Opinons on Bush & Iraq?

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=0#15 date=01/14/04 at 20:56:53]

hey man,

I am glad you brought this topic up again. You never did explain the ethical or moral construct and the theoretical/theological basis for saying that a lie about consentual sex between two adults is worse that a lie that results in the death of tens of thousands. [I have asked this maybe 5 or 6 times.] Maybe in this explanation of relative morality you could discuss non-consentual sex with a 16-year-old servant; it this an impropriety or a no-nevermind for those of your ethical background.

You do bring up the good point that the Congress shares a part of the blame for the fiasco; we should follow the American tradition of kicking the bums out.

I'm waiting!

jay[/quote]
Again you don't read what I write, so I see no point in responding because you will just respond again with the same confusion.

Bush hasn't necessarily been lying because it can't BE PROVEN to be a lie. Just because he THOUGHT there might have been weapons of mass destruction, might have been connections between Saddam and Osama, and acted impulsively doesn't make him a liar. It just makes him stupid. That is a worst case scenario anyway. There could very well still be weapons out there, and there could very well be proof.

Oh, and stop repeating this BS about tons of lost innocent Iraqi lives. Are you aware of how many more people died under the hand of Saddam? 10 times more, I'm sure. Need we not forget Saddam's little mass genocide? We liberated a people from a tyrannical, murderous dictator. They people are grateful, I hear reports of them thanking American soldiers on the street despite the annoyances of not having power and so on and so forth. Oh course, Liberal biased news likes to overlook how tyrannical Saddam was and how grateful the people are to be free by concentrating on bullshit reports of "innocent lives lost/no power/blah blah bullshit".

So going back to what I was trying to say, Bush hasn't lied because we can't PROVE he has lied. Bush Haters just jump to that conclusion because... surprise... they hate him. Clinton, however, lied to the country UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW. Whether it was about fucking or not, he lied to our faces. He didn't have the decency to just tell the truth, especially since it was just something as trivial as an affair. They showed his true nature, and his tendency to lie about many other things. Stealing, mysteriously pardoning criminals, and doing absolutely fucking NOTHING about Osama and terrorism during his terms doesn't help either.

 

[13788]

roedhunt: Reading this post, reminds me of something I was told by a wise man back I was young ....

THINGS NEVER TO DISCUSS WITH OTHERS:

1.) Politics
2.) Religion
3.) Womens Rights VS Mens Rights
4.) Child Rearing
5.) Racisim

Because any attempt to discuss these issues, will end up as arguements. People are very adament in their beliefs....

I think now in the present, more should be added to the list....

6.) Sexual Orientation
7.) Money and Power
8.) War (still comes under Politics, I know)
9.) Circumcision VS uncircumcised
10.) What defines an American

Any more?

 

[13788]

mindseye: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=20#20 date=01/15/04 at 00:38:36]Bush hasn't necessarily been lying because it can't BE PROVEN to be a lie. Just because he THOUGHT there might have been weapons of mass destruction, might have been connections between Saddam and Osama, and acted impulsively doesn't make him a liar. It just makes him stupid.[/quote]
Ignoring your peculiar notion of what constitutes 'proof', what bizarre expectations you must have of a president: It's okay for a president to send our citizens off to war because he "thought" there "might have been" some connection, but it's unforgivable for a president to prevaricate about his personal life during an investigation into his financial dealings in order to protect his family from further embarrassment?

Do you really think that the idea of a president launching a war based on a hunch is any more excusable than that president lying as a pretext to war?

That is a worst case scenario anyway. There could very well still be weapons out there, and there could very well be proof.

Your not-the-worst-case scenario is, "There could very well still be weapons out there." Good lord, man, I'd be humiliated if there was this amazing stockpile of hundreds of tons of chemical weapons in Iraq after all! What a terrible reflection it would be on our military if we turned out to be so inept that after almost a year of searching we couldn't find a drop of this huge reserve of chemical weapons. If they turned up at this point, I'd be ashamed.

