Walken 2008

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Millions could have died if Kerry went into office.  He promised a pull-out of troops in six months if you recall.  Iraq is a country of 30 million and it would have imploded.

 

He voted to go into war.  And then he was going to leave the place in worse condition than he started.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Newsflash: Iraq has imploded, and it's in worse condition than when Bush started.

 

Now on to the other stuff...

 

I could copy and paste, but why not just click?

 

Remember, we're talking about lies here, not whether or not Saddam Hussein was a murderous bastard.

 

You can click again here, if you'd like.

 

Of course, he may not have known he was lying. He's the monkey that dances for the organ grinder. Lies were being told, and he loved to believe them.

 

Click again if you'd like.

 

I haven't looked yet. Can someone let me know if Bush's pants are on fire?

 

Oh, the humanity...

 

Funny you brought up Clinton. Bush's puppeteers wanted him to invade Iraq too, but his administration didn't think it was necessary.

 

See? Right here!

 

Again, I'm not saying Hussein wasn't a murderous bastard, but of all the genocidal dictatorships that aren't friendly to US interests, it seems a little strange that a country was chosen that a) makes Israel happy to see toppled, and b) has oil (no, none was "stolen" but American oil companies will have access they didn't have previously, and the only thing slowing the looting down is that it's too dangerous right now).

 

An administration that isn't telling whoppers doesn't need to keep changing its story. First, the invasion was part of the War on Terror (which seems to have disappeared, despite the fact that the invasion has had the effect of increasing terrorist activities and aiding in terrorist recruitment), but Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quada (who despised the mostly secular society Hussein ran) or the attacks on 9/11. Then it was about WMD, though none were found (you told me about all those people who said they were there before the invasion, but where are they now? And why didn't Hussein, a mass murderer, use any of them against US troops? If my country was being invaded, if I was running for my life, I wouldn't hesitate to use any WMD in my possession against the invaders). It was only at this point that it became about liberating Iraqis and introducing democracy (after imposing laws on them, very democratically). The one justification BushCo. had that could have possibly received wider acceptance, and it came after all the other crap.

[EnderAndrew]

Please provide factual links, and not reader commentary.

 

Let's start with your first link.

 

Zero Chemical Weapons Found

Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

Sarin gas was found. And the UN also recognizes that Saddam used Sarin gas on his own people. Check BBC, CNN, Factcheck.org or any independent news site.

Zero Munitions Found

Not a single chemical weapon

[EnderAndrew]

This is great. I'm reading your second link, which contradicts your first link. It says the planes did exist to distribute chemical weapons, but they can only fly 300 miles.

 

How does this change the fact that while Saddam starved his people he was pursuing illegal WMD and in violation of UN resolutions?

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

 

The second link also keeps harping that WMD were never found nor documentation suggesting they ever existed. What about the training manuals? What about the actual sarin gas we keep discovering? I guess that doesn't count.

 

And what about the convoy of trucks that left Iraq into Syria that Colin Powell suggested was all the WMD leaving Iraq before we ever got there?

 

This is beautiful. Your second link loves using unconfirmed rumors such as this:

On the terrible day of the 9/11 attacks, five hours after a hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon, retired Gen. Wesley Clark received a strange call from someone (he didn't name names) representing the White House position: "I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,'" Clark told Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert. "I said, 'But -- I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'"

Can you even attempt to use crap like this in a factual debate?

 

What did Bush say on 9/11? He said to practice tolerance and to not blame all Islamic people. He urged the nation to not jump to conclusions.

 

How about we judge him by what he actually said instead of what someone unnamed source says was secretly happening behind the scenes.

 

Sheesh.

[EnderAndrew]

Let's tackle your third link, because I don't want to ignore any potential "points" you may have. All you've thrown at me is partisan opinion and lies so far.

Lie #1--They Attacked Us: Iraq Supported Al Qaeda

Again, please find me one single quote where Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. He never did. Lies, lies and more lies. Is this all you got?

 

I said start with factcheck.org and bring facts.

