Bush isnt, Bush is just a fun lil handpuppet.
Printable View
Bush isnt, Bush is just a fun lil handpuppet.
Leading up to the conflict, it was apparent to me that Bush was going in with or without Congress. After he made it clear that he would violate the War Powers Act, Congress just gave up and went along with it. Even Republicans were upset that Bush didn't go to Congress first.Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
SC
What? That's serious conjecture on your part. I *highly* doubt that Congress "just gave up" - the Democrats haven't given Bush an inch and they certainly would've followed that plan had they felt that the war were TRULY baseless.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
Ridiculous.
They felt it would be political suicide, a few of em did raise their concerns tough.
Former KKK members(pre empted ya hahahaha) Like senator Byrd have raised quite a ruckus.
They were? I wasn't aware of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecowboy
Yes. Yes they were. WMD's, the threat of using them, the production of them, and the possibility of giving them to terrorists. The evidence presented to the U.N. was about WMD's, the SOTU address was about WMD's. The failure to comply concerned WMD's. Hussein being a jerk was about WMD's.Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
OMG! You can't change your mind! There's no way anyone can be misquoted! That story about the NY Times guy who made up articles and quotes was fake! Nobody else does that! Hehe. Sorry, but Clark's "backtracking" is no different than Bush's. And Clark has not retracted that comment about the plan. Not to mention it's not something you would want to lie about and then be proven wrong for.Quote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLI....clark.iraq.ap/
I beg to differ. As much of the SOTU address was about Saddam's non-compliance and the hint of what MIGHT BE, not what was, as was about stockpiles of WMD's. He had banned SCUD's, which WERE part of 1441, still in his arsenal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Had Hussein dropped his egotistical bullshit facade, perhaps none of this ever would've happened - but we will never know that conclusively one way or the other, regardless of what you and Almaci "know".
Dude - "Pot, Kettle, Black"Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
On one hand you criticize Bush for doing it and then you say that if Clark does it that it's normal. That doesn't work for me. I could care less what Clark starts spouting now that he's decided to run for president.
Next thing he'll say is that Bush "groped" him. ;)
That's true. I'm just saying that the people of Iraq were an afterthought. That's just the way it seems, the way I doubt the people in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
Actually, I said it's no different from Bush. Bush can backtrack all he wants, I don't care and I won't criticize him. I backtrack all the time, I can't fault anyone for that.Quote:
Dude - "Pot, Kettle, Black"
On one hand you criticize Bush for doing it and then you say that if Clark does it that it's normal. That doesn't work for me. I could care less what Clark starts spouting now that he's decided to run for president.
Hehe. Some guy called up Howard Stern the other day and said that Mary Kary groped him. Man, those allegations against Arnold were bull.Quote:
Next thing he'll say is that Bush "groped" him. ;)
Um, I think he means "intending to invade within the next 5 years", not "having plans around just in case something happens".Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
It's well known that the US military has plans in place on how to invade most countries around the world, Canada and Mexico included.
Haomaru, you might want to retract youre statement about SCUDS.
US Media with Fox on front reported on SCUDS and then took a week to rectify it after the US millitary admited it were Russian made frog missiles wich Iraq was allowed to have.
It was a pretty big argument back during the first week of the war.
IC tough that the objective was achieved, you DO believe they had SCUDS during GW2
Oh yeah, I remember the Frog thing.
Thats the thing Calliander, I warned abouth it before the war, tell a lie often enough or use language in a certain way and people will take it as truth.
Its a game this administration used verry skillfully.
In the build up to the war they used the words WMD and Al Queda often when talking about Iraq, they rarely if ever made direct claims but they did use the words when talking abouth Saddam, thats how you end up with a majority of people believing Iraq was involved in 9/11, same with the SCUDS and WMD thing, quite a lot of people actually believe stuff was found simply becouse it was repoted on in error so often with the retractions getting far less press or comments from the white house.
Now THAT is propaganda.
And as Haomaru so aptly proved here, IT REALLY WORKS.
Second time someone should post an OWNED pic for Hao ^_^ .
Nah, in matters like this the "owned" pics are inappropriate. Haoh has some good points. If we were talking about Nintendo, and you said Nintendo is doomed and he said no and you proved him wrong, then yeah, "pwned11!1#31!"
I think a lot of people are so ignorant here in America that they think all of "those people over there" are terrorists. You don't see that a lot on the boards here, because most of us are really smart, but it's pretty frequent in my experience.
I say that a lot of things were disproven, but they haven't been fully disproven. I don't think there's a way to fully disprove them. Because of that, I remain wary. There COULD have been a connection to Iraq from Al Qaeda, despite differences and all that. There COULD be WMD's we just haven't found. You know? There isn't 100% conclusive evidence, so you can't state something with full confidence right now.
By the way, have you been reading the Almaci Filter and using it to not throw the insults or is it just that nobody's said anything outrageous enough to spark you? :)
It's true. Even I have had people think I was a terrorist, and I'm an ordinary-looking white person with no accent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Dave Attell was talking about how his nickname at the airport is "Random Bag Check". He had a security guard tell him he needed to look less threatening. His response was, "Less threatening? What should I do? Carry a balloon and a Hello Kitty lunchbox? I'm going on the fly-fly!"