Personally I can't imagine why anyone not directly associated with an oil company or defense contractor would like Bush, but the way you've defended him here sounds more like an apology than anything else. "He might not be a liar -- he could just be stupid or maybe we're too clueless to have found the weapons yet!" Really, you'd vote for that?

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: jay...typical stupid ass liberal thinking...its simple...if the man cant tell the damn truth about getting a BLOWJOB...what else is he not telling the truth about? its a foundational difference that republicans have...that democrats dont factor in...WMD...here we go again...jeez...who knows what happened to any WMD in the time that attack was immenent?...trucked to syria? iran?...or maybe...just maybe...there werent any...but heres the deal...you  guys are so caught up in references and stuff...how many of iraqi former scientists and hi ranking officials were in CNN and FOX in the months before the war...talking about sadams WMD program?...these guys had defected and now were spilling their guts to us about these programs...and you bitch about the outcome and the way the election was run...well...i tell ya...where in the hell would we be with ALGORE as president right now?...thats the alternative here...i worry about you guys sometimes...

 

[13788]

Bulgeboy: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=20#20 date=01/15/04 at 00:38:36]
Again you don't read what I write, so I see no point in responding because you will just respond again with the same confusion.

Bush hasn't necessarily been lying because it can't BE PROVEN to be a lie.  Just because he THOUGHT there might have been weapons of mass destruction, might have been connections between Saddam and Osama, and acted impulsively doesn't make him a liar.  It just makes him stupid.  That is a worst case scenario anyway.  There could very well still be weapons out there, and there could very well be proof.[/quote]

Wow. What about Bush/Chaney's ascertion that "we have proof" made a year ago? (re: WMD's and the 9/11-Saddam linkage). That doesn't sound like a 'incorrect assumption' - sounds like outright lies to me.

And I'll agree that a lie regarding national policy and war is far, far more hideous than any lie about a blowjob.

 

[jay_too]

jerk..

Thanks for the insightful personal comments. They add much to a discussion.

I know that you do not place much store on technical knowledge, but if you spent a couple of semesters at a good engineering school you might understand why some questioned from the beginning the existence of WMDs. It was pretty basic science and technology to dismiss the nuclear weapons program as a figment of either addled or a lack of thinking. In a search for nuclear facilities, you would be looking for massive structures around 0.5 miles long with walls perhaps, 8 ft thick, and a nuclear radiation footprint; they would be located near an electrical generating station or two. The electrical generating station(s) sole function would be to provide power to the nuclear facilities. In other words, trucking these facilities into Syria would be a challnge to the Iraqi and Syrian civil infastructures. Maybe you should tell the Bush administration to just follow the 300-mile cooling-water line across Iraq and into Syria to locate these missing facilities. Yeah, one of these would be required, really.

On the otherhand, maybe you should continue your personal attacks. Thinking is hard.

About the Iraqis who told stories to Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld and to viewers on the news shows, I have read that Chalabi and cohorts were paid millions by the Defense department for the valuable info on the weapons programs in Iraq. Like all good consultants, they told their "audience" what the Pentagon wanted to hear. By April, even the Defense Department was beginning to see that Chalabi and cohorts would have done anything to speed along the attack and that there was no strong WMD program. So old men in positions of authority believed (or feared) an Iraqi fantasy.

jay

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: jay...do you read the toilet paper and wipe your ass with the newspaper?...WMD do no only refer to nuclear, but chemical, and biological as well...or do those count? were you watching as we uncovered those complex bunkers in baghdad and some of the other places?...dont you think there at least COULD be other stuff hidden out in the desert as well? at least COULD be...OBTW...any time you wanna compare IQs...ill spot ya 10 points...

 

[13788]

Bulgeboy: [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=20#26 date=01/15/04 at 06:55:16]jay...do you read the toilet paper and wipe your ass with the newspaper?...WMD do no only refer to nuclear, but chemical, and biological as well...or do those count? were you watching as we uncovered those complex bunkers in baghdad and some of the other places?...dont you think there at least COULD be other stuff hidden out in the desert as well? at least COULD be...OBTW...any time you wanna compare IQs...ill spot ya 10 points...[/quote]

I thought Jay's post was rather thoughtful and carefully reasoned. And personal insults have no place in a proper discussion.

