Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Michael Moore is a malicious liar
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Oct 22 16:39:19 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  President Bush sold the Iraq war with lies -- and Americans are paying with their lives. An excerpt from "Dude, Where's My Country?"

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Michael Moore



Oct. 22, 2003 | What is the worst lie a president can tell?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Or ...

"He has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies."

One of those lies got a president impeached. The other lie not only got the liar who told it the war he wanted, but also resulted in huge business deals for his friends and virtually assures him a landslide victory in the next election.


the above is an excerpt from Mr. Moore's new book.
read the following quotes and then try to rationalize how mr. moore can call bush a liar:

Subject: Re-Eval of WMD
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003





 
libra Posted: Wed Oct 22 16:46:30 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison, this is yours if you even want to take it, i've given up defending my liberal views to hif, its no use, we're never going to see eachother's sides...

oh, but hif, maybe if you read the REST of the book, Moore would back up his 'wild' accusations...and then you could really have an argument.


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Oct 22 17:28:28 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  an interesting fact that was brought up today by my humanities teacher and was also mentioned in that liberal vs conservative definition post, is that most college professors as well as ALL graduate program professors are liberally based. These people are the ones teaching the youth, shaping the educated future. It's a good thing you're old hif, cause i bet in another 30 years things are gonna be quite different.

on dealing w/ this topic... I think you need to take a step back and view Moore's, and most liberal's, overall aim: promoting life. The best way to go about doing that is to take a few billion of the 67, or so, needed for the reconstruction of iraq alone, and grant it to the countries w/ people starving to death.

Now, honestly, who fucking cares if saddam even developed a nuke program or if he has a few nukes? That would add ONE to the numerous countries in possession of nuclear weapons. because hill and bill believed as I do, that helping people is more beneficial then starting wars w/ just one of the many potential threats out there, they did not move to any offensive measures and focused their power in a more beneficial way.

fine, there are threats to world peace out there, then let the coalition of sane super powers do something together as a whole. We shouldn't be fighting this battle alone, because we sure as fuck arn't the only ones who'd be affected by the "threats" that the iraqi or any regime poses. And we sure as fuck shouldn't be funding the operation alone.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Oct 22 18:03:59 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>an interesting fact that was brought up today by my humanities teacher and was also mentioned in that liberal vs conservative definition post, is that most college professors as well as ALL graduate program professors are liberally based. These people are the ones teaching the youth, shaping the educated future. It's a good thing you're old hif, cause i bet in another 30 years things are gonna be quite different.

you are correct, but not in the way you think. this liberal bent in colleges has been going on for over 50 years now and it's just starting to get turned around. see "david horowitz and the academic bill of rights".
>
>on dealing w/ this topic... I think you need to take a step back and view Moore's, and most liberal's, overall aim: promoting life. The best way to go about doing that is to take a few billion of the 67, or so, needed for the reconstruction of iraq alone, and grant it to the countries w/ people starving to death.

do you have any idea how many billions are already being granted to starving countries ? money is not the answer for most of these people. yes it is a quick fix, but in most cases, when the money is gone they are hungry again.
>
>Now, honestly, who fucking cares if saddam even developed a nuke program or if he has a few nukes? That would add ONE to the numerous countries in possession of nuclear weapons. because hill and bill believed as I do, that helping people is more beneficial then starting wars w/ just one of the many potential threats out there, they did not move to any offensive measures and focused their power in a more beneficial way.

hahah, yeah, beneficial to bill and hill.hahahaha
>
>fine, there are threats to world peace out there, then let the coalition of sane super powers do something together as a whole. We shouldn't be fighting this battle alone, because we sure as fuck arn't the only ones who'd be affected by the "threats" that the iraqi or any regime poses. And we sure as fuck shouldn't be funding the operation alone.

you are correct, we shouldn't be fighting this battle alone and we aren't. true, we are the only major fighting force in this battle, but others are contributing in other ways.
excepting france from the fray, most of the world supports us in one way or another. even germany and russia.
of course you won't read much about our support in the media because they only report the negatives.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Oct 22 18:06:01 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>addison, this is yours if you even want to take it, i've given up defending my liberal views to hif, its no use, we're never going to see eachother's sides...
>
>oh, but hif, maybe if you read the REST of the book, Moore would back up his 'wild' accusations...and then you could really have an argument.

i'm not asking you to convince me of anything. I'm only asking how mr bush can be called a liar on the wmd issue when mr moore is keenly aware that the entire world was in agreement that wmd's were indeed in saddam's possession.



