Opinons on Bush & Iraq?

[jonb]

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=80#94 date=01/21/04 at 10:22:23]No objectors towards Clinton's WMD speech?[/quote]
Well, since the GOP shot it down so effectively, we feel no need to refute it. ::adds 'commonly contradicts self' to net loon index of previous post::

 

[13788]

Vincentr1: [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=80#98 date=01/21/04 at 16:02:28]vincent...EVERYONE here is entitled to their own opinion...your 1st 2 facts are correct..but thats where it ends...[/quote]

You're correct. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I didn't say he wasn't. I said his opion was idiotic and it is!

[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=80#98 date=01/21/04 at 16:02:28]150 billion was not wasted...a cruel, inhumane dictator is no longer in power...45 of the 55 target criminals are in custody awaiting prosecution...2/3 of al quada [whatever] known leadership are in custody...[/quote]

Webster defines waste as, " to expend needlessly."

Something tells me we could've gotten rid of the weapons of mass distruction, WHICH DON'T EXIST, without spending 150 billion dollars. As for the criminals. Well, there's more where they came from. In other words, It's doubtful that anything has been accomplished. Oh excuse me, we have a managed to take a man's son's, evil they may have been, butcher them, and parade the mangled bodies in the streets and in the media. Now that's something to be proud! If you think someone wanted to nuke this country before.
Guess what? Thay ain't got nothin to lose now. We just gave tens of thousands of people a reason to kill any American, any time, any where, any how. That would include you and I.


[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=80#98 date=01/21/04 at 16:02:28]AND most important...a CLEAR message has been sent to the rest of the world...WE AINT GONNA PLAY WITH TERRORISTS ANYMORE...[/quote]

You'r kidding me right? I served in the Middle East. The Sinai specifically. Do you know how hard it is to take a human life? It's hard mentally to get angry enough to do it. It's hard physically because living breathing healthy bodies cling to life. These people live in and around death and dismemberment daily. The only message we sent was to encourage them enough to  take more human lives, ours. And they will, daily. Can you say Vietnam?


[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=80#98 date=01/21/04 at 16:02:28]economy sux...well...i guess if you are sweeping up at mcdonalds...its always gonna suck...but where im at...the economy is picking up nicely...bush didnt ask for 911...this has had a GLOBAL effect...look at the dow...i think its over 10500 still...close to a record..[/quote]

Close to a two and a half year record. and guess who got us to the all time low?Check the link below.

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/040121/80/ek0jd.html

[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=80#98 date=01/21/04 at 16:02:28]the prime is the lowest its been in 40 years or something...and when was the last time greenspan talked about lowering the prime to stimulate growth?... some time back...not even talking about it...[/quote]

Once again, your kidding me right? Why do you think Greenspan lowerd the rate so far in the first place? Because the economy sucked and he was trying to save what was left. And it still hasn't worked!

[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=80#98 date=01/21/04 at 16:02:28]because the economy is on the mend...
look at ALL the indicators...including jobs...the airlines are calling back people they laid off 2 years ago...[/quote]

The jury's still out on this one. Mixed sgnals abound.
read some more.

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/040109/1/eizse.html

[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=80#98 date=01/21/04 at 16:02:28]people are FLYING again...homeland security IS working...they are CATCHING people...and certainly DETERRING people...
[/quote]

People are flying. They have to make a living. My company has still cut corporate travel 60%.

[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=80#98 date=01/21/04 at 16:02:28][have i punched enough holes yet?][/quote]

Have I punched enough holes  in yours?



[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=80#98 date=01/21/04 at 16:02:28]he HAS a different point of view...and if you would take the time to look at the FACTS...you would see that...[/quote]

Maybe I'm not the only one who needs to look at the facts!

