring the fact that worldwide anti-American hatred and terrorism has dramatically increased since he invaded Iraq. Many are willing to overlook Bush's abuses in the realm of foreign policy by focusing on the positives, while ignoring or justifying the negatives. But ignoring such negatives sets a very dangerous precedent which has the potential of opening the door for future Presidents to repeat some of the same abuses.

This is one of my primary concerns regarding Bush's invasion of Iraq! As I see it, Bush has taken my country on a very dangerous path that can only lead to increased anti-American hatred and an increased risk of terrorist attacks in the future. By expanding the reasons that justify preemptive wars against countries to include spreading "freedom and democracy" or removing a brutal dictator, and not limiting preemption to those times when a threat is real, significant and imminent, Bush has set a very bad precedent for the future of America! I love this country too much to stand by and ignore or forgive such immoral policies of preemption.

Preemption is justifiable when a nation or terrorist group has proven themselves to be a real, significant and imminent danger to America, or when hard evidence is overwhelming that such rogue nations or groups possess WMD. The principle of "kill them before they become a threat to us" is simply wrong!

[Skeptic]

the people will wake up in 2006!!! We can only hope that the well-funded right-wing propaganda machine is not able to continue hoodwinking America as effectively as it has in the past several years.

We must fight ignorance and right-wing rhetoric with evidence and truth! Yes, for too many, fear and religion tend to be more persuasive than reason and reality. But, we must take the moral high ground and fight the good fight. We need to continue to expose the misleading and fear-mongering tactics of the Righties! The Righties tend to believe that positive ends morally justify negative means. We need to keep telling Americans that this is not what America should be about!

[Frank Ernest]

We can only hope that the well-funded right-wing propaganda machine is not able to continue hoodwinking America as effectively as it has in the past several years.

We must fight ignorance and right-wing rhetoric with evidence and truth! Yes, for too many, fear and religion tend to be more persuasive than reason and reality. But, we must take the moral high ground and fight the good fight. We need to continue to expose the misleading and fear-mongering tactics of the Righties! The Righties tend to believe that positive ends morally justify negative means. We need to keep telling Americans that this is not what America should be about!
Sounds familiar. Hmmmmm. :think:

:idea:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/609/1/56/

[On Fire]

STILL a just war.

STILL no impeachment.

Commies: the crying room is in the rear.

[simply one]

Sounds familiar. Hmmmmm. :think:

:idea:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/609/1/56/

So, you basically post a link the the CPUSA in a vague attempt to discredit the reason which we are posting, and the plans we have for victory in 2006.

You really are grabbing for straws, holding onto the very last defense you have (its your first defense too), which is to discredit the facts with fear and sensationalism.

And besides, much of that article is just a basic evaluation of the election, including what demographics voted for what, etc...

[simply one]

STILL a just war.

STILL no impeachment.

Commies: the crying room is in the rear.

You're still wrong.

This is a thread WHY he should be impeached, not that he WILL be impreached, and who knows, it may come in a few years.

And you still don't fail to fit the mold of a fear-mongering, right-wing-propaganda-spouting poster. Still you calling us "commies" trying to bring up fear inherent in American conciousness from the Cold War, which, to let you know, ended over 15 years ago now.

Please fight facts with facts, or else go home (ie leave this thread).

[cattyfan]

It's not a game. Two plus two still equals four. And that goes for 2006. Not 2008.

:shocked:

points to you for correcting me...I was not paying close enough attention to the year stated, and because this is a thread about the president I was thinking presidential election.

:idea: Just move my prediction to 2008, please.

[On Fire]

Didn't you hear me? I said:

STILL a just war.

STILL no impeachment.

Commies: the crying room is in the rear.

[Gerald]

Commies: the crying room is in the rear.
Where "commie" = "anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush Administration foreign policy"

[simply one]

Where "commie" = "anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush Administration foreign policy"

that almost seems to be the running definition of commie in this thread.

Actually, its more "anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush policy." period.

[On Fire]

Where "commie" = "anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush Administration foreign policy"
Whatever works for you.

For me, "commie" = "blind, ignorant, self-centered, the-holocaust-was-a-hoax, kumbaya singing, celebrate diversity, if it feels good do it, aluminum foil wearing, show me the way to Cuba, knobs".

[simply one]

Whatever works for you.

For me, "commie" = "blind, ignorant, self-centered, the-holocaust-was-a-hoax, kumbaya singing, celebrate diversity, if it feels good do it, aluminum foil wearing, show me the way to Cuba, knobs".

wait, how the heck can you tie in "holocaust was a hoax" with "celebrating diversity"?!?!?

You are definitely out of whack if you think that posters such as myself and aikido are "commies". We are the ones with our eyes open, seeing the world as it truly is, confronting you with FACTS, and caring about the welfare of everyone, even those whom most Americans hate.

You easily fit the first three qualifications, so I wouldn't be so sure of yourself. And by posting this put-down, you are simply showing more and more of what you truly are: A mindless, right-wing, self-centered, unthinking, propaganda spewing, self deluding "knob".

:kookoo:

ummm... hooray for name calling... although it does not help anything...

[On Fire]

wait, how the heck can you tie in "holocaust was a hoax" with "celebrating diversity"?!?!?You.

You are definitely out of whack if you think that posters such as myself and aikido are "commies". We are the ones with our eyes open, seeing the world as it truly is, confronting you with FACTS, and caring about the welfare of everyone, even those whom most Americans hate.Eyes open? Sounds like an opinion to me.

You easily fit the first three qualifications, so I wouldn't be so sure of yourself. And by posting this put-down, you are simply showing more and more of what you truly are: A mindless, right-wing, self-centered, unthinking, propaganda spewing, self deluding "knob".I was responding to my good friend, Gerald. The fact that you were able to identify with my post and get all defensive is rather telling.

[On Fire]

CNN reports "No Impeachment Today".

[Skeptic]

STILL a just war. STILL an unjust war!

Bush had no hard evidence of a WMD threat from Iraq. WMDs were never found.

Most experts believe Iraq's WMDs were destroyed in the early 1990s.

Bush knew that thousands of innocent men, women and children would die in an all-out massive invasion.

Saddam was boxed in, with UN inspectors on the ground, and with the U.S. and international community closely monitoring him 24/7.

There were regular U.S. bombings of Iraq in the months leading up to Bush's official invasion.

Saddam's major atrocities occurred in the late 1980s.

If Saddam had been committing any ongoing massacres during that time, we would have known about it.

A vast majority of nations, as well as the population of the planet, did NOT approve of Bush's invasion.

There are good reasons to strongly suspect that the Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion involved coercion and deceit!