 
FN Posted: Wed Oct 22 18:19:55 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>addison, this is yours if you even want to take it, i've given up defending my liberal views to hif, its no use, we're never going to see eachother's sides...
>>
>>oh, but hif, maybe if you read the REST of the book, Moore would back up his 'wild' accusations...and then you could really have an argument.
>
>i'm not asking you to convince me of anything. I'm only asking how mr bush can be called a liar on the wmd issue when mr moore is keenly aware that the entire world was in agreement that wmd's were indeed in saddam's possession.
>


Most of the 'whole world' was waiting for the reports from the inspectors without running in like headless chickens.


 
addi Posted: Wed Oct 22 18:29:20 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So very tired of defending Moore...

Republicans say things based on ignorance. Democrats say things based on ignorance. They're both guilty.
What I will say is that every Democrat quoted above did nothing more than talk. The difference between all of them and Bush is that talking wasn't enough for him; he acted. There's a profound difference between the two. Gore, if elected, would have had his share of blunders, but I feel comfortable saying that the mess with Iraq wouldn't have been one of them.

Letting Saddam know that we were keeping a close eye on him may have been the democrats strategy. I don't know for sure. What I do know is that crisis have been avoided in the past by throwing our political weight around. Verbal bully diplomacy so to speak. Sometimes that's been enough to bring the warring factions to the table (and avert war), sometimes it hasn't been enough.
I think Moore's and other people's anger with Bush is that Bush knew that some of the statements he was making about Saddam were lies, or half truths, or misleading, and yet he still made them. Then against the better judgement of a significant percentage of americans, and the vast majority of the rest of the world's citizens, he invaded Iraq. To me it's a case of shoot first and worry about the truth leaking out after the fact, when the deed has already been done.

Partisan politics goes on with the democrats for sure, but there is no doubt in my mind that our current situation in Iraq would be entirely different now if Bush and his republican cronies hadn't been so blindly determined to push this war as our only option. They did, and now it's common knowledge that we weren't given all the "facts" before the bloodshed started.
Peace, Bro


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Oct 22 19:25:07 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>So very tired of defending Moore...
>
>Republicans say things based on ignorance. Democrats say things based on ignorance. They're both guilty.
>What I will say is that every Democrat quoted above did nothing more than talk. The difference between all of them and Bush is that talking wasn't enough for him; he acted. There's a profound difference between the two. Gore, if elected, would have had his share of blunders, but I feel comfortable saying that the mess with Iraq wouldn't have been one of them.
>
>Letting Saddam know that we were keeping a close eye on him may have been the democrats strategy. I don't know for sure. What I do know is that crisis have been avoided in the past by throwing our political weight around. Verbal bully diplomacy so to speak. Sometimes that's been enough to bring the warring factions to the table (and avert war), sometimes it hasn't been enough.
>I think Moore's and other people's anger with Bush is that Bush knew that some of the statements he was making about Saddam were lies, or half truths, or misleading, and yet he still made them. Then against the better judgement of a significant percentage of americans, and the vast majority of the rest of the world's citizens, he invaded Iraq. To me it's a case of shoot first and worry about the truth leaking out after the fact, when the deed has already been done.
>
>Partisan politics goes on with the democrats for sure, but there is no doubt in my mind that our current situation in Iraq would be entirely different now if Bush and his republican cronies hadn't been so blindly determined to push this war as our only option. They did, and now it's common knowledge that we weren't given all the "facts" before the bloodshed started.
>Peace, Bro

after 14 yrs of defiance to the entire world, this wasn't exactly a "rush to war".
and the wmd issue is not over yet.
i am very confident that they will be found in iraq, and i am also very confident that the left wingers of the world will say that they were planted by the bush people.
but if you go back and look at the record, it wasn't just the democrats that were quoted above, but the entire united nations security council that was in agreement that he did indeed possess wmd's. so i still don't see how it could be construed as a lie when bush said it as well. you can spin it anyway you want, but it still sound like mr moore is being somewhat malicious when he says it.


 
libra Posted: Wed Oct 22 19:34:07 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  no more fighting! I officially call october 22 a no arguing on GT day cause its my birthday! I'm 18 now. :-)


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Oct 22 19:46:27 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>no more fighting! I officially call october 22 a no arguing on GT day cause its my birthday! I'm 18 now. :-)


Only 18? Well, Happy birthday!!! :)


 
sweet p Posted: Wed Oct 22 19:58:03 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  : ) That's great!