Lie #4--It Will Be Easy: Iraq as a "Cakewalk." "The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq," Bush admitted

Find me one single quote where Bush said it would be a cakewalk. I watched the CENCOM briefings every single morning after I got off work. Every single day I saw Rumsfeld, Gen Franks and everyone say the war would be difficult and long-fought.

 

Bush said we would prevail, not that it would be easy. Putting words in his mouth doesn't make him a liar. The article here doesn't even attempt to quote Bush or Rumsfeld saying that it would be a cakewalk, but instead puts quotes around the word in the headline, implying that one of them said it at one time.

 

If you're proving that someone lied, you should quote what they said. Can you produce one such quote?

 

I didn't think so.

The Moral Justification: Iraq as a Democratic Model

This is great. The article doesn't say that we didn't have a moral justification, but rather this is a recent after-thought since other justifications proved false.

 

Well, the other justifications didn't prove false. And Bush was talking moral justification since day 1. Again, this is lies and spin.

[EnderAndrew]

The next link is comical. It suggests the defense of going to war is based upon Bush being a Christian.

 

Surely 30 million Iraqi people and over 75 UN resolutions have nothing to do with that. 30 other nations hopped on board simply because Bush was a Christian.

 

This is great logic. It then insists that there is a secret memo out there that suggests Bush had an agenda all along.

 

Okay, since we have no proof of this memo, let's see what facts we have.

 

On 9/11 the world's sympathy towards us and anger at the middle east was at an all-time high. At that time, many nations offered their support and the media suggested we might invade Iraq because of 9/11 regardless of connection.

 

Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld all publicly said Iraq wasn't involved and we were focusing on the Taliban.

 

Meanwhile, 2 days after 9/11 the UN security council passes a unianimous measure slapping Iraq on the wrist.

 

Here is where fact ends and my speculation begins, just so you know (since you can't apparently tell the difference).

 

I suggest that if we went into Iraq immediately after 9/11, we would have been going in for the wrong reasons, but we likely would have had more support. Also, by catching Iraq off-guard we also would have found more.

 

However, the fact of the matter (reverting back to facts) is that Bush and Powell urged diplomacy with Iraq for two more years despite repeatedly violating UN Security resolutions.

 

This secret memo which can't be proven contradicts all facts in the case. How reliable does that make it?

[EnderAndrew]

Your next link goes on to hammer the Iraq/Al Quaeda thing again. Again, it doesn't quote Bush since Bush never said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. It says that since Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11 that proves Bush misled the American public.

 

When did Bush say Iraq was responsible for 9/11?

 

The whole article covers points already addressed.

[Child of Flame]

I didn't call her a liberal in a derisive manner because I thought her arguments would be good now did I?

 

 

EDIT:

 

Also Ender, please check you PMs, my System Shock 2 game is not working so well.

[SteveThaiBinh]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Child of Flame]

You know Steve, posting pictures of a famous tragedy is only considered funny when they're photoshopped, either by having the words 'OWNED', 'PWNED', or any variation thereof, or by having historical figures, or scenes, melded with them that just don't belong there.

 

What you did was not only considered by and large not funny, it also is a breach of netiquette, and makes the Baby Jesus cry.

[SteveThaiBinh]

You know Steve, posting pictures of a famous tragedy is only considered funny when they're photoshopped, either by having the words 'OWNED', 'PWNED', or any variation thereof, or by having historical figures, or scenes, melded with them that just don't belong there.

 

What you did was not only considered by and large not funny, it also is a breach of netiquette, and makes the Baby Jesus cry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My post wasn't intended to be funny; it was intended to raise questions about jags' picture through the contrast between them. The first picture ridicules the protester and celebrates the power of the war machine he faces - whether this is the intended meaning or the picture is an ironic comment, I'm not sure, though the picture could conceivably be used for both purposes. The second picture is often used to celebrate the power of the superficially helpless protester in the face of overwhelming military might; similar images, opposite interpretations. The point you raise is interesting - what would be the effect of photoshopping 'OWNED' over the same picture? Would it matter, in terms of the image itself or with regard to the netiquette you refer to?

 

I regret if I have caused you offense; I certainly didn't intend to. On the other hand, I don't feel my post was inappropriate, given the strong opinions that are being expressed by both sides in this thread.