All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention had NOT been exhausted.

There are good reasons to suspect that Bush & Co's intentions were NOT simply to "secure a just peace."

There was no certainty that the probability of success was high. "Mission Accomplished" was wishful thinking.

Just before Bush's invasion, there was no evil or suffering in Iraq that was so great that it warranted a proportionately massive military invasion that everyone knew would necessarily result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

If the alleged WMD threat from Iraq had not been an issue, NO member of Congress would have approved of Bush's invasion merely to overthrow a brutal dictator and reduce the suffering of the Iraqi people!

The British Defense Ministry showed that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun.

Iraq's military was NO MATCH for U.S. and British forces.

We had been bombing the hell out of Iraq for the past several years before Bush's unnecessary invasion!

Anyone who thought that thousands of innocent civilians would not be killed during Bush's unnecessary invasion must have been on major mind-numbing drugs!

STILL no impeachment. STILL a right-wing controlled Congress!

Commies: the crying room is in the rear. Communism is a stupid ideology. Being left of center on the political spectrum does not make one a "commie" any more than being right of center on the political spectrum makes one a "fascist."

I know you don't really believe we are communists. You throw out the term "commie" just as a way of demonizing your opponent.

[On Fire]

Once again Septic would have us believe that he is privy to classified information that would make all his wildest dreams come true. But the fact is he's a commie.

[Gerald]

For me, "commie" = "blind, ignorant, self-centered, the-holocaust-was-a-hoax, kumbaya singing, celebrate diversity, if it feels good do it, aluminum foil wearing, show me the way to Cuba, knobs"."Self-centered" is one thing that really gets you hot under the collar.

One might conclude you've been a victim of self-centeredness at some time or other...

[Gerald]

OF, do yourself a favor and put Skeptic on Ignore.

Skep, do yourself a favor and put OF on Ignore.

Then, neither of you will need to worry about the other. :thumb:

[Delmar]

OF, do yourself a favor and put Skeptic on Ignore.

Skep, do yourself a favor and put OF on Ignore.

Then, neither of you will need to worry about the other. :thumb:If everyone would put skepie on ignore that would be a good solution. Problem is his retoric dare not go unanswered or he might convince someone.

[Gerald]

If everyone would put skepie on ignore that would be a good solution. Problem is his retoric dare not go unanswered or he might convince someone.Only if you're an idealist or an altruist... ;)

Me, I just play the cards I'm dealt and don't gripe. My first question in any situation is "How can I benefit from this or turn it to my advantage?"...

[HerodionRomulus]

Bush continues to insist on linking 911 to Iraq
""We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens,"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050618/ts_alt_afp/usiraqbushattacks_050618171549_050618171549

Yet he has previously said just the opposite
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html

Veep Cheney insists it's almost over:
""The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/
BUT
Gen. Wm Webster, commander in Baghdad says:
"Certainly saying anything about 'breaking the back' or 'about to reach the end of the line' or those kinds of things do not apply to the insurgency at this point."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20050619/ts_nm/iraq_dc_37

Cheney's last throes is scarily reminiscent of Vietnam's "light at the end of the tunnel." Yet one more similarity between the two unnecessary and evil wars.

And a leading GOP Senator and member of the Foreign Relations committee refuses to blindly follow the blind
"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm

Emphasis mine: "The reality is that we're losing in Iraq"

[aikido7]

"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."---Howard Dean

"The people aren't afraid of [Bush] any more, they're sick of hearing about terrorism and they are, despite their general lack of interest in matters beyond our borders, tired of being hated around the world, killed in Iraq, and unemployed back home. Opposition calls for investigation and even, god love 'em, impeachment, are being met with increasingly desperate Stalinist tactics such as Republican leaders locking the Senate doors, turning off all the lights, and pretending not to be in when the two or three Democrats with any gumption show up to do business. It sounds fun, but it isn't.

Not desperate, the Bush Gang started a war, disassembled the government (that means lying), and sank the economy. Desperate, what will they do? I tremble to think.---John Piper

[Skeptic]

Once again Septic would have us believe that he is privy to classified information that would make all his wildest dreams come true. I have no need for "classified information" in order to logically arrive at my conclusions.

But the fact is he's a commie. Whatever ... :blabla:

[Skeptic]

If everyone would put skepie on ignore that would be a good solution. Problem is his retoric dare not go unanswered or he might convince someone. I have never put anyone on ignore. Doing so makes one equivalent to an ostrich! What is gained by ignoring opposing viewpoints?

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

Universal statements condemning a group you cannot possibly know every member of? What is that an example of, I wonder?

Let me get this right...someone makes a statement regarding refering to people wearing rags on thier heads...virtually calling people ragheads, a racist statement, i call them out on it and the group they belong to. And you give me the bad rep...some value you system you have going...its the epitome of fairness and goodness.

[Frank Ernest]

"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."---Howard Dean
:darwinsm: The reality is that Howard Dean has lost it in America.

"The people aren't afraid of [Bush] any more, they're sick of hearing about terrorism and they are, despite their general lack of interest in matters beyond our borders, tired of being hated around the world, killed in Iraq, and unemployed back home. Opposition calls for investigation and even, god love 'em, impeachment, are being met with increasingly desperate Stalinist tactics such as Republican leaders locking the Senate doors, turning off all the lights, and pretending not to be in when the two or three Democrats with any gumption show up to do business. It sounds fun, but it isn't.
:blabla: Bald-faced liar.

Not desperate, the Bush Gang started a war, disassembled the government (that means lying), and sank the economy. Desperate, what will they do? I tremble to think.---John Piper
:darwinsm: :Commie: :loser:

[Frank Ernest]

Let me get this right...someone makes a statement regarding refering to people wearing rags on thier heads...virtually calling people ragheads, a racist statement, i call them out on it and the group they belong to. And you give me the bad rep...some value you system you have going...its the epitome of fairness and goodness.
:darwinsm: BLOTD!

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: The reality is that Howard Dean has lost it in America.
What about conservative Republican Senator Chuck Hagel?

Howard Dean did not say "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

Republican Chuck Hagel (former member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) said "THINGS AREN'T GETTING BETTER; THEY'RE GETTING WORSE. tHE WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY. IT'S LIKE THEY'RE JUST MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG. THE REALITY IS THAT WE'RE LOSING IN IRAQ."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm

How many other Republicans "have lost it in America"???

The Republicans who are pushing Bush to withdraw the troops?

Or the other Republicans who--hearing from the poeple back home that they represent--are admitting increasing doubt about Ol' Smirk and Swagger's phony plan to bring democracy to the Middle East?