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: Firstly - 'what was the latest terror attack?...'

Well, I would call the latest terror attack to be the shooting down of a US army helicopter in Farajah a couple of days ago. Of course, this was one of the more major attacks, after all - there are about 17 per day (admittedly this is lower than the 40-odd at about the time Saddam was captured, but this has a lot more to do with the fact that US patrols have been reduced by 2/3 since then). Of course, this is only in Iraq - I am certain that there is just as much going on against American interests in Afghanistan at the moment as well.

Secondly - 'BBC?  Liberally biased?  Check. (Has even gotten in trouble latley for skewing facts to support a Liberal viewpoint)'

I take it you are talking about the Hutton enquiry. This was not a case of the BBC being 'liberally biased' - it is a case of how it dealt with the unmasking of Dr David Kelly, a UN weapons inspector and a world expert on WMD. The forthcoming report on this will be due in a couple of weeks and is just as likely to be critical of the government as the BBC.

Thirdly - WMD do no only refer to nuclear, but chemical, and biological as well...or do those count?

Yes, but you'd need to be able to put them in a large long-distance missile which would be a hell of a lot more difficult to hide. For a useful amount of chemical weapon you would need a decent sized factory - I mean I could make some quite nasty chemicals in my lab, but not in the kind of quantities that you'd be able to start a war with - you would need a decent-sized factory at least. As for biologicals - producing weapons-grade anthrax, and other biological agents aren't exactly an easy thing to do, either.

Asides from that - on the alleged Al-Qa'eda-Hussein link, notes found in his hideout have been released warning his followers 'do not trust foreign fighters' (which would imply those fighting Jihad of Al-Qa'eda links) 'as they will have different aims to you'. Now why, if they were such good buddies, would Hussein be so worried about Bin Laden's men that he felt the need to warn his followers about them?

Oh - and the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3398677.stm

For those suffering from BBC-o-phobia I'm sure this will also be reported elsewhere if you do a Google search.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: And aside from Jerkin's insults, I think he brings up some good points too, but I agree with him politically. At the time when it was decided to go to War, there seemed to be evidence of WMD, as Jerkin put it. Maybe Bush made an impulsive decision, and that is his mistake, but I still think what he did was right because I repeat... thousands more innocent people would have died under the rule of Saddam. We didn't kill innocent people, we saved lives.

And stop trying to legitimize Clinton's lie. Like I said, whether it was to protect his family or not, I repeat for the UMPTEENTH FUCKING TIME he lied directly under oath in a court of law. Most people can go to jail for a long time for doing that. That in itself is terrible, not that he lied about a blow job. I wouldn't even have much of an issue with Clinton (since he was a moderate, not too liberal, president) if it wasn't for the shameless way he conducted himself during his presidency. This isn't a party line issue for me, this is a personal issue, and I don't like this country by led by slimy asshole creeps that lie, cheat, and steal. It has yet to be proven that Bush is actually that or not, but you are making that assumption because you already disagree with his politics. That's perfectly legit, just be aware that you are doing it. Hell, if it is proven with some kind of document or tape or something that Bush had malicious intentions from the beginning, I wouldn't support him anymore either. But it's not always good to assume the worst of a leader. I have an "honor code" where I try to support and respect any president of this country, regardless of party lines, until they prove to me to be malicious scum bags. I don't think Bush is, period. You can bitch and moan about him as much as you want, you speculate, theorize, and try your hardest to de legitimize him, but in the end there is NO PROOF. That is why he's going to get reelected, because MOST PEOPLE thought what he did for this country was a good thing.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=longtimelurker link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=20#28 date=01/15/04 at 10:59:11]
Oh - and the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3398677.stm

For those suffering from BBC-o-phobia I'm sure this will also be reported elsewhere if you do a Google search.[/quote]
Oh and longtimelurker, it's not bbc-o-phobia, I simply know they are liberally biased and I take their reporting (that deals with Bush or ANYTHING political) with a grain of salt.

