|
|
Post by proudmemberVRWC on Apr 1, 2004 16:43:07 GMT -5
No one has attacked you personally. All comments have been in response to what you said. Sometimes we don't run out of reason; we just run out of patience with piss baby seditious liberals. I'm still trying to figure out why this board gets inundated with them in spite of the fact that there are large boards designed solely and exclusively for them. Must be because they are not encumbered with jobs. It gets tiresome responding to the same talking points. Have any of you ever had an original thought? All these have been covered on this board and every other.  It's Liberal Smackdown time! |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Apr 1, 2004 19:30:16 GMT -5
No one has attacked you personally. All comments have been in response to what you said. Sometimes we don't run out of reason; we just run out of patience with piss baby seditious liberals. "piss baby seditious liberals" IS an attack on my person. You just attacked me. Let us hear reason, not just name-calling and vicious attacks. Prove that you are not cowards (like proudmemberVRWC claim the Europeans are), that you actually have reason. Let us start with the simplest: if U.N. was allowed 6 more months of inspections in Iraq (as Hans Blix the inspector demanded), it would for sure conclude that Iraq had no weapon of mass destruction, correct? The CIA NEVER said Iraq had WMD, but Bush, Colin Powell, Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld steadfastly exaggerated the threat, saying that Iraq had unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering biological, chemical and bombs directly to the East Coast of the U.S. in a matter of 2 days. How can Bush LIE like this and still claims that he is for DEMOCRACY? Apparently he does not care about democracy at all. What do you say about this? Do you have reason, or do you just plan to continue personal attacks? - Jesse |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Apr 1, 2004 21:23:32 GMT -5
I didn't attack you. I attacked piss baby seditious liberals. If you resemble that, not my problem! This is a conservative rant board. Attacks on liberals in general are not personal attacks. Many liberals don't seem to know the difference, so I'll explain. An example of a personal attack would be something like, "You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny." Now if I said, "Liberals are ugly and their mothers' dress them funny," that would not be a personal attack. Get it? Now, don't think you can made sweeping generalizations about conservatives. I'm fair but I'm not balanced. There are places set up just for that, like DU, where I would be banned after my first post even for hinting that I might be a conservative.
No, not true. It was not the job of the inspectors to search and find the WMD. Under the agreement with Saddam for the cease fire in the gulf war, he was to cooperate and LEAD US to them and destroy them. He crapped out on his end of the deal, was not cooperative in the 90's to say the least so the inspectors left. Hans Blix is an admitted pacifist and new world order Swedish diplomat type. I don't trust him or the UN and didn't elect him or them to make decisions. We found entire planes buried in the desert. A huge stockpile of WMD could fit in a van or two and still be in Iraq or been smuggled to Syria. If he destroyed the WMD, he still broke UN resolution by not having proof. Enough UN crap. If I had my druthers the US would give them 24 hours to get out of NYC. We don't need them except for world hunger programs. They have proved that's the only thing they're good at.
Do you have a link?
The CIA did say they had WMD. Every intelligence agency in the free world reported the same. Britain intelligence still stands by their claims. The reports of the investigation claim that while none can be found, what was found lead post war inspectors to believe that Saddam was more of a threat than previously thought. Those that read the full report and not just the media sound bites recognize that.
We live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy. Our elected body voted to go to war.