Hmmm?

And, oh yes--they really DID lock the doors and turn the lights off. No bald-faced lies there!





See, when you're the majority party, you can do things like that (if you need to, I guess!)....
It's called PARANOIA..

Look it up in the INDEX under "Stalinism, Tactics of..."


Rage on, little heathen. Rage on....

[Frank Ernest]

What about conservative Republican Senator Chuck Hagel?
What about him?

Howard Dean did not say "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
He still lost it, probably some time ago. :dizzy:

Republican Chuck Hagel (former member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) said "THINGS AREN'T GETTING BETTER; THEY'RE GETTING WORSE. tHE WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY. IT'S LIKE THEY'RE JUST MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG. THE REALITY IS THAT WE'RE LOSING IN IRAQ."http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm
:darwinsm: So, you have a guy with an "R" after his name. I'm supposed to be impressed with that. :nono:

How many other Republicans "have lost it in America"???
I give up. I don't spend much time counting Republicans.

The Republicans who are pushing Bush to withdraw the troops?
Really? Let me see. Using the usual :Commie: statistical methods: one Republican who says something should yield about 50 gazillion "unreported cases" of same.

Or the other Republicans who--hearing from the poeple back home that they represent--are admitting increasing doubt about Ol' Smirk and Swagger's phony plan to bring democracy to the Middle East?

Hmmm?
I read the same phony push-polls you do. I laugh, you take them seriously.

And, oh yes--they really DID lock the doors and turn the lights off. No bald-faced lies there!
:yawn: Talk about disconnected events!





See, when you're the majority party, you can do things like that (if you need to, I guess!)....
It's called PARANOIA..

Look it up in the INDEX under "Stalinism, Tactics of..."
I found it under Demo:Commie:s in Congress, Tactics of ... (1993 - 2003)

Rage on, little heathen. Rage on....
:darwinsm: A :Commie: atheist calls me a heathen. That's pretty close to a BLOTD.

[Frank Ernest]

Dickie Durbin finally did the Bill Clinton on the Senate floor (choking back the tears). He hasn't quite got the lip quiver yet.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44913

[Frank Ernest]

"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."---Howard Dean


Howard Dean did not say "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
:darwinsm:

[On Fire]

Impeachment Check: not today.

[Holly]

Impeachment Check: not today.
Osama bin Ladin Check: still at large today, nearly four years after chimp-in-chief promised to hunt him down "dead or alive"

[On Fire]

Commie Check: Holly (yup), Septic (yup), Moronpheous (yup).

[Holly]

Commie Check: Holly (yup), Septic (yup), Moronpheous (yup).

Why are you offended when someone points out that Bush has failed in his stated mission to apprehend the mastermind of the September 11 attacks on our nation? You might be satisfied by the diversion in Iraq, but the nearly 3,000 innocent people who were murdered that day on our own soil have never been avenged. I have to wonder whose side you are on.

[Frank Ernest]

Why are you offended when someone points out that Bush has failed in his stated mission to apprehend the mastermind of the September 11 attacks on our nation? You might be satisfied by the diversion in Iraq, but the nearly 3,000 innocent people who were murdered that day on our own soil have never been avenged. I have to wonder whose side you are on.
:darwinsm: Oh my! Nice bit of twisted, convoluted reasoning(?) there.

[On Fire]

Why are you offended when someone points out that Bush has failed in his stated mission to apprehend the mastermind of the September 11 attacks on our nation? You might be satisfied by the diversion in Iraq, but the nearly 3,000 innocent people who were murdered that day on our own soil have never been avenged. I have to wonder whose side you are on.

Listen up, Holly. Osama Yomama will be found, hopefully more dead than alive. You don't seem to understand that playing hide and seek when the whole world is your playing field is a tough game. Especially when the big, brave terrorists hide in holes in the ground.

[Holly]

Listen up, Holly. Osama Yomama will be found, hopefully more dead than alive.
Yes, I heard Bush say the same thing nearly four years ago. Wishful thinking is one thing, and reality quite another.


You don't seem to understand that playing hide and seek when the whole world is your playing field is a tough game. Especially when the big, brave terrorists hide in holes in the ground.
Especially when an incompetent commander-in-chief invades the wrong country and squanders our military resources over a trumped-up threat from a two-bit tyrant, and cons the majority of Americans into believing that Saddam, and not Osama, was responsible for September 11. I suppose it is easier for people like you to hide your head in the sand and cry "commie" than it is to face the bitter truth that you have been duped and that Bush's disastrous errors have increased international terrorism, rather than making us safer.

[Gerald]

You don't seem to understand that playing hide and seek when the whole world is your playing field is a tough game. Especially when the big, brave terrorists hide in holes in the ground.That's what nuclear bombs are for. Drop enough of them, and you're sure to get your foe sooner or later. After all, there really isn't anything in that region worth preserving: just mountains, deserts and heathen rag-heads...

Just think of them as really big Raid™ indoor foggers... :chuckle:

[On Fire]

Wow...another "average American" who appears to have access to national security intelligence. Where do I sign up?

[Gerald]

Wow...another "average American" who appears to have access to national security intelligence. Where do I sign up?I trust you're talking to Holly and not to me.

Frankly, I don't care where Osama is, or if he's dead or alive (I still think he's a grease spot underneath a mountain at Tora Bora), but claiming he's in a given country is as good a pretext as any to attack that country.

Iran, for example...

[Skeptic]

Commie Check: Holly (yup), Septic (yup), Moronpheous (yup). Commie Check: Anyone who opposed Bush's unnecessary invasion.

[Gerald]

Commie Check: Anyone who opposed Bush's unnecessary invasion.Actually, I think that pejorative is used to describe anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush Administration policy.

None of the Bush-boosters around here have the cajones to come right out and say that, though... :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Osama Yomama will be found, hopefully more dead than alive. You don't seem to understand that playing hide and seek when the whole world is your playing field is a tough game. Especially when the big, brave terrorists hide in holes in the ground. You Righties were far more interested in ousting Saddam, who was not a threat, than getting Osama and his gang, who was.

You approved when Bush diverted the bulk of our military to change a regime that was not a threat, rather than keep it focused on a real terrorist threat.

You approved when Bush's unnecessary invasion killed thousands of innocent men, women and children, who were not a threat.

Talk about twisted, convoluted reasoning!

[On Fire]

I trust you're talking to Holly and not to me.

Correct!

[On Fire]

Actually, I think that pejorative is used to describe anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush Administration policy.