Happy Birthday Libra!!
I hope it was a wonderful day for you!




 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Oct 22 20:43:43 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  happy birthday libra !
and none of my adverserial remarks are meant to be mean spirited.
we all want the same things, but we have different ideas on how to achieve them. even though you and i are diametrically opposed in our political thinking, it gladdens me to see that there are some young people that can see beyond their next buzz and actually care about their country and the world around them. keep it up, maybe someday it will be senator libra !


 
libra Posted: Wed Oct 22 21:28:22 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  more like "Mrs. Libra! Can you help me with my math!"

I want to be an underpaid, underappreciated teacher...


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Oct 22 21:42:14 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>more like "Mrs. Libra! Can you help me with my math!"
>
>I want to be an underpaid, underappreciated teacher...


Neato :)


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Oct 22 21:52:44 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>libra said:
>>more like "Mrs. Libra! Can you help me with my math!"
>>
>>I want to be an underpaid, underappreciated teacher...
>
>
>Neato :) not neato on the underpay underappreciate part, neato on the teacher part, of course :)


 
addi Posted: Wed Oct 22 22:27:24 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey, I didn't bring it up! : )
Anywaze hif and I are always arguing, but we leave it at each political thread, and are decent to each other otherwise (sometimes I do wonder if he has an Addi doll that he goes and sticks pins in though).

Happy Birthday, Libra! I'm sooo glad you're on this site.






 
libra Posted: Wed Oct 22 22:30:02 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Hey, I didn't bring it up! : )
>Anywaze hif and I are always arguing, but we leave it at each political thread, and are decent to each other otherwise (sometimes I do wonder if he has an Addi doll that he goes and sticks pins in though).
>
>Happy Birthday, Libra! I'm sooo glad you're on this site.
>
I'm glad you're here too...i never had any idea i could enjoy the company of internet people. But you all are great!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Oct 23 06:51:44 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>addison said:
>>Hey, I didn't bring it up! : )
>>Anywaze hif and I are always arguing, but we leave it at each political thread, and are decent to each other otherwise (sometimes I do wonder if he has an Addi doll that he goes and sticks pins in though).
>>
>>Happy Birthday, Libra! I'm sooo glad you're on this site.
>>
>I'm glad you're here too...i never had any idea i could enjoy the company of internet people. But you all are great!

"internet people" ?
could that be construed as some kind of ethnic slur ? LOL


 
addi Posted: Thu Oct 23 07:26:41 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>>
>I'm glad you're here too...i never had any idea i could enjoy the company of internet people. But you all are great!

"internet people", as opposed to real people. I think she sees us as a series of 0's and 1's : )




 
libra Posted: Thu Oct 23 14:52:28 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>libra said:
>
>>>
>>I'm glad you're here too...i never had any idea i could enjoy the company of internet people. But you all are great!
>
>"internet people", as opposed to real people. I think she sees us as a series of 0's and 1's : )
>
You're all real people. Just not people in my so-called regular life. No one knows about GT, except for a couple of my closest friends.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Oct 23 15:12:48 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  =
>You're all real people.


I am a forumbot, with a programed personlaity, designed to respond to human beings posts. I am one of the newer models :)


 
tmadhavan Posted: Thu Oct 23 15:52:46 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hif, you say:

"i'm not asking you to convince me of anything. I'm only asking how mr bush can be called a liar on the wmd issue when mr moore is keenly aware that the entire world was in agreement that wmd's were indeed in saddam's possession."

Surely you would rather base a war on evidence, not an 'agreement'. Therefore, I'm sure you can clear up a burning issue...

Where are the WMDs? I wouldn't storm into your house and shoot you because I 'thought' you had done something wrong, would I?