Hehe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
The way I see it, there isn't anything that makes us 'smarter' or anyone who agrees with anything that says that Bush is some card-carrying Nazi. There's nothing 'special' about us.Quote:
You don't see that a lot on the boards here, because most of us are really smart, but it's pretty frequent in my experience.
I've seen this in high school. Kids who get the good grades or are just social outcasts find whatever reasons they can to validate themselves as better than the norm. For nothing more than the luxury of staring down their noses at the unwashed, ignorant masses.
What elitism.
I don't think people are stupid, or ignorant. On the average, you could argue people are uninformed, lazy, apathetic, or too self-involved to pick up on anything outside their world of knowing, but that cuts all ways.
How many times have you snubbed someone for not knowing any better about games or politics? How is that behaviour any different from someone who gives you crap for not knowing about...I dunno, music, or sports, or something else? How come a person gives shit to those he or she dubs as less-than-I? I would guess it's easier for people to pat themselves on the back for their obvious intelligence and scorn the self-proclaimed fools than to...I dunno...actually look at the 'problem' and tackle it.
You think a lot of people here are so ignorant? Is that an inclination to go out and educated those you see a problem with, or just a way to feel better about how much smarter you are?
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
I wasn't trying to put it that way, man. I'm sorry if it came out like that. I'm the last person to be putting myself on some sort of mental platform above people. I was just trying to comment that while in real life I hear silly comments from a lot of people, I rarely hear them on here. I'm not originally from Cali, I'm from Connecticut. And while the state has a leaning toward Democrats, many of them are still unaware of the many different situations over in the Middle East. I was trying to rebut Almaci's statement to the effect of people associating Iraq with 9/11.
Poor choice of words on my part. To those people who say things like, "We should just blow up that whole area," I try to rationally inform them of the different conflicts, Israel, Iraq not being connected to 9/11, all of that.
I hope that clears it up a bit. Lemme know if I missed something.
No, actually I don't want to retract anything. Up to 30 SCUDS are unaccounted for, weren't destroyed, and are obviously SOMEWHERE. Even Blix commented on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
There is a guess involved with what was actually fired, Frogs or The Laith-90s, no one really knows.
So, I stand by what I said - again.
Dude, if that 13 year old stuff makes you feel good, then feel free to post "OWNED", despite the fact that I've clearly explained myself, backed it up with facts, and continue to stand by what I've said. SCUDS are unaccounted for, the war wasn't just about WMD, Bush isn't solely responsible, you're heavily biased, and (god forbid) if they find even ONE WMD your entire theory is sunk faster than the titanic. You're on the thin ice here with your vast conspiracy theory, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
If I posted an OWNED for every error in each your posts, I'd need a hand massage to remove the cramping from typing so much. ;)
Backtracking about not remembering what you had for dinner last night is one thing. "Oops, you know, on second thought I think the war was a mistake. I had an epiphany last nite and saw the second coming and have change my evil ways..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Nah, that doesn't work for me. Especially considering that he's looking to make a career move. ;)
Yeah, I'd like to see that proof. Got some? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Even if there *IS* such a "plan", it means NOTHING. It's a plan, one that might be used, might not be used, might be sold to the highest bidder. It's useless and particularly so for political gain.
Might be "well known" to educated/interested people. I don't think the average joe schmoe has ANY idea about that stuff.
Actually, im as surprised as you that NOTHING WHATSOEVER has turned up.
You're so subtle, it's amazing, man. :p
Why would one want to be subtle in a Politcal debate? I've never heard of such a thing. ;)
I know. CRAZY stuff. :D
Oh and Hao, burden of proof is on the acuser.
you talk of SCUDS as if they are fact, at the moment the only verifyable facts are that even the US millitary said they werent fired and are not there.
Furthermore, SCUDS are large missiles wich cant be moved around like smaller mobile rockets, they need solid bases to be fired from, those are simply not there so for this one I side with the US millitary, they simply are not there.
Uh, proof? That "5-year" thing was in reference to Wesley Clark's statement - you'd better ask him for proof, not me ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
I agree with you that "contingency plans" or whatever are nothing to be worried about - that's to be expected of any responsible military. Using them recklessly is another matter.
For an interesting read on goofy old US war plans, click here:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcanadawar.html
Dude, Iraq was under a U.N. mandate to prove that they destroyed 90+ SCUD missiles in their arsenal. They did not. There were about 30 that were unaccounted for and they were creating missile fuel, if memory serves correctly, right up until the end of 2002. Why would they do that if they didn't have any weapons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
So, the burden of proof was on IRAQ that they destroyed them, not on the US ('the acuser"), per UN resolutions. They didn't.
Iraq gave an explanation, the US didnt accept that, the fuel was for short range missiles they were allowed to have.
No discrepancies.
The UN never accepted Iraq's explanation regarding the destruction/dismantling of banned weapons. That was the point of the (recent) resolutions. Of course, there was disagreement on what do in the face of Iraq's lack of compliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Then again, I'm late to the party (that is this irritating thread), so perhaps I'm missing something.