None of the Bush-boosters around here have the cajones to come right out and say that, though... :chuckle:
These commies aren't just disagreeing. They are making claims and statements that would require them to have access to classified information in order to be true. They don't so they must be commies (idiots, whiners, sore losers, etc.).

[On Fire]

:vomit:
Commie.

[Gerald]

These commies aren't just disagreeing.
Oh, come on, show a little backbone! Disagreement = Treason and you know it!

It doesn't matter what The Opposition™ says. The fact that they're The Opposition™ is reason enough to hunt them down and crush them.

Yes, my new jackboots fit quite nicely. Why do you ask? :chuckle:

[simply one]

You.

huh. really? I know that the holocaust happened. So, there goes that theory.

Eyes open? Sounds like an opinion to me.

Actually, "eyes open" in the sense that I actually pay attention to world news and put teh wellbeing of people before the wellbeing of the American government.

I was responding to my good friend, Gerald. The fact that you were able to identify with my post and get all defensive is rather telling.

1) You were fairly vague in your accusations.

2) Gerald made some valid points, and didn't deserve your insults.

[On Fire]

Gerald made some valid points,

Pure luck.

and didn't deserve your insults.

:ha: :darwinsm: :ha: :darwinsm: :ha: :darwinsm: :ha: :darwinsm: :ha: :darwinsm:

[aikido7]

Commie Check: Holly (yup), Septic (yup), Moronpheous (yup). ...ahem! a-HEM!!!

[aikido7]

"There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
- George W. Bush -- 2 July 2003


"George W. Bush, you have asked us to 'bring it on.' And so help me, [we will] like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?"
- Iraqi resistance propaganda video -- 2004

[On Fire]

"There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
- George W. Bush -- 2 July 2003


"George W. Bush, you have asked us to 'bring it on.' And so help me, [we will] like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?"
- Iraqi resistance propaganda video -- 2004
Car bombs and suicide bombers do not a resistance make. They are killing more of their own brothers than they are Americans. :duh:

[aikido7]

Car bombs and suicide bombers do not a resistance make. They are killing more of their own brothers than they are Americans. :duh:Isn't it a matter of degree?

After all, you cannot expect a militant group which arises out of an Arab tribal culture to undertake both their resistance and their defense by a "technologically superior" system of air power and massively deadly "daisy-cutter" bombing--can you?

They're on a shoestring budget, for God's sake! And their concept of time is tempered by an awareness of reality bereft of fast food, traffic headaches and the Lazy-Boy lifestyle.

I'm sure they are somewhat like the colonial patriot Nathan Hale in that they actually preach and practice the idea that they regret only having "one life to give" for their country.

Doesn't that make sense, On Fire?

[Holly]

These commies aren't just disagreeing. They are making claims and statements that would require them to have access to classified information in order to be true.
This is the second time (at least) that you've said this. Can you tell us which specific "claims and statements" you are referring to, or are you just trying to distract from your inability to find any facts to rebut what was said? :hammer:

[On Fire]

"There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
- George W. Bush -- 2 July 2003


"George W. Bush, you have asked us to 'bring it on.' And so help me, [we will] like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?"
- Iraqi resistance propaganda video -- 2004
You offer this up like they've actually pulled one over on Bush. What's YOUR point?

[On Fire]

This is the second time (at least) that you've said this. Can you tell us which specific "claims and statements" you are referring to, or are you just trying to distract from your inability to find any facts to rebut what was said? :hammer:
I collected these from just the last 3 pages of posts:


1. Iraq DID NOT (to date, 2.5 years later) have WMD or links with Al Queda.

2. The bottom line is that there was no urgency to oust Saddam in the manner we did.

3. There are good reasons to strongly suspect that the Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion involved coercion and deceit!

4. there was no evil or suffering in Iraq

5. All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention had NOT been exhausted!!

6. with intense international scrutiny AND UN inspectors on the ground, Saddam was not commiting any more atrocities.


Not one of these statements can be backed up with fact. There are "good reasons" to "strongly suspect" that you commies are ignorant.

[Gerald]

Pure luck.
Luck's got nuthin' to do with it, boyo!

You wish you had my phat skillz!

:banana::banana::banana:

[Holly]

I collected these from just the last 3 pages of posts:



Not one of these statements can be backed up with fact. There are "good reasons" to "strongly suspect" that you commies are ignorant.

I did not make any of those statements, as you well know, so don't imply that I did. I will ask you once again, referring to posts 2322 and 2327, which you directed specifically at ME, to please identify which of MY "claims and statements" (not somebody else's), you feel are in error or would require access to classified information. Again, don't even try putting someone else's words in my mouth.

[On Fire]

Give me a break. I didn't attribute anything to you. You're still a commie. So?

[On Fire]

You wish you had my phat skillz!

:banana::banana::banana:
Where's BillyBob with a wife joke when you need him?

[Gerald]

Where's BillyBob with a wife joke when you need him?Come on, OF, do your worst.

Besides, BB and I have an understanding: he doesn't attack Mrs. Gerald, and I don't attack Mrs. Billybob.

[On Fire]

Come on, OF, do your worst.

Besides, BB and I have an understanding: he doesn't attack Mrs. Gerald, and I don't attack Mrs. Billybob.
Nah....I happen to like your wife.

[Gerald]

Nah....I happen to like your wife.Which demonstrates conclusively that you've never, ever met my wife!

:noid:

Hmmm, that didn't come out quite right... :think: :noid:

[simply one]

I collected these from just the last 3 pages of posts:



Not one of these statements can be backed up with fact. There are "good reasons" to "strongly suspect" that you commies are ignorant.

Well, those statements ARE facts.

1) Iraq had NO WMD at time of invasion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

2)Saddam was weakened, had no WMD, was under intense internatiol pressure with UN inspectors on the ground, had US and international warplanes flying overhead, and was being watched 24/7. He wasn't doing anything and he wasn't going to do anything.

Article from the British Guardian based on an interview with an ex-Bush Administration official (I doubt this made much news in the U.S. because the Administration would want to downplay it): http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html

At a press conference yesterday, Mr Thielmann said that, as of March 2003, when the US began military operations, "Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbours or to the United States".

Mr Thielmann also said there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida. He added: "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude ... 'We know the answers - give us the intelligence to support those answers'."

3) http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/11952371.htm

Do you want to know?

That's the only popular division that matters in the United States today: Those who want to determine once and for all if President Bush knowingly ''fixed the facts'' regarding Iraq, thereby misleading Congress and the American people into supporting an unnecessary war, and those who will cover their ears and hum loudly in order to maintain their belief that Bush and his advisors remain above reproach.

You're in one camp or the other. Either you want to know if you've been lied to, or you don't.