And about the leaked document... it merely says to be "cautious" of Osama's men.  Caution and distrust are two entirely different things.  And for the matter, that still doesn't prove that at one point or another Saddam wasn't funding Osama's regime.  It is very possible their relationship soured when the US started attacking Saddam.  That document doesn't prove ANYTHING, except that currently RIGHT NOW Saddam's men MIGHT not trust Osama's.  But we went to war over 2 years ago.  Lots of things change in 2 years.

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=20#29 date=01/15/04 at 11:00:05]And aside from Jerkin's insults, I think he brings up some good points too, but I agree with him politically.  At the time when it was decided to go to War, there seemed to be evidence of WMD, as Jerkin put it.  Maybe Bush made an impulsive decision, and that is his mistake, but I still think what he did was right because I repeat... thousands more innocent people would have died under the rule of Saddam.  We didn't kill innocent people, we saved lives.  [/quote]

And there we have the crux of the problem - is exaggerating a threat considered lying? Before everyone jumps on their high-horse and starts flinging accusations that this is not true, several high-ranking security officials have come out with this accusation from BOTH sides of the pond about our respective governments. In addition BOTH governments have had people speaking out about BOTH leaders and how they handled the push to war. What makes this especially striking is that, as these people were party-loyal to start (our two highest profile cases were Robin Cook, Leader of the House of Commons and Claire Short, International Development Secretary - both high-standing high-paid cabinet posts which you wouldn't throw away lightly) with they are not going to be mud-flinging just because they are in the opposing party.

So - does changing 'There may be weapons hidden which could inflict serious harm' to 'We have significant evidence that there are stockpiles of WMD' just to strengthen the case constitute a lie? I think it is, but then that's me.

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: well...lurker...wow...you seem to have veered a little towards the center here...*G*...WMD...well...if memory serves me correctly...they did find a few missles that they shouldnt have...certainly not ICBMs though...but the thing that we have to see is...terrorists dont fight a conventional war...on a battlefield...face to face...mano-e-mano...im certainly no germ warfare expert...but from what i know...a little bit of some of the 'correct' stuff goes a long way...so you dont need HUGE factories...make sense?...small mobile labs would work fine...didnt they find a couple of those in some trucks?...not sophisticated...but effective...i mean i dont think anyone can dispute...that saddam HAD and USED chemical weapons...ask any kurd you know...decisions...decisions are based alot in intel...in this case CIA intel...since george sr was head of the CIA...im sure george jr sought out council from his father on the intelligence he had in front of him...whether the intel was correct or no...and its looking like it wasnt correct...he had a decision to make...and he made it...irreparable damage to some international relationships...hmmm...good point...wonder if the germans, french and russians were thinking the same thing when they were selling all of that banned stuff to iraq?....c...not one insult...

 

[13788]

Bulgeboy: Wow. Between Clinton-venom and the Bush-apologists, this thread is a bit too far out there for me to participate in. I'll steer clear - hope the war is over soon and that Bush is NOT re-elected. I doubt our country could survive a second term of this madness.

 

[jay_too]

bulgeboy..

i think you have the adult response, but i do not retreat when under attack.

jay

 

[jay_too]

jerk..

I am impressed with your modesty; in other words, you hide your superior intelligence well.

About the search for chemical and biological weapons: I do know that none were found.

As you know, blistering agents are highly reactive; highly reactive chemicals have a short half-life; thus, over time they lose potency as they form other compounds. Thus, the U.N. inspectors concluded in the early 1990s that chemical warfare agents produced to support the Iran-Iraq War would have lost their potency. A decade later they would represent a smaller threat. The coalition forces have not found either a chemical production unit for their manufacture or vessels for their storage. I conclude there were no chemical weapons systems.

Biological weapons have not been found either. What would you expect to find in an active program? Special labs and production facilities with redundant air filtration systems, special refrigeration systems, digestors, animal labs, decontamination systems.