And happy b'day Libra ;) I'm only 18 too.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Oct 23 16:19:52 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  tmadhavan said:
>Hif, you say:
>
>"i'm not asking you to convince me of anything. I'm only asking how mr bush can be called a liar on the wmd issue when mr moore is keenly aware that the entire world was in agreement that wmd's were indeed in saddam's possession."
>
>Surely you would rather base a war on evidence, not an 'agreement'. Therefore, I'm sure you can clear up a burning issue...
>
>Where are the WMDs? I wouldn't storm into your house and shoot you because I 'thought' you had done something wrong, would I?
>
>And happy b'day Libra ;) I'm only 18 too.

so what about the evidence in hand when the inspectors were kicked out of iraq ?
the wmd's were documented then.
how much evidence do you need ?



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Oct 23 16:38:24 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  tmadhavan said:
>Hif, you say:
>
>"i'm not asking you to convince me of anything. I'm only asking how mr bush can be called a liar on the wmd issue when mr moore is keenly aware that the entire world was in agreement that wmd's were indeed in saddam's possession."
>
>Surely you would rather base a war on evidence, not an 'agreement'. Therefore, I'm sure you can clear up a burning issue...
>
>Where are the WMDs? I wouldn't storm into your house and shoot you because I 'thought' you had done something wrong, would I?
>
>And happy b'day Libra ;) I'm only 18 too.

your statement does not address the question i posed.
if most of the world is in agreement that saddam had wmd's, then how can one in good conscience call bush a liar for making the same statement ?
god, how many times do i have to say it ? i ask the question and get liberal spin about the injustice of the war. my question has nothing to do with the war, only mr. moore's malicious statement.


 
FN Posted: Thu Oct 23 17:40:36 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Almost all the people you listed were american senators.


Not exactly what I consider 'the whole world'


 
mat_j Posted: Thu Oct 23 17:47:59 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hif, do you know any seamans shanties?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Oct 23 17:49:49 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Almost all the people you listed were american senators.
>
>
>Not exactly what I consider 'the whole world'

so are you saying that most of the whole world did not believe that saddam had wmd's or just that i failed to list everyone ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Oct 23 17:50:56 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>Hif, do you know any seamans shanties?

hahaha, used to know several verses to "barnacle bill, the sailor" before i succumbed to canabisshorttermmemoryloss.


 
mat_j Posted: Thu Oct 23 22:53:56 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>mat_j said:
>>Hif, do you know any seamans shanties?
>
>hahaha, used to know several verses to "barnacle bill, the sailor" before i succumbed to canabisshorttermmemoryloss.


We salute you evil master!


 
addi Posted: Fri Oct 24 07:14:48 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey, Hif. Do you know any semen shanties? Like "Droop John B", or "Testicle Bill the Spermy"


 
tmadhavan Posted: Fri Oct 24 07:36:13 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>tmadhavan said:
>>Hif, you say:
>>
>>"i'm not asking you to convince me of anything. I'm only asking how mr bush can be called a liar on the wmd issue when mr moore is keenly aware that the entire world was in agreement that wmd's were indeed in saddam's possession."
>>
>>Surely you would rather base a war on evidence, not an 'agreement'. Therefore, I'm sure you can clear up a burning issue...
>>
>>Where are the WMDs? I wouldn't storm into your house and shoot you because I 'thought' you had done something wrong, would I?
>>
>>And happy b'day Libra ;) I'm only 18 too.
>
>your statement does not address the question i posed.
>if most of the world is in agreement that saddam had wmd's, then how can one in good conscience call bush a liar for making the same statement ?
>god, how many times do i have to say it ? i ask the question and get liberal spin about the injustice of the war. my question has nothing to do with the war, only mr. moore's malicious statement.


 
tmadhavan Posted: Fri Oct 24 07:39:55 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oops, fecked that up didnt I.

Surely the leader of the most powerful nation on earth should have at least a bit of evidence for these things.

I mean, I know Bush has real problems thinking for himself (or even, thinking... speaking... maybe even dressing himself) but surely he should look at the facts, and come to a conclusion from there?

'Most of the world agreeing' does not mean that Saddam actually had these weapons, does it?

As Mr David Kay (head of Iraq Survey Group) points out: "We have not found shiny, pointy things that I would call a weapon".