I think you need to stop humming.... :kookoo:

4) I didn't make this claim, nor do I believe it. BUT there is suffering everywhere, and Saddam was not commiting atrocities in the lead up to the war.

5) This one is obvious. The UN inspectors were on the ground and the UN was entering a dialogue with Saddam to negotite an end to his weapons.

I have to go now, but actually read those articles. I RECCOMEND THE FIRST ARTICLE TO ANYONE ON THIS THREAD. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

[On Fire]

:vomit:
You must wear those special glasses that allow you to read between the lines.

[Gerald]

You must wear those special glasses that allow you to read between the lines.Is this where you hold up your first three fingers...?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Have you heard the news? Skeptic's gonna be over the moon!

BUSH HAS BEEN INPEACHED!

[aikido7]

You offer this up like they've actually pulled one over on Bush. What's YOUR point?You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

My point is as old as the Scriptures. Violence begats violence. The only way off the cycle of humanity's myth of redemptive violence is to seek counsel in the spirit of Christ.

Ol' Smirk and Swagger needs to read his Bible more. Why does he continue to focus on his "good intentions" instead of the tragic effects of those "good intentions"?

[Skeptic]

You must wear those special glasses that allow you to read between the lines. And this is coming from someone who literally interprets an old book of fairy tales and superstitions.

What kind of glasses do you wear, OF? :darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

I collected these from just the last 3 pages of posts:

1. Iraq DID NOT (to date, 2.5 years later) have WMD or links with Al Queda.

2. The bottom line is that there was no urgency to oust Saddam in the manner we did.

3. There are good reasons to strongly suspect that the Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion involved coercion and deceit!

4. there was no evil or suffering in Iraq

5. All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention had NOT been exhausted!!

6. with intense international scrutiny AND UN inspectors on the ground, Saddam was not commiting any more atrocities.


Not one of these statements can be backed up with fact. There are "good reasons" to "strongly suspect" that you commies are ignorant. 1. Iraq DID NOT have WMD or links with Al Queda.

According to the Bush Administration's own Duelfer report:

- Saddam Hussein ended his nuclear program in 1991, after the gulf War, and there was no evidence he tried to restart it.

- Baghdad abandoned its biological weapons program in 1995 out of fear it would be discovered.

- Iraq destroyed its hidden biological weapons stocks in 1991 and 1992.

- No evidence was uncovered that Iraq had biological weapons production systems mounted on trucks or rail cars.

- Iraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and there is no evidence Iraq ever resumed producing such weapons.

- There is no evidence Iraq had any Scud missiles when the U.S. invaded last year.

According to the 9/11 Commission:

There was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The report indicates meetings between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden, who was attempting to set up training camps in Iraq and procure weapons. The 9/11 Commission reported that Iraqis "did not respond" to those requests. This is a far cry from what most people would call a "tie" or a "connection."

Do YOU have evidence that Charles Duelfer, of the Iraq Survey Group, did not have access to that showed Iraq did have WMD in the months leading up to Bush's invasion?

Are you claiming that the 9/11 Commission was wrong in its assessment of Iraq's alleged links with Al Queda? What evidence do you have that the 9/11 Commission did not?

2. The bottom line is that there was no urgency to oust Saddam in the manner we did.
Given that Bush had no clear hard evidence of a WMD threat from Iraq,
given that Saddam was boxed in and monitored 24/7,
given that the U.S. was regularly bombing Iraq during the months BEFORE the invasion,
given that Saddam's major atrocities occurred way back in the late 1980s,
given that Saddam was unlikely to commit such atrocities with UN inspectors on the ground,
there was no urgency so great to remove Saddam that warranted a massive invasion that unnecessarily killed many thousands of innocent men, women and children!

Why do YOU think that the urgency to remove Saddam was so great that Bush just HAD to launch a massive bloody invasion in March 2003?

3. There are good reasons to strongly suspect that the Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion involved coercion and deceit!

Here is one good reason:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
-- George W. Bush - Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

There was PLENTY of doubt in the intelligence community about Iraq's alleged WMDs!! And it turns out that those doubters were correct!

"Al-Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. ... you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam ...
-- George W. Bush - September 26, 2002

Wrong! There were PLENTY of experts questioning this assertion.

On Feb 24, 2001, in Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years." America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box."

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenseless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Then, just after September 11, 2001, all of a sudden, Iraq is a major WMD threat!!

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
-- George W. Bush - United Nations Address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
-- George W. Bush - Radio Address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
-- George W. Bush - Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."-- George W. Bush - State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

Source (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html)

Where is the hard evidence Bush used to back up the above statements?

U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson:
"I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat,"

"A legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

"It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question, what else are they lying about?"

Former Director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Greg Thielmann:
"I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."

"Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States."

"This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude."

4. there was no evil or suffering in Iraq -- (out of context!!!)

Here is my exact quote: "Just before Bush's invasion, there was no evil or suffering in Iraq that was so great that it warranted a proportionately massive military invasion that everyone knew would necessarily result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children."

There is "evil and suffering" in many countries! But this does not mean the U.S. should massively invade all of these countries in order to stop all "evil and suffering"!

5. All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention had NOT been exhausted!! Given that Bush had no hard evidence of WMD and was not a threat, there was PLENTY of time for further negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention! The UN Inspectors were on the ground, still looking for WMD that was not to be found. Therefore, Saddam WAS engaged in some level of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention of further hostilities! If he had not been so engaged, he would never have let the UN Inspectors back in. There were continuing negotiations leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion! Since there was NO urgency to invade Iraq, which was not a threat, these negotiations could have continued. Even if such negotiations continued for another few years (by which time the nonexistent WMDs would STILL not have been found), this option would have been better than the unnecessary killing of many thousands of innocent men, women and children, along with our brave troops!

6. with intense international scrutiny AND UN inspectors on the ground, Saddam was not commiting any more atrocities. Do you have evidence to the contrary? When evidence is lacking, the rational thing to do is reserve judgment. As far as I know, there is STILL no evidence that Saddam was committing any atrocities during the recent years leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion. I'm sure Saddam was a brutal dictator who did what brutal dictators do. But during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, there is no evidence that he did the kind of atrocities that would have warranted a massive invasion that everyone knew would kill many thousands of innocent men, women and children!

[aikido7]

"I've not made up our mind about military action," claimed our moral, godly president. And this was two weeks before he bombed Baghdad on CNN.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030306-8.html

(Now, of course, we know that we had been bombing Iraq illegally for months before "the war option" was officially taken!)
_______________________________________

On Fire--You read, but only superficially and to confirm your own prejudices. Skeptic has been posting the facts for weeks. The same facts you have been all too willing to ignore for years.