What was found and touted as proof of a mobile lab was in fact a hydrogen generation system to supply the Iraqi military with weather baloons. It did not look like a mobile biological lab; it did not have the sophisticated systems and complexity to produce biological agents. At first glance, I said, "Whoa, that ain't no bio lab." This summer, coalition intelligence determined that the Iraqis who sold the fantasy of mobile labs were fabricating information about a mobile program[This was reported probably in the NY Times.]

In April before the declaration of the end of major action, the news reported that a Iraq-wide, aerial recon with side looking radar was being conducted. Good idea! Why? Well, under dry conditions side looking radar can detect subsurface features such as underground labs, bunkers, burial sites [one of the things that came out of the survey is the identification of mass grave sites.] As you know, none were found.

jay

 

[jay_too]

hey man..

Thanks for responding. To what, I am not sure.

My dictionary defines lie as 1. A false statement purposely put forward as truth, falsehood. 2. To convey a false information with the purpose of deceiving. 3. To convey a false image or impression.

Unless you are the Red Queen in Through the Looking Glass [I think.], I think you have to accept the standard definition. I think Wolfowitz sealed the case for the lie when he said that WMD [read nuclear] would be the easiest way to gain public support for the Iraqi adventure.

Numerous administration officials have admitted that they oversold the evidence for WMDs in order to convey a false impression.

Never have I said that I supported an impeachment of Bush for lying. This is an issue for an election and the judgement of history. AND yes, I agree Bush is STUPID.

About Clinton, yes, he lied. When he lied under oath, that was perjury which is a different issue. A lawyer can better explain perjury and plea bargining.

But back to the central question, oral sex vs lives. Do I understand that 4 bjs are as bad for society as 500 coalition dead or 25,000 Iraqi dead? Okay, I can do the math, but I do not understand the moral justification. It is not in St. Augustine's City of God.

jay

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: well...jay bo...no takers on the IQ?...hiding my intelligence well...to each liberal his own i guess...you dont read so well though...maybe just skim a bit...this has been hashed several times in the past several months... why did a guilt-less Saddam ship out the weapons inspectors in the first place?...and limit their access?...and to anyone but the challenged would say...he has something to hide...wouldnt that be a fair assumption?...you have never answered my question about the shipping the WMD to syria...except for your correct assessment of how much water a nuclear power plant needs to operate...*clapping hands*...isnt that a possibility?...maybe not nuclear...but bio and chem agents...and if you will read my last post explaining that you might have not been so quick to jump on the bandwagon... still waiting on my challenge...up to it?

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: well...just a foot note to this whole deal...the stock market is WAY up...interest rates are WAY down...job market not looking too bad...and consumer confidence is growing each month...sounds like things are on the mend to me??

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=20#36 date=01/15/04 at 14:26:46]But back to the central question, oral sex vs lives. Do I understand that 4 bjs are as bad for society as 500 coalition dead or 25,000 Iraqi dead? Okay, I can do the math, but I do not understand the moral justification. It is not in St. Augustine's City of God.

jay
[/quote]
Again, you overlook what I keep saying because you know I am right.  Arguing with you is like arguing with a fucking brick wall. Saddam would have killed 10 times that amount under his rule in the next few years.  We saved lives.  

And on that note, it was just him lying about oral sex, it was him lying about everything else, mysteriously get paid off by organizations, mysteriously pardoning criminals, and not stopping the threat of terrorism when I began. Not doing something about the near-catastrophic mid-90's truck bombing of the Twin Towers by Osama himself. Clinton did absolutely nothing, allowed Osama to build up his forces, and kill thousands of innocent lives on Sept. 11th. I'd have to say that's Clinton's fault right there, and a big fault at that. I'd rather have Bush doing something, then a president sitting on his ass letting us get attacked repeatedly by terrorist groups.

Also, I've been thinking lately, over the years you people have really skewed Bush's original words and intentions and never took it upon yourself to look up the ACTUAL facts.  Because, and I may be totally wrong about this, I don't think Bush (in his original state of the union address) ever mentioned that we were going to war because of the threat of WMDs.  That is something, I THINK, many liberals put in his mouth, or something he mentioned later, but not his original reason for going to war.  I will look up the original state of the Union address and apologize if I was wrong after all.