Oh, well that's unfortunate isn't it? Never mind, wasn't all that much collateral damage, I suppose.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Oct 24 07:49:10 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  tmadhavan said:
>Oops, fecked that up didnt I.
>
>Surely the leader of the most powerful nation on earth should have at least a bit of evidence for these things.
>
>I mean, I know Bush has real problems thinking for himself (or even, thinking... speaking... maybe even dressing himself) but surely he should look at the facts, and come to a conclusion from there?
>
>'Most of the world agreeing' does not mean that Saddam actually had these weapons, does it?
>
>As Mr David Kay (head of Iraq Survey Group) points out: "We have not found shiny, pointy things that I would call a weapon".
>
>Oh, well that's unfortunate isn't it? Never mind, wasn't all that much collateral damage, I suppose.

what about the mountains of evidence we had when the inspectors were expelled from iraq in '96 ?
he had enough crap to kill most of western europe at that time and there is no evidence that any of it was destroyed.
btw, we are now finding evidence that their wmd program was thriving as recently as last year and there is still more evidence coming to light that much of the wmd's were trucked into syria before we attacked.


 
FN Posted: Fri Oct 24 11:02:04 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>Almost all the people you listed were american senators.
>>
>>
>>Not exactly what I consider 'the whole world'
>
>so are you saying that most of the whole world did not believe that saddam had wmd's or just that i failed to list everyone ?


I'm saying that most of the world were waiting for defenitive results of the inspections which weren't allowed to finish.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Oct 24 11:21:36 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>Almost all the people you listed were american senators.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not exactly what I consider 'the whole world'
>>
>>so are you saying that most of the whole world did not believe that saddam had wmd's or just that i failed to list everyone ?

actually most of the world was in agreement that he did possess wmd's as stated in un resolution 1441.
sending in the inspectors was merely a game.
when they were expelled the first time, they had already found enough to kill most of western europe.
now in 2001, he claimed that he had no wmd's but could produce no evidence of their disposal. duh . . .

>
>I'm saying that most of the world were waiting for defenitive results of the inspections which weren't allowed to finish.


 
casper Posted: Sat Oct 25 08:42:58 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>So very tired of defending Moore...
>
>Republicans say things based on ignorance. Democrats say things based on ignorance. They're both guilty.
>What I will say is that every Democrat quoted above did nothing more than talk. The difference between all of them and Bush is that talking wasn't enough for him; he acted. There's a profound difference between the two. Gore, if elected, would have had his share of blunders, but I feel comfortable saying that the mess with Iraq wouldn't have been one of them.

I know i am jumping in this conversation kinna late but I'm confused on how you can say that doing nothing but talk about a problem without acting on it is a GOOD thing. The previous administration's policy on only talking tough is what got quite a few military men and women killed during his administration. Personally I don't appreciate inaction in my higher ups. I'd rather have a Commander in Chief that is willing to take the hard road that just may lead to betterment than the easy way out that Clinton did the majority of the time.


 
FN Posted: Sat Oct 25 18:36:37 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You should vote for that blonde republican woman as your president in 2004, forgot her name, supposed to be the female/republican michael more.


Go for it.


 
libra Posted: Sun Oct 26 02:44:27 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ooo. speaking of blonde female politicians...hilary is running for president in 2008 probably! How exciting!


 
FN Posted: Sun Oct 26 05:26:36 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You don't actually believe you'll have a female president within the next 50 years do you?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Oct 26 06:52:05 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>You don't actually believe you'll have a female president within the next 50 years do you?

actually we could, but it won't be hillary. she is popular in her own little world, but she really could never get elected here. elizabeth dole ran during the last election and got some favorable publicity and for awhile, after she dropped out of the race in favor of dubya, it looked like she might be his choice for vice prez.
i would have no problem voting for the right woman.

one thing you gotta understand about a woman in charge of america though.
after 9/11, she would have nuked the whole middle east and then when they asked why, her reply would be something like "well, if you don't know, i'm certainly not going to tell you". LOL


 
libra Posted: Sun Oct 26 18:28:39 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I realize that having a female president is not very likely, but i can hope...and if there isn't one by the time i'm an adult(which would be pitiful) i'll run!


 
addi Posted: Mon Oct 27 08:22:54 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:

>
>I know i am jumping in this conversation kinna late but I'm confused on how you can say that doing nothing but talk about a problem without acting on it is a GOOD thing. The previous administration's policy on only talking tough is what got quite a few military men and women killed during his administration. Personally I don't appreciate inaction in my higher ups. I'd rather have a Commander in Chief that is willing to take the hard road that just may lead to betterment than the easy way out that Clinton did the majority of the time.