You are entitled to your own opinions, my friend, but not to your own facts.

[Lovejoy]

Let me get this right...someone makes a statement regarding refering to people wearing rags on thier heads...virtually calling people ragheads, a racist statement, i call them out on it and the group they belong to. And you give me the bad rep...some value you system you have going...its the epitome of fairness and goodness.
I gave you some points, and then I took them back. They were mine to do so with.

First of all, he said "rags over their eyes." I have no idea what he was referring to, but it was not overtly racist. Secondly, characterizing an entire group based on your (flawed) perceptions of a single member does you no credit, and is not even logical. Find out what he meant. If it was racist, then by all means continue. He already denied that it was, but you were entirely disinterested in him or the potential that he might not be as bad you wanted him to be. You give me very little hope that you are capable of an unbiased contribution.

[Frank Ernest]

"I've not made up our mind about military action," claimed our moral, godly president. And this was two weeks before he bombed Baghdad on CNN.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030306-8.html
Apparently, in those two weeks, he made up his mind. :up:

(Now, of course, we know that we had been bombing Iraq illegally for months before "the war option" was officially taken!)
:darwinsm: You forgot to include the word "immorally." :down:
_______________________________________

On Fire--You read, but only superficially and to confirm your own prejudices. Skeptic has been posting the facts for weeks. The same facts you have been all too willing to ignore for years.
:darwinsm: The relationship between :skeptic: and "facts" is quite tenuous. :confused:

You are entitled to your own opinions, my friend, but not to your own facts.
Right back atcha, :Commie:. :thumb:

[On Fire]

"I've not made up our mind about military action," claimed our moral, godly president. And this was two weeks before he bombed Baghdad on CNN.

Perfect example of how you commies create a conspiracy out of nothing.

The decision to begin bombing could have been made just minutes before the bombing began. What's your problem? You want to dictate the rules of war? Run for office.

Stupid. Commie. Waste.

[On Fire]

1. Iraq DID NOT have WMD or links with Al Queda.

Your Uncle Saddam not only HAD WMDs but he used them on his own people. We gave him years to provide proof that his WMDs had been destroyed but HE COULDn'T DO IT. Hmmmmmm.....I wonder WHY???

[On Fire]

2. The bottom line is that there was no urgency to oust Saddam in the manner we did.
Just like there was no urgency to protect our airlines on September 10, 2001. Neither you or I are capable of determining the "urgency". The President has information that we do not. Get over it.

[aikido7]

Your Uncle Saddam not only HAD WMDs but he used them on his own people. We gave him years to provide proof that his WMDs had been destroyed but HE COULDn'T DO IT. Hmmmmmm.....I wonder WHY???Saddam's weapons were debilitated long before the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He said he did not have them. The inspectors did not find them. Old Smirk and Swagger said he did.

It looks increasingly likely that the president wanted some justification and cover to attack a sovereign nation in order to fulfill an agenda other than one to constitutionally protect America from those who attacked us.

Many of us said that then. The whole mess quacked like a stinking duck.
Just like there was no urgency to protect our airlines on September 10, 2001. Neither you or I are capable of determining the "urgency". The President has information that we do not. Get over it.There was no urgency because members of our government needed a Peal Harbor to accomplish the up-front goals of the policy paper "Project for a New American Century." Of course you are not capable of determination of urgency. You have a lying president and a compliant press. You accept everything that those you place in authority tell you. It's obviously much easier that way. And it further guarantees you will forever be distracted outward looking for enemies wherever Daddy points out to you that they are.

[On Fire]

3. There are good reasons to strongly suspect that the Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion involved coercion and deceit!
This lie is filled with so many inflamatory lies I'm surprised it hasn't been declared a WMD.

"good reasons" = matter of opinion.

"strongly suspect" = make up lies and stand behind them.

"unnecessary" = circular reasoning

"coercion and deceit" = baseless lie

[aikido7]

This lie is filled with so many inflamatory lies I'm surprised it hasn't been declared a WMD.

"good reasons" = matter of opinion.

"strongly suspect" = make up lies and stand behind them.

"unnecessary" = circular reasoning

"coercion and deceit" = baseless lieWhich part of the "immanent threat" cover story don't you understand? What is it about "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" are you having trouble with? How can you take seriously the "We couldn't imagine planes being used as missles against our country" line? Given what we knew and felt then, it does not surprise me that good sunshine patriots would fail to take seriously the facts., fail to connect the dots and fail to question what authorities have said. But given what we now know--and the information and persepective afforded to us now--you have no excuse still insisting WMDs are in Syria, Saddam Hussein and Osama were drinking buddies and Al-Qaida was running the nation of Iraq.

[Skeptic]

Perfect example of how you commies create a conspiracy out of nothing.

The decision to begin bombing could have been made just minutes before the bombing began. What's your problem? You want to dictate the rules of war? Run for office.

Stupid. Commie. Waste. The point is that the evidence shows Bush HAD made up his mind about military action long before he invaded!

Therefore, another lie.

[Skeptic]

Your Uncle Saddam not only HAD WMDs but he used them on his own people. According to the Bush Administration's own Duelfer report:

- Saddam Hussein HAD a nuke program, but ended his nuclear program in 1991, after the gulf War, and there was no evidence he tried to restart it.

- Saddam HAD bio weapons, but Baghdad abandoned its biological weapons program in 1995 out of fear it would be discovered.

- Saddam HAD bio weapons, but Iraq destroyed its hidden biological weapons stocks in 1991 and 1992.

- Saddam HAD bio weapons, but no evidence was uncovered that Iraq had biological weapons production systems mounted on trucks or rail cars.

- Saddam HAD chemical weapons, but Iraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and there is no evidence Iraq ever resumed producing such weapons.

- Saddam HAD Scud missiles, but there is no evidence Iraq had any Scud missiles when the U.S. invaded last year.

We gave him years to provide proof that his WMDs had been destroyed but HE COULDn'T DO IT. Hmmmmmm.....I wonder WHY??? It's very difficult to prove you don't have something.

There was plenty of evidence available from UN and IAEA inspectors that most, if not all, WMD had been destroyed.

Poor record keeping could account for any alleged unaccounted for WMDs.

Since the lives of many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children are on the line, it was up to the U.S. to prove Saddam had some remaining WMD.

It is wrong to invade a county, killing thousands of innocent people, simply because that country cannot prove they got rid of every last WMD.

When it comes to WAR, the burden of proof of a threat is on those starting the war!

Wars based on mere suspicion are WRONG!