History will tell. Even if he acted on poor intelligence information, that does not amount to a "lie." The democrats are proving their own intellectual dishonesty with that one.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Apr 2, 2004 2:19:32 GMT -5
No, not true. It was not the job of the inspectors to search and find the WMD. It WAS Hans Blix's job to search for and find the WMD. Hans Blix belonged to the U.N. organization called UNSCOM (http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscom.htm) Just read the paragraph under "Establishment" on that website, you see the words "weapons of mass destruction"? I see them. Read it yourself (below): "By its resolution 687 of 3 April 1991, the Security Council established the terms and conditions for a formal cease-fire between Iraq and the coalition of Member States cooperating with Kuwait. Section C of this resolution deals with the elimination, under international supervision, of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres (km), together with related items and production facilities. It also calls for measures to ensure that the acquisition and production of prohibited items are not resumed. The Special Commission was set up to implement the non-nuclear provisions of the resolution and to assist the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the nuclear areas. The precise terms are laid out in paragraphs 7 to 13 of the resolution." The CIA did say they had WMD. CIA, in the days leading up to the war, spoke of many caveats and cautions when using their intelligence. The Bush administration routinely dropped the caveats and cautions and used a tone of voice that made CIA's intelligence sound firm about the existence of WMD. This routine dropping of CIA's caveats is equivalent to LYING on the part of the Bush administration. We live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy. Our elected body voted to go to war. History will tell. Even if he acted on poor intelligence information, that does not amount to a "lie." The democrats are proving their own intellectual dishonesty with that one. If Hans Blix did not find any WMD, and the CIA spoke of caveats and cautions regarding their intelligence, then to go forward with the war by Bush WAS equivalent to a LIE. Bush misled Congress and that was why Congress voted to go to war. Bush told Congress about unmanned aerial vehicles that would deliver biological and chemical agents to the East Coast of the U.S. Iraq does not have those aerial vehicles. You accused Hans Blix of being a pacifist, as if being a pacifist is a crime. What do you think of sending thousands of Americans to be maimed and killed for a LIE? Would that be a crime? Bush told lies and Americans got maimed and killed. These maimed and dead Americans have families that care about them. Bush has NO compassion. He should be laid off. - Jesse |
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Apr 2, 2004 2:27:03 GMT -5
Mo, if you bother to respond to this waste of flesh I will lose some of my respect for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Apr 2, 2004 3:29:11 GMT -5
I'm fully aware of the role of Hans Blix. Iraq was supposed to cooperate, not send the inspectors on a fishing expedition. The Iraqi government agreed to lead us to the weapons, not make the inspectors search. You don't seem to be fully up to speed, yet you get condescending. Favre is right. |
|
Zhavric
German Shepard
Master of Deceptacons.
Posts: 13
|
Post by Zhavric on Apr 2, 2004 8:59:09 GMT -5
I think the liberal masses would have had a lot less issues with Bush if he had said something like this:
"Saddam said in writing at the end of the Gulf War that he was going to allow UN weapons inspectors. He broke that promise, so we're going back in to oust him."
What we got was more akin to:
"Saddam is a threat to the United States and has stockpiles of WMD. If we don't oust him now, he'll attack us <insert veiled reference to september 11th in the form of fighting Saddam with troops, not doctors and firefighters>."
So, if anything, Bush is guilty of bad political spin. It's clear that the administration had a mad-on for Iraq from the start of the Bush jr. presidency. I think that most liberals, while upset about the war, are far more upset by the idea that their president is incredibly and needlessly secretive. There is also the perception that Bush's buddies are getting even more filthy rich off of contracts to rebuild Iraq which smacks of cronyism.
Oh, and Jesse, by their own rules, you should be able to call them "conservative wack-jobs" without it being considered a personal attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Apr 2, 2004 20:52:19 GMT -5
Mo, if you bother to respond to this waste of flesh I will lose some of my respect for you. Favre's call to refrain from responding to me is exactly the kind of "stonewalling" I was talking about. Refusal to respond by Bush to many questions, from Iraq to 9/11 to energy policy, is becoming Bush's hallmark against democracy. Bush's penchant for secrecy is 180 degrees counter to the ideals of American democracy, where transparency of government is the most necessary. Favre and co. are unable to put forth REASON, and that's why there is such urgency to zip their lips in order to conceal any weakness in their argument. This is exactly the tactics Bush uses. Bush HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE!!! Lack REASON is the best reason to give up the White House. Democracy depends on people to ADMIT FAULTS. - Jesse |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Apr 2, 2004 21:02:00 GMT -5