To every thing there is a season.

I never said only talk, and never act. Certainly there are times when action is prudent (WWII for example). There are also times when diplomacy and verbal threats are all that is needed (Kennedy and the cuban missle crisis for example). Talking is not always "the easy way out" casper. Sometimes it's the much harder way, when your first instinct is to go and bomb the crap out of somebody. If the number of soldier deaths is your litmus test for a good president then I suggest you research at the end of Bush's presidency(2004?) how many of our soldiers are killed under him as compared to Clinton's 8 years in office.
As far as Iraq is concerned some would say that we talked long enough and that approach didn't work with saddam. I don't see it that way and it boils down to just having different viewpoints on when action is necessary. I think Bush had an adjenda from the day he was confirmed president that he was going to invade Iraq come hell or high water. I also believe that had our diplomatic effort been less stiff and demanding and more "let's find an acceptable solution that the majority of UN member nations can work with" we would be better off now. Instead of being flexible and accepting different viewpoints on how to best handle saddam we basically said, "f**k you", and alienated our allies. That's good foreign policy?
After 9/11 our goal should have been to go after the terrorist groups responsible, and take a very hard look at ways that would lessen the sources of their hatred for us (our Israeli policy, and military presence in muslim countries). Instead we divert our war on terrorism to invade a country that had little, or nothing, to do with the events of 9/11. Islamic fundamentalists see/saw saddamn as a heathen and way too secular to be in league with him. Outside of a mutual dislike of the U.S. they had nothing in common. I just didn't see the thoughtful, careful use of reason from this administration to fully exhaust every possible option before deciding to start the shock and awe nightmare. The only shock I see now is the daily death of humans, and awe thinking about how much of my taxes aren't going to needed domestic causes, but to pay for this war. Others no doubt see it differently.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Oct 27 10:47:00 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>
>I never said only talk, and never act. Certainly there are times when action is prudent (WWII for example). There are also times when diplomacy and verbal threats are all that is needed (Kennedy and the cuban missle crisis for example). Talking is not always "the easy way out" casper. Sometimes it's the much harder way, when your first instinct is to go and bomb the crap out of somebody. If the number of soldier deaths is your litmus test for a good president then I suggest you research at the end of Bush's presidency(2004?) how many of our soldiers are killed under him as compared to Clinton's 8 years in office.

Duh, talk about spin. it's pretty easy to fluff that statistic if you: don't do anything at all, or turn tail and run evertime you encounter resistance, ie somalia. why don't you include americans killed in african embassies with no response from us ?

> As far as Iraq is concerned some would say that we talked long enough and that approach didn't work with saddam. I don't see it that way and it boils down to just having different viewpoints on when action is necessary. I think Bush had an adjenda from the day he was confirmed president that he was going to invade Iraq come hell or high water.
I also believe that had our diplomatic effort been less stiff and demanding and more "let's find an acceptable solution that the majority of UN member nations can work with" we would be better off now. Instead of being flexible and accepting different viewpoints on how to best handle saddam we basically said, "f**k you", and alienated our allies. That's good foreign policy?

more spin. actually we didn't say "fuck you" until we had tried for 12yrs with diplomacy.
as for the un, how can any sane person give legitimacy to a body that allows a country like libya to chair their commission on human rights ? what a laffer that one is.

>After 9/11 our goal should have been to go after the terrorist groups responsible, and take a very hard look at ways that would lessen the sources of their hatred for us (our Israeli policy, and military presence in muslim countries). Instead we divert our war on terrorism to invade a country that had little, or nothing, to do with the events of 9/11. Islamic fundamentalists see/saw saddamn as a heathen and way too secular to be in league with him. Outside of a mutual dislike of the U.S. they had nothing in common. I just didn't see the thoughtful, careful use of reason from this administration to fully exhaust every possible option before deciding to start the shock and awe nightmare. The only shock I see now is the daily death of humans, and awe thinking about how much of my taxes aren't going to needed domestic causes, but to pay for this war. Others no doubt see it differently.