[simply one]

still waiting for a substantial response from the righties... :mock: :dunce:

oh wait, I just remember that you can't refute the truth and the facts with anything substantial. So, I'll stop expecting a substantial response from them.

BIG LETTERS DON'T MAKE YOU ANY MORE RIGHT!

[On Fire]

Impeachment Check: nope, not today

[On Fire]

The point is that the evidence shows Bush HAD made up his mind about military action long before he invaded!

A commie AND a mind reader. You should take that act on the road. :BRAVO:

[Morpheus]

OF, it is beyond your narrow reasoning ability to understand that the #1 terrorist nation in the world is the US and that GWB is a toss-up for the most ruthless terrorist leader in our history with Reagan. German nationalists considered Hitler a hero.

[On Fire]

:yawn:

[Morpheus]

:yawn:That's a good boy. Go back to sleep.

[On Fire]

I can sleep and watch for you to post more lies at the same time.

[Skeptic]

Just like there was no urgency to protect our airlines on September 10, 2001. From what I hear, we are not doing that much better today at protecting our airlines than before 9/11.

Neither you or I are capable of determining the "urgency". The President has information that we do not. Get over it. The President has no right to keep his justification for starting wars secret from Congress or the American people!! It is the President's responsibility to tell Congress and the American people the nature and basis of the urgency, if it means starting a war. Bush did attempt to tell us about the alleged urgency, but he failed miserably at providing the necessary hard empirical justification for such an urgency.

Wars based on suspicion are WRONG!

[On Fire]

Wars based on suspicion are WRONG!
Posts based on ignorance and superstition are STUPID!

[Skeptic]

This lie is filled with so many inflamatory lies I'm surprised it hasn't been declared a WMD.

"good reasons" = matter of opinion.

"strongly suspect" = make up lies and stand behind them.

"unnecessary" = circular reasoning

"coercion and deceit" = baseless lie How is my saying that Bush's invasion was unnecessary equal to "circular reasoning"?

When are you going to justify your allegation that those who opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq are lying?

If you think I am lying, then please provide some evidence to support your position.

Simply saying "it's a lie" is not good enough.

I've given my basis for my statements. Now it's your turn.

[Skeptic]

I say "Wars based on suspicion are WRONG!"

And you reply Posts based on ignorance and superstition are STUPID! Rather than continue to make unsupported claims, why not show WHY my posts "are based on ignorance and superstition"?

Merely saying so isn't good enough.

[simply one]

still waiting for a substantial response from the righties... :mock: :dunce:

oh wait, I just remember that you can't refute the truth and the facts with anything substantial. So, I'll stop expecting a substantial response from them.

BIG LETTERS DON'T MAKE YOU ANY MORE RIGHT!

just reiterating that so skeptic doesn't get his hopes up.

[On Fire]

How is my saying that Bush's invasion was unnecessary equal to "circular reasoning"?

At question is whether or not the war in Iraq was necessary. Your argument against the war is to say it was unnecessary. Cute. :baby:

[On Fire]

blah...blah...blah...
Where's the "whatever" smilie when you need it?

[Skeptic]

just reiterating that so skeptic doesn't get his hopes up. I'm an optimist! :thumb:

I just feel that On Fire and other Righties in this thread will one day at least attempt to provide us with substantial responses!

[Skeptic]

At question is whether or not the war in Iraq was necessary. Your argument against the war is to say it was unnecessary. Cute. Wrong.

Arguments are premises (reasons/evidence) that lead to (support) a conclusion.

My argument against the war is not that it was unnecessary. One of my arguments is that Bush failed to provide clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat. This argument, therefore, leads me to the conclusion that the war was unnecessary!

My conclusion that the war was unnecessary, then serves as a premise (argument) that leads me to the further conclusion that the war was immoral.

[On Fire]

My argument against the war is not that it was unnecessary. One of you commies said it, not me.


One of my arguments is that Bush failed to provide clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat. This argument, therefore, leads me to the conclusion that the war was unnecessary!


Again, are you one of his cabinet members? Does he routinely inform you of national security issues? Do the CIA and FBI send copies of their reports to you? No? What's that you say? NO?!?!?!

That's what I thought.

[HerodionRomulus]

It looks increasingly likely that the president wanted some justification and cover to attack a sovereign nation in order to fulfill an agenda other than one to constitutionally protect America from those who attacked us.

There was no urgency because members of our government needed a Peal Harbor to accomplish the up-front goals of the policy paper "Project for a New American Century."

They were looking for a "Maine" but gladly took a Pearl Harbor as it suited their imperialist goals.

[Skeptic]

Again, are you one of his cabinet members? Does he routinely inform you of national security issues? Do the CIA and FBI send copies of their reports to you? No? What's that you say? NO?!?!?!

That's what I thought. I'm only basing my conclusions on the available evidence. That's all anyone can do.

Do you believe that the President is hiding his REAL reasons for invading Iraq?

Do you think it is rational and proper to merely accept the word of any President who claims that it is necessary to launch a massive invasion of another country, which everyone knows would result in the collateral deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?

Again, the President has no right to keep his justification for starting wars secret from Congress or the American people!! It is the President's responsibility to tell Congress and the American people the nature and basis of any alleged urgency, if it means starting a war. Bush did attempt to tell us about the alleged urgency, but he failed miserably at providing the necessary hard empirical justification for such an urgency.

Simply taking the word of a President that a sovereign country poses an "urgent threat" that requires an all-out military invasion, in the absence of supporting evidence, is not only irresponsible and foolish, it is unpatriotic!! Americans have a civic duty to be as informed as possible about the actions of our government, and make sure their elected representatives are not trying to hoodwink them into military conflicts that might not be necessary!

Wars based on suspicion are WRONG!

[Frank Ernest]

OF, it is beyond your narrow reasoning ability to understand that the #1 terrorist nation in the world is the US and that GWB is a toss-up for the most ruthless terrorist leader in our history with Reagan. German nationalists considered Hitler a hero.
:darwinsm: :Commie: :loser:

[Morpheus]

:darwinsm: :Commie: :loser:
Frank. For you to begin to see you will first have to pull your head out of whatever hole it is buried in.

[Frank Ernest]

Frank. For you to begin to see you will first have to pull your head out of whatever hole it is buried in.
:darwinsm: Begin to see what? That you're an incorrigible :Commie: ? I already know that. :yawn:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20050624.shtml

[aikido7]

The unmasked liar and boy-man Oliver North giving self-serving jingoism to smear a truth-teller? That's about as honorable as Karl Rove smugging that liberals want to kill US soliders and give Osama bin Laden "therapy"!!!