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: lowering rates...hmmm...i KNOW that this started with the bush regime...check that out before you stick your foot in your mouth again...what was prime when george bush went out...then what was prime when clinton went out...theres your index...who got us to the all time low???...osama bin ladin... you jackass....thats who...taking a mans son and butchering him...parading the bodies...was the US soldiers that did that?...or was that overjoyed iraqi people that were so glad these 2 evil bastards who had raped, killed and tortured thousands with impunity were actually dead???...in the media...was a carefully measured decision...to show the bodies to the iraqi people, to PROVE these horrible guys were dead...otherwise they would never know...so what if YOUR company has cut flying 60%...there could be underlying reasons...the airlines ARE calling people back...WHY would they do that if they didnt need to expand their flight schedules???but things are on the mend...and only an IDIOT wouldnt recognize it...and javier...it SICKENS me when some foriegner comments on the state of affairs in the US...you can read all you want...but have no idea what its like to live here...

 

[13788]

Inwood: There is a certain sweet irony about Gig quoting Bill on war on Iraq. This is a man he believes can't be trusted to tell the truth. So who does he quote to support his argument?

But that's not the end of it. He quotes the first speech made by Bill after Bill's admitted he had an improper relationship with "that woman." The speech that made Gig feel that Bill would lie about anything after that.

Then to top it off this speech and action was roundly condemned by the republicans (meaning they didn't support the action even though Saddam was one of the targets) as being taken to get everyone's mind off of Monica.

I do enjoy reading your posts Gig; sometimes they provide an unintended laugh.

As to no one taking you up on things. Gig, YOU still haven't answered my question to you. What news source(s) is unbiased in your opinion? You just cannot seem to answer a simple question.

Since I've made clear I have no problem with Saddam being gone or going to war to get rid of him I think it might be hard for you to try the "he's just a liberal" bit to try to discredit me.

What I get from most people who think different from you is that they believe the country was told deliberate lies to get support for this war. That there was an imminent danger to this country from Iraq. That Iraq had WMD's that could be activated in 45 minutes of the order being given.

But so far none of these imminent dangers have been found. Yes, they might still be found. I agree that they were probably never far from Saddam's mind of how he could get them or develop them. Him and just about every other country on this planet. Did someone say North Korea?

If something is available as a WMD in 45 minutes it has to be accessible to something that can launch it or shoot it or disperse it. My company is doing a program on USA electronic surveillance capabilities. They are tremendous. Our spy satellites were probably in place over Iraq months before we went in. The thought that we weren't doing everything to track movements of weapons of all types would be ludicrous. We knew where practically everything was before we went into Iraq. Supplementing our spy info we also had knowledge from the UN inspections, which we used to target sites when the bombing started. But in spite of all of this information which should have led us to something big...big being the operative word of what we supposedly faced...we've yet to find anything.

So there are some people who feel we were sold a bag of goods. And the seller was Bush. I happen to agree. Maybe I can't say Bush lied. But I do think that intelligence was selectively used.

But that all aside...it is also possible that both Clinton and Bush based decisions on the best information possible. Information that might yet be proven right but increasingly seems to be wildly inaccurate. And if that were the case the problem wouldn't be our Presidents per se but our intelligence services. And it might behoove serious minds to start looking at how our intelligence is analyzed.

 

[13788]

Vincentr1: [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#102 date=01/21/04 at 19:12:06]lowering rates...hmmm...i KNOW that this started with the bush regime...check that out before you stick your foot in your mouth again...
[/quote]

Obviously your not educated!. Go back to B-school take economics  101. Rates were lowered during the Bush, "regime", and that's an acurate description. In order to spur an economy that the republicans totaly Fucked UP! Moron! Go back to flipin burgers.


[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#102 date=01/21/04 at 19:12:06]what was prime when george bush went out...then what was prime when clinton went out...theres your index...who got us to the all time low???...osama bin ladin... you jackass....[/quote]

Osama Bin Laden didn't give captial gains breaks to the rich and jack squat to everyone else!


[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#102 date=01/21/04 at 19:12:06]was the US soldiers that did that?...or was that overjoyed iraqi people that were so glad these 2 evil bastards who had raped, killed and tortured thousands with impunity were actually dead???...in the media...was a carefully measured decision...to show the bodies to the iraqi people, to PROVE these horrible guys were dead...otherwise they would never know...[/quote]

Without a doubt all georgie's idea. Just to make dad happy since dad couldn't get it done the first time..