[Musopticon?]

Ender; isn't that a bit on the overkill side?

 

 

 

 

Ouch...

[EnderAndrew]

My last post was lost and I didn't bother to retype it, but I actually had more.

[Musopticon?]

Whatever shakes your boat. :D

[jaguars4ever]

Ender; isn't that a bit on the overkill side?

 

 

 

 

Ouch...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude - he's exercising the art of flipping out, and that's cool; and by cool I mean totally sweet. That's real ultimate power, and if you don't believe that then you better get a life because a ninja will jump through your window and chop your head off!!!

 

Fact:

 

Ender's not being cruel of mean - that's just a lie. Ender is a mamal. Just like other mammals, Ender can be mean OR totally awesome, which is what he's doing.

 

If you don't believe it, either;

 

1. You're an idot

2. You're a moron

 

Flipping out like that is so totally sweet and awesome and I feel it in my heart. That's the power of a true ninja and that's just soooo sweet it makes me want to crap my pants.

 

Man, now I'm so hyped and pumped up I'm also going to flip out with all my body (including my pee pee).

[Musopticon?]

Brilliant

[EnderAndrew]

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warrior...ungfumaster.htm

[Musopticon?]

More like:

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/bigcat.htm

[Child of Flame]

You know Steve, posting pictures of a famous tragedy is only considered funny when they're photoshopped, either by having the words 'OWNED', 'PWNED', or any variation thereof, or by having historical figures, or scenes, melded with them that just don't belong there.

 

What you did was not only considered by and large not funny, it also is a breach of netiquette, and makes the Baby Jesus cry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

<snip>Gobbledygook</snip>

 

I regret if I have caused you offense; I certainly didn't intend to. On the other hand, I don't feel my post was inappropriate, given the strong opinions that are being expressed by both sides in this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

[Kaftan Barlast]

I really hate it when Im late for a really juicy political argument

 

 

 

Could anyone give me a quick summary?

 

 

p.s

 

And I wish you guys had seen "why we fight" that Mkreku mentioned, it contains several clips of Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld saying that Iraq were responsible for 911. It also contains Bush's famous "We've had no evidence that Saddam was involved with september the 11th."

 

:D

[jaguars4ever]

Could anyone give me a quick summary?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We came, we saw, we flipped out.

[SteveThaiBinh]

<snip>Gobbledygook</snip>

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[LoneWolf16]

Damn, Ender, way to completely and utterly annihilate the opposition.

 

A few things though.

 

#1: Are you attempting to argue that Bush's level of intellect is remotely satisfactory for the position of United States President? If so, why, and how could you?

 

#2: Not to be completely unoriginal (As in the above question), but what about Sudan, North Korea, and all the other countries plagued by horrific violence, and genocidal warlords? Or are those next on the hit list?

 

#3: Nearly 2,000 U.S. casualties, a definite lack in planning or forethought in regards to our military's needs (Body armor, and armored transport come to mind.), screw-ups up the ying-yang, and that damnable "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing have really strained my faith in the current administrations capability to lead during a large conflict.............That, and I'm one of those evil people who believes in Pro-Choice, and Gay Marriage.

 

#4: I really have nothing here, and I'm just doing this because I felt like arguing for reasons that now make little, if any sense to me. Though I do, of course, look forward to a response.

[EnderAndrew]

The arguement is not whether or not the war was handled well or whether or not Bush was a good leader.

 

The arguement was whether or not Bush lied to get us in a way we shouldn't have been in.

[LoneWolf16]

So, I'm right then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to me, lieing doesn't necessarily mean saying something that isn't true...it's the act of misleading, or twisting facts to better suite your particular needs. Deception, basically.

 

Not to seem arrogant or anything..I assure you, I'm quite the opposite.

[Laozi]

This is entirely true.  I think savvy rich folks will undoubtedly learn how to manipulate the system. Hell, I know some middle class folks who can manipulate the system.  ...Or folks who appear poorer than they should and receive more money from the earned income credit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I think you mean rich people's savvy accountants and investment advisors