yes, we do. if you really don't believe saddam was in league with al-quaeda, then you just choose to ignore the evidence. and not just al-quaeda but hamas and all the other palestinian terror organizations.
even if all that evidence was not there, it was still time for saddam to go, just based on the mass graves they are still discovering every day.
we've only been there for 6 months and for the last 5 we've been hearing from the press what a quagmire we are stuck in, and how many bodies are coming home.
of course the american soldiers that are dying are a tragedy, but acceptable, compared to what we are accomplishing over there.


 
addi Posted: Tue Oct 28 07:59:59 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hif, that was pretty harsh. You're beginning to sound like me, and that can't be good :)

>ifihadahif said:

>yes, we do. if you really don't believe saddam was in league with al-quaeda, then you just choose to ignore the evidence. and not just al-quaeda but hamas and all the other palestinian terror organizations.

Where is all this evidence I'm choosing to ignore? Where are the proven solid connections between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists? Fox News?

>even if all that evidence was not there, it was still time for saddam to go, just based on the mass graves they are still discovering every day.

Tragedy? Yes! Saddam an asshole? YES! So how 'bout we invade every country with a cruel totalitarian leader that's guilty of mass killings? Why Iraq and not the others? Hmmmm..."They threatened my Daddy", "I know we can go in there and quickly whip there ass", "Iraq has oil, and those other countries don't have anything Chaney wants". "They have all sorts of WMD's, Biological weapons, and aluminum tubes!"

>of course the american soldiers that are dying are a tragedy, but acceptable, compared to what we are accomplishing over there.

Acceptable to whom? You? What exactly are we accomplishing over there, Hif? Explain it so a dimwitted liberal like me can understand.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Oct 28 08:25:32 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Hif, that was pretty harsh. You're beginning to sound like me, and that can't be good :)
>
>>ifihadahif said:
>
>>yes, we do. if you really don't believe saddam was in league with al-quaeda, then you just choose to ignore the evidence. and not just al-quaeda but hamas and all the other palestinian terror organizations.
>
>Where is all this evidence I'm choosing to ignore? Where are the proven solid connections between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists? Fox News?

now there you go again. no one has ever said saddam was tied in with the 9/11 terrorists, only that he was in league with al-quaeda and the palestininan terrorists. while the al-quaeda link is a little more sketchy, the evidence is there in documents and testimony. i've posted it before. al-quaeda officers received hospitality and medical care in baghdad, and abu nidal(not sure if the name is correct, the guy that masterminded the achille lauro affair) seemed to have retired in baghdad.
Saddam was very open about his rewards to the families of the homicide bombers in palestine.
>
>>even if all that evidence was not there, it was still time for saddam to go, just based on the mass graves they are still discovering every day.
>
>Tragedy? Yes! Saddam an asshole? YES! So how 'bout we invade every country with a cruel totalitarian leader that's guilty of mass killings? Why Iraq and not the others? Hmmmm..."They threatened my Daddy", "I know we can go in there and quickly whip there ass", "Iraq has oil, and those other countries don't have anything Chaney wants". "They have all sorts of WMD's, Biological weapons, and aluminum tubes!"

so, are you saying that most of the civilized world was not in agreement that he had wmd's ?
why iraq and not the others ? because the others are not yet a threat to us.
so, by your logic, taiwan must have oil too eh ? and the phillipines ? how much oil is over there ? what does libya have that we want ? or syria ? or north korea ? we are dealing with all of these rogue states as well and not for their oil.
you must pick and choose your fights carefully and it was the right time to invade iraq. saddam had some nasty shit and was willing to sell it to anyone with a check.
>
>>of course the american soldiers that are dying are a tragedy, but acceptable, compared to what we are accomplishing over there.
>
>Acceptable to whom? You? What exactly are we accomplishing over there, Hif? Explain it so a dimwitted liberal like me can understand.

you might start by interviewing the families who are sifting through the mass graves or the guy who got his daughter back in a baggie after she was dropped in the shredding machine. they might be able to tell you what we are accomplishing.

we have to date established the reopening of some 3100 schools for iraqi children who couldn't go to school before. we are shipping tons of books and school supplies every day. medical care has improved. virtually everything has improved but you won't see that in the news because they don't want you to know that we are succeeding in iraq.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]