[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#102 date=01/21/04 at 19:12:06]so what if YOUR company has cut flying 60%...there could be underlying reasons...the airlines ARE calling people back...WHY would they do that if they didnt need to expand their flight schedules???but things are on the mend...and only an IDIOT wouldnt recognize it...
[/quote]

Well then there's a whole lot of unemployed idiots lookin for work. And alot of them have PHD's and MBA's. Unfortunately they don't work for the airline like you probably do!


[quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#102 date=01/21/04 at 19:12:06]and javier...it SICKENS me when some foriegner comments on the state of affairs in the US...you can read all you want...but have no idea what its like to live here...[/quote]

Forget javier. just read your own words. Their enough to make all of the U.S. SICK! :

 

[13788]

gigantikok: I think this will only ever come down to opinion, I guess. My opinion was that the war was a good thing. I guess that's just my opinion. I used Bill to quote why Bush thought and why most thought there were WMD. I didn't use Bill to actually try and PROVE there were weapons of mass destruction. You jump to conclusion though. I didn't use BBC as a source to try and prove a point, merely as a source to get a direct qouted copy of Clinton's speech. It was quoted, there was no way BBC could have lied or twisted anything. What I posted was directly out of someone's mouth, Clinton's, that I merely got (coincidently) off of the BBC website. EIther way, I feel I have proved a good point. I provided points from the UN website, I provided good links, I could provide more. I believe what I believe. I won't change your minds, you won't change mine. This is usually the agreement we reach towards the end of any argument.

 

[13788]

roedhunt: Being a woman, I'd like to point out one thing. (ok maybe a few). IMHO, America has always stood for freedom. Always. Freedom of speech, freedom of rights, freedom of persecution and freedom of an individuals belief. Serving in the military, I protected those rights and stood behind America. But there are many countries who do not have that luxury. America has almost always intervened helping those less fortunate. Iraq is one of those countries. So is Afghanistan. Try to look at it that way.

They have been ruled by the Taliban, knowing it was wrong, but not strong enough to conquer over them. Women and children have been sacrificed in the name of the Taliban. Women live in fear knowing that at any moment they might be killed.

Now America has been threatened by terrorists (not only by 9-1-1). Do we just sit by and negotiate with them? Those who die for their God? Those who want all Americans dead? Those who could care less if women and children die? Those who rejoiced in the killing of over 6,000 Americans? I, myself, would have loved to go back in the military to fight. As did other long-term veterans had pleaded to go back in. Even certain celebrities did (Bruce Willis).

There comes a time when war is necessary. Think back to the other wars in history. Hitler might have well been the ruler of the world. That's what Saddam wanted.

Both sides of the wing, take this time to read an article from a womens point of view. Not just mine, but this link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11669

Presidents may have made mistakes (I'm not arguing that point), but the results speak for themselves. (do not argue that one either).

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Well said, whether I agree with you or not. (only coincidental that I do)

I also never said that Bush was devoid of making mistakes. Sure, he has committed many errors. But for once, please try to over look party divisions and power politics to actually open your eyes and precieve what might or might not be good for this nation, Liberal or Conservative.

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: vince...your clearly an idiot...you have this liberal agenda so far up your ass you cant see the daylite boy...you WONT do the exersizes ive provided...because you know you are wrong!!!!!!...yep the fed did lower the prime under bush...BUT...did MORE and more times under clinton....check it out...THATS what im talking about...buy you are too busy spewing party rhetoric... IM by god entitled to my opinion...and no-one...especially a butt plug like you is going to tell me different...yeah...HELL yeah there are a lot of people looking for work...i know some...but you are too busy BLAMING bush and cant see that most of the reason that alot of people are out of work is due to the economic slowdown due to the 911 attacks...jeez...are you going to blame mad cow disease on bush too...

 

[jay_too]

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#107 date=01/22/04 at 00:54:41]But for once, please try to over look party divisions and power politics to actually open your eyes and precieve what might or might not be good for this nation, Liberal or Conservative.[/quote]

Good point, but you know, this is what I think that I have done.

Nowhere is it written that America has the God-given right to institute regime change because Wolfowitz, Perle, Newt, or Bush would like it. The war was sold as a preventative strike to neutralize WMDs before they could be used against the U.S. Around $1 billion has been spent in the search for WMDs and the weapons programs, to date the Bush administration has been unable to show me the weapons [ala Cuba Gooding]. If they had, I would have been wrong and forced to rethink my position, even wear sack cloth.