I'm fully aware of the role of Hans Blix. Iraq was supposed to cooperate, not send the inspectors on a fishing expedition. The Iraqi government agreed to lead us to the weapons, not make the inspectors search. You don't seem to be fully up to speed, yet you get condescending. Favre is right. Was Saddam leading the U.N. inspectors on a fishing expedition or did he simply NOT have any WMD? Which one? It's been almost a year since the toppling of Saddam, and no WMD has yet been found!!! Can we blame the U.S. military leading themselves on a fishing expedition for not finding WMD in the past year? I only want to be condescending toward Bush, not toward the participants of this forum. If I sounded condescending, I'm sorry, I will change my ways. However, I still have not heard any REASON, any good reason for invading Iraq and causing the maiming and deaths of thousands of American soldiers. If you quit this message thread and move on to other message threads, I will follow you there, until I get a good reason, or prove that you don't have any good reason at all. - Jesse |
|
|
|
Post by Ogilvy on Apr 5, 2004 10:25:14 GMT -5
Was Saddam leading the U.N. inspectors on a fishing expedition or did he simply NOT have any WMD? Which one? It's been almost a year since the toppling of Saddam, and no WMD has yet been found!!! Can we blame the U.S. military leading themselves on a fishing expedition for not finding WMD in the past year? I only want to be condescending toward Bush, not toward the participants of this forum. If I sounded condescending, I'm sorry, I will change my ways. However, I still have not heard any REASON, any good reason for invading Iraq and causing the maiming and deaths of thousands of American soldiers. If you quit this message thread and move on to other message threads, I will follow you there, until I get a good reason, or prove that you don't have any good reason at all. - Jesse The best reason to invade Iraq was to free the Iraqi people. "Thousands" of American soldiers are not dying. Again, get the proportions straight. The ones who did die died so that millions of Iraqis could be free. That was a worthy sacrifice. Your pacifist stance does not hold up to the fact that if we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam's torture chambers would still be full today. You can not pretend to be compassionate in the face of that fact. All you do is dwell on the negative, on how many people died, without thinking of how many people were saved. |
|
|
|
Post by Righty on Apr 10, 2004 19:52:58 GMT -5
That's the stupidest thing I have ever seen. They must make the Internet really easy to access for morons like that to get on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince on May 19, 2004 16:54:11 GMT -5
I've see plenty of documentarys about Hussein before the war and currently. Both are same for the most part and both show what an insane beast he was. This guy is guilty of slaughtering millions!!! He was the WMD!! We indeed have saved millions more from daily torture and slaughter. You would have been lucky to have been shot and killed unlike most that were routinely tortured over and over again. If even a liberal was over there, of course they would have been raped, tortured, beaten daily, and just plain humiliated to the point of praying for a saviour to step in and help them.... oh, kind of like the Iraqis have been this last generation. America has taken on that task although our so called peers spit on us every day. Our own disown us. Although, the world has turned it's back on us we still took on battle for righteousness sake. It could have been you in Iraq.... better yet, we're saving ourselves from becoming a nation like that..... kind of like Europe has become!!! Oh the evil that lives within them!! I haven't any respect for a nation that turns into a whore... they let anybody have them... for a small price. "Come drink with me," they say. While their country deceptively is invaded with muslims and eventually hard-core muslims. Even now some of them are assisting with decisions in politics. How twisted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince on May 19, 2004 22:22:12 GMT -5
No, I didn't say *fiendly* person  I said deceptive Mr. moderator.... now that's scarey.... big brother's watching me.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vince on May 19, 2004 22:26:07 GMT -5
 oops, I really messed that up... It was't a *friendly* person but rather a female that receives payment for some physical affirmation. Ok I gotcha now. 
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on May 20, 2004 7:09:56 GMT -5
Yes, but that "best reason" was not the reason Bush gave. The freedom of the Iraqi people is a bonus, as the US army's purpose is only to defend the US from attacks. In this case the attacks never happend, the army went on the offensive to prevent an attack, and it turns out the attack was probably never going to happen in the first place. Let the UN deal with keeping the peace and working towards human rights. The US soldiers have fought and are fighting for an honourable cause, but I don't think it is their duty, nor do I think that it is a battle that is theirs to fight.
|
|
I said deceptive Mr. moderator.... now that's scarey.... big brother's watching me. 
oops, I really messed that up... It was't a *friendly* person but rather a female that receives payment for some physical affirmation. Ok I gotcha now. 