Why doesn't Ollie ('semper fi") North get to the real heart of the matter here: Distract from evil by manufacturing more of it.

Chaining people hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water for 18-24 hourse is certainly not a tactic of totalitarian regimes.

Allowing them to defecate and urinate on themselves is not what the Nazis did to human beings.

Temperatures made so cold that another naked person is shaking with cold or turning the temperature up to over 100 degrees in a non-ventilated room is certainly not like an experiment of Dr. Joseph Mengele at German death camps.

And no, the Pol Pot lemmings would never leave a prisoner chained hand and foot and left naked on a tile floor to pull his hair out listening to loud rap music. After all, Frank, rap music was not even AROUND when Hitler and Pol Pot protected THEIR countries from enemies!

Pretending to hear criticism of our torture policy as an attack on this country and/or our troops is a show of incredible cowardice, Bud.

[Gerald]

Your Uncle Saddam not only HAD WMDs but he used them on his own people. Irrelevant. Dictators have been butchering their own people for as long as there have been dictators, and the US has never lifted a finger. Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Burma, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan...the list goes on.

This particular dictator just happens to have been perched on the second largest oil reserve on the planet. This is not a coincidence.

As for me, I'll believe the Bush Administration is truly interested in liberating oppressed people on the day that US Marines start landing in Darfur...or Pyongyang.

[aikido7]

Irrelevant. Dictators have been butchering their own people for as long as there have been dictators, and the US has never lifted a finger. Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Burma, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan...the list goes on.

This particular dictator just happens to have been perched on the second largest oil reserve on the planet. This is not a coincidence.

As for me, I'll believe the Bush Administration is truly interested in liberating oppressed people on the day that US Marines start landing in Darfur...or Pyongyang.Y' know something, Gerald? You may be onto something here....

[HerodionRomulus]

As for me, I'll believe the Bush Administration is truly interested in liberating oppressed people on the day that US Marines start landing in Darfur...or Pyongyang.

or HAVANA.

[lovemeorhateme]

A few points to make here.

1. In the British Press, which is completely free of government control, it was reported in May, that the UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, had sent a memo to the Prime Minister, saything that the war in Iraq, if it took place, would be illegal (The memo was sent just days before the invasion began). Lord Goldsmith also added that intelligence was to 'inconclusive' to justify any war. Remember, 200,000 US troops were deployed to Iraq, but, so were 50,000 UK troops.

2. The British people were always against the war, and always believed it was for oil (90% of the population according to all polls). About one month before invasion, one million people protested outside Parliament about the war.

3. Al Quaeda don't technically exist as governments would have us believe. What does exist, is dangerous, yes, but, the governments saying that there is a completely organised world-wide terrorist organisation with cells in every country is a lie. Its called the power of nightmares. Governments use nightmares to scare people. They create a fear, so they can have their own way, and make out that you are being 'protected' from it. 9/11 was a terrible tradegy. However, there is a lot more to 9/11 than Bush will admit. In Europe right now, we see Bush as a bigger terrorist than anyone else. We see him as the most dangerous man on the planet. And the USA's reputation, has, to a lot of people, been ruined by Bush. The USA is no longer seen as a peaceful, just nation. It's seen as a warmonger.

4. If you want to start getting to the truth, I siggest you start by watching Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. Also, a book I reccomend called Al Queda by Jason Burke.

Thats all for now,
Petey

[simply one]

A few points to make here.

1. In the British Press, which is completely free of government control, it was reported in May, that the UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, had sent a memo to the Prime Minister, saything that the war in Iraq, if it took place, would be illegal (The memo was sent just days before the invasion began). Lord Goldsmith also added that intelligence was to 'inconclusive' to justify any war. Remember, 200,000 US troops were deployed to Iraq, but, so were 50,000 UK troops.

2. The British people were always against the war, and always believed it was for oil (90% of the population according to all polls). About one month before invasion, one million people protested outside Parliament about the war..

Prepare to get some stone-walling, insults, and a head-in-the-sand response from the righties here. If you are especially correct, they may use some :darwinsm:

3. Al Quaeda don't technically exist as governments would have us believe. What does exist, is dangerous, yes, but, the governments saying that there is a completely organised world-wide terrorist organisation with cells in every country is a lie. Its called the power of nightmares. Governments use nightmares to scare people. They create a fear, so they can have their own way, and make out that you are being 'protected' from it. 9/11 was a terrible tradegy. However, there is a lot more to 9/11 than Bush will admit. In Europe right now, we see Bush as a bigger terrorist than anyone else. We see him as the most dangerous man on the planet. And the USA's reputation, has, to a lot of people, been ruined by Bush. The USA is no longer seen as a peaceful, just nation. It's seen as a warmonger.

True. Scary. Orwellian.

4. If you want to start getting to the truth, I siggest you start by watching Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. Also, a book I reccomend called Al Queda by Jason Burke.

Thats all for now,
Petey

Prepare for a rightie assault, comrade!

[lovemeorhateme]

Don't worry, I'm ready for the righties. I know just how to deal with them lol. I am a definite lefty :) I am very liberal in my views. And I don't take what any government says as the truth, unless I can prove it, particularly in this modern age. George W. Bush is a liar. Tony Blair is a liar. Plain and simple. The only difference is that us British didn't swallow the crap that our leader fed us, where as many (not all), but many gullible righties did.

[Frank Ernest]

The unmasked liar and boy-man Oliver North giving self-serving jingoism to smear a truth-teller? That's about as honorable as Karl Rove smugging that liberals want to kill US soliders and give Osama bin Laden "therapy"!!!
Great! You used some old-timey :Commie: lingo! :up:

Why doesn't Ollie ('semper fi") North get to the real heart of the matter here: Distract from evil by manufacturing more of it.
WOW! Totally brainless aphorism. Yahoo! :BRAVO:

Chaining people hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water for 18-24 hourse is certainly not a tactic of totalitarian regimes.
There is no "e" as the end of the word "hours." :nono:

Allowing them to defecate and urinate on themselves is not what the Nazis did to human beings.
they asked permission? :confused:

Temperatures made so cold that another naked person is shaking with cold or turning the temperature up to over 100 degrees in a non-ventilated room is certainly not like an experiment of Dr. Joseph Mengele at German death camps.
You're too young to have worked for Mengele, but I suspect you would have. :up:

And no, the Pol Pot lemmings would never leave a prisoner chained hand and foot and left naked on a tile floor to pull his hair out listening to loud rap music. After all, Frank, rap music was not even AROUND when Hitler and Pol Pot protected THEIR countries from enemies!
I believe that is a racist statement. the brothers won't like you dissin' rap. :nono:

Pretending to hear criticism of our