Not Bush and his fellow twits, they have tried to change the justification for the war to regime change, huh? Sorry, Dubya, but you can't change the dance card in the middle of the waltz.

In the absence of a known, quantifiable danger, there was time for a reasoned discussion about how Americans wanted to spend the $1 trillion or so that would be required for war and pacification of Iraq AND even, trying to gather international support for the action. For me the greater threat to America is the almost total loss of manufacturing capability (and jobs) to emerging economies, the ballooning trade deficits, the drunken spending spree by the Congress [ala today's Omnibus Appropriations Bill], and the fiscal deficits of this administration.

So Gig, this has been my position from day one [many months ago].

jay

 

[13788]

Vincentr1: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#107 date=01/22/04 at 00:54:41]Well said, whether I agree with you or not.  (only coincidental that I do)

I also never said that Bush was devoid of making mistakes. Sure, he has committed many errors. But for once, please try to over look party divisions and power politics to actually open your eyes and perceive what might or might not be good for this nation, Liberal or Conservative.[/quote]


I agree with gig on the point made above. Given that I can't fathom how either party member can ignore the amount of needless killing and suffering that has been caused by the war in Iraq.

Jay;

Well said!


As roedhunt has mentioned I would gone back if I had been called also because that's what soldiers do, regardless of Bush and his regime.

Dear Mr. Jerk:

1.) Buy a dictionary. Your spelling sucks!

2.) Please take a course in economics or shut up! Historically military conflict has spurred the economy. It's the age old lesson of guns versus butter. 911 created a reaction which drove up many economic indicators. Just as in science, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Bush has murdered more people in Iraq than Al Quieda murdered on 9/11.

3.) Wake up. Bush has a personal agenda. It's all about georgie. I realize I can't change your mind. Anyone who's willing to overlook the needless deaths of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans. Isn't likely to be a fair minded individual. Obviously you haven't lost a loved one, YET.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: They weren't needless. They were quite need-ful deaths. Just a difference in opinion, of course, but one has to sacrifice for real change and prosperity. In regards to the Iraqis, like I've stated time and time again, more people would have been brutally slaughtered under the rule of Saddam. By killing a few thousand Iraqis, we saved many more from Saddam and his rule.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#102 date=01/21/04 at 19:12:06] and javier...it SICKENS me when some foriegner comments on the state of affairs in the US...you can read all you want...but have no idea what its like to live here...[/quote]

First of all...learn how to spell foreigner...you wont seem like such an ASS if you can..

Second of all I have lived in the US for some time...and although Im the last one to be provoked to say this, I probably know more about US politics and economics than you....

I could care less if your right wing or republican...but your dumbass remarks are just too much...take a reality check. Try to get past the little engine that could and read up on a subject before you wanna play with the grown ups.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=roedhunt link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#106 date=01/21/04 at 23:42:30]Being a woman, I'd like to point out one thing. (ok maybe a few). IMHO, America has always stood for freedom. Always. Freedom of speech, freedom of rights, freedom of persecution and freedom of an individuals belief. Serving in the military, I protected those rights and stood behind America. But there are many countries who do not have that luxury. America has almost always intervened helping those less fortunate. Iraq is one of those countries. So is Afghanistan. Try to look at it that way.

They have been ruled by the Taliban, knowing it was wrong, but not strong enough to conquer over them. Women and children have been sacrificed in the name of the Taliban. Women live in fear knowing that at any moment they might be killed.

Now America has been threatened by terrorists (not only by 9-1-1). Do we just sit by and negotiate with them? Those who die for their God? Those who want all Americans dead? Those who could care less if women and children die? Those who rejoiced in the killing of over 6,000 Americans? I, myself, would have loved to go back in the military to fight. As did other long-term veterans had pleaded to go back in. Even certain celebrities did (Bruce Willis).

There comes a time when war is necessary. Think back to the other wars in history. Hitler might have well been the ruler of the world. That's what Saddam wanted.

Both sides of the wing, take this time to read an article from a womens point of view. Not just mine, but this link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11669

Presidents may have made mistakes (I'm not arguing that point), but the results speak for themselves. (do not argue that one either).[/quote]
Of course, the Saudis and Egyptians are just as bad, but let's ignore them.

 

[13788]

roedhunt: [quote author=jonb link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#113 date=01/22/04 at 20:31:14]
Of course, the Saudis and Egyptians are just as bad, but let's ignore them.[/quote]

I think I made an excellent point regarding the issues at hand. Especially from a womans point of view. It was made to make a pause in the debate going on in here over politics.

And by you making a comment like that, just belittles it.

Thanks jon :-/

 

[Pecker]

[quote author=jonb link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#113 date=01/22/04 at 20:31:14]
Of course, the Saudis and Egyptians are just as bad, but let's ignore them.[/quote]

One bad guy at a time. One at a time.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=roedhunt link=board=99;num=1074109950;start=100#114 date=01/23/04 at 02:24:53]

I think I made an excellent point regarding the issues at hand. Especially from a womans point of view. It was made to make a pause in the debate going on in here over politics.

And by you making a comment like that, just belittles it.[/quote]
Sorry, but I just get sick of people using this 'Oh, they're so intolerant/sexist/child abusers/etc.' when the people we don't attack are just as bad. One reason I didn't read it is not because the author's a woman, but because the URL is FrontPageMag. Anyone on Horowitz's paper has to think exactly like him. (He actually used a 'Comanche' with only 1/16 blood who has spent more time in Tehran than in Lawton.)

 

[13788]

Inwood: This is from Reuters. I hope this is considered an acceptably unbiased source.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Kay stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq on Friday and said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.

In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found.

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

A little further in the article.

No banned arms have been found in Iraq since the United States went to war against Baghdad last year.

Part of the response from the Administration.

And on Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States had not given up on finding banned weapons in Iraq. "The jury is still out," he said in a radio interview.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday, in response to Kay's remarks, "We remain confident that the Iraq Survey Group will uncover the truth about Saddam Hussein's regime, the regime's weapons of destruction programs."

Then further on

"I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find," he said. "I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about."

Kay said Iraq had a "rudimentary" program to develop nuclear weapons. "It really wasn't dormant because there were a few little things going on, but it had not resumed in anything meaningful," he said.

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=040123&cat=news&st=newsiraqusaweaponsdc

Interesting. I've tried to give pertinent points from the article but left the response from Democratic Sens and Reps for you to read in the article.

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: Now I'm sorry I haven't been around recently to argue your points re: Clinton's speech, Gigs, but I've had other commitments this week.

Still, as you want to drag this up as a comparison....

In the statement given you demonstrate that Clinton gave Hussein a 3 week reprieve to prove co-operation before ordering strikes. Your quote states:

Iraq repeatedly blocked Unscom from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and Unscom has inspected them in the past.  

Iraq repeatedly restricted Unscom's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed Unscom's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons programme.  

It tried to stop an Unscom biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering Unscom's questions.  

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.  

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an Unscom inspection.  

I also believe that the stike called had general international approval, although I may be wrong on that point. You may not think this is really all-important, but if there are few objections then there are usually less things there to object about.

Before war was actually declared by Bush, Hans Blix had actually reported back to the UN regarding Iraqi co-operation with the inspectors. Among his quotes were:

"Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by Unscom in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure. "

"This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."

"In the last month, Iraq has provided us with the names of many persons, who may be relevant sources of information, in particular, persons who took part in various phases of the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons, and proscribed missiles in 1991."


There are also others regarding their destruction of missiles during the inspections etc. Compare this statement to that of the Iraqi co-operation before the Clinton strike and there is significant difference. If there was any real lack of co-operation it was from the Western intelligence services not giving details to the inspectors of 'suspect sites', preferring instead to proclaim them as proof in UN meetings as evidence of a WMD programme rather than allowing them to be checked out in-the-feld first.

Of course, I have significant doubts that Bush ever had any intention of calling off the invasion if the inspections didn't turn out his way...

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: Besides which, isn't it a little naive to assume that everyone will blindly support every single policy that their chosen representatives follow? Just assuming that because there was a Democrat president at the time that all traditional Democrats would support him on every single policy is insane.