Subject:
|
Re: Help me with the math
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Sep 2004 17:15:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1114 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
How outrageous! Bush’s intervention in Iraq was all about deposing SH’s
cruel and dangerous regime-- nothing more!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
You keep piping up with tha line. Bush’s invasion was about stopping Saddam
from immenent use of “WoMD” - nothing more. It was not about deposing
Saddam because he was cruel - that’s a retroactive argument used because
the real argument for war turned out to be a load of hooey.
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Please. SH was always a threat to stability in that region-- the first
Gulf War was ample proof of that.
|
That has absolutely nothing to do with the point. Bush sold the war on the
basis of “WoMD” (Weapons of Mass Destruction for anyone wandering by) and
when Bush couldn’t find any, he came up with the “bad man” excuse. Bait and
switch.
|
I don’t agree. He sold the war on the premise that SH was a bad man who
possessed WMDs and wouldn’t think twice about making those weapons available
to our enemies. I never bought the direct threat idea-- just the aid and
abett idea. After all, there are many nations who possess WMDs. We don’t
worry about them because we trust that they won’t use them or give them to
those who would use them against us. We had no such assurance from SH,
especially knowing that the bastard actually used them on his own people.
|
Look up the quote chain and you’ll see I established “immenent use of WoMD”.
Basically, you are agreeing with me. All you did is weasel in the words “bad
man”.
| |
| |
| |
Again, intelligence was bad WRT WMD but
frankly, in a scenario like that it is in our best interests to err on the
side of caution.
|
That is really easy to answer: where is the head of Osama bin Laden?
|
He could actually be dead. If he weren’t, why remain so silent? If he were,
why acknowledge that your great leader was killed? Who knows.
|
You accept that lame explanation? You are satisfied with that? A shrug of the
shoulders and the thousands of dead rest easier and you can salve your
conscience about supporting Bush?
| |
| |
Where
has our international respect and standing gone?
|
What international respect and standing? From the UK? From France? From
Russia? From Germany? From Poland?
|
I’ll take that as you agree with my point.
| |
| |
How about this: Clinton is the anti-christ! He’s evil
incarnate!
|
I KNEW IT!! Hmmm, but then what does that make Hillary??? :-)
|
Mia Farrow.
| |
| |
So what? What does that have to do with Bush’s performance in
office?
|
Retracted already. Have a sip of Earl Gray; shaken, not stirred...
| |
| |
| |
Why are we still meeting
| |
resistance in Iraq? All we want to do is help the Iraqis set up a
government that insures freedom for her people and leave! What is
wrong with that????
|
One, that may not be all Bush and Cheney are attempting to do.
|
And it may be. Your hatred of Bush won’t let you consider this
possibility.
|
I said “may”. That carries with it the implication that it may not. You
have assumed incorrectly. I am not convinced that they are up to something,
but I certainly won’t exonerate them. I can see reason for people to be
suspicious of their motivations.
|
Well then why mention it? It’s idle speculation.
|
Think it through: What you are saying is if anything is not 100% certain, it
shouldn’t be mentioned. I wouldn’t call it “idle” in any case.
| |
| |
The overwhelming majority of Iraqi’s want us out at this point, too. And
you are failing to realize that I realize that the overwhelming majority of
Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone.
|
Even though you realize that I may not have realized that you realize that
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are happy SH is gone, you have failed to
realize that, given the choice of us leaving and thereby creating a power
vacuum, or us staying until they can fill the vacuum, the overwhelming
majority of Iraqis would prefer the latter.
|
On what basis do you claim that?
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
We attacked to remove SH’s regime-- that regime is history! So why is
there still fighting? Because of Islamic Fascists who don’t want Freedom!
They want pukes like SH in power around the world who are sympathetic to
their cause who will assist them in their fight against the West.
|
Saddam stepped on them in Iraq - he didn’t want rival power structures,
and that’s exactly what the fundamentalists were. Removing Saddam removed
their natural predator.
|
We will suppress them until a free Iraq is able to defend herself on her
own.
|
I take it by that response that you are abandoning your claim about Saddam
and Islamic extremists are working hand in hand.
|
Not “hand in hand”. More like “you scrub my hairy back and I’ll comb your
moustache.” Certainly he didn’t tolerate power grabs from within his
populace. He made unholy alliances with OBL types who furthered his own pet
causes-- terror against Jews (thus gaining him status in the Muslim world)
and attacks against the hated US.
|
9/11 Commision report found no connection between hairy back and combed
moustache. No Al Qaeda connection.
| |
| |
Supressing them carries a
large variety of its own risks and you’ll note Bush tippy-toeing around this
“suppression”.
| |
| |
| |
Bush is brilliant for taking this fight to Islamo-Fascists now before the
stakes got too high. Why must we wait for a nuclear bomb to be denotated
on our soil before everyone gets the message??? The only way to stop
these wackjobs is for all nations to unite to purge them from their
respective soils. Some need assistance to do so, but it is imperative
that these scumbags find no place to hide and organize! Then we can go
about the business of hunting them down one by one and exterminating them
like the vermin they are.
|
Brilliant for sitting on his hands while the terrorists blew up the World
Trade Center?
|
Are we talking about Clinton or Bush here? ;-)
|
Shall I repeat the question or are you going to dodge it again?
|
I only dodged because I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Is this some
reference to MM’s F911? You are assuming of course that he somehow knew who
even perpetrated the attacks initially. My brother-in-law lived 2 blocks
from the WTC and watched the second plane fly into tower 2-- his initial
reaction was that something had gone haywire with the transponders atop the
Trade Towers and that planes were being drawn into them. Crazy maybe, but it
illustrates that, at the time, nobody knew what the hell was going on. Why
suppose that the attack was limited to NY and DC alone?
|
Read the 9/11 commision’s report. Bush did squat. Nothing. Nada. Despite
numerous warnings, he took no proactive measures. I keep talking about
proactive measures and you keep talking about reactive things. Basically, Bush
sat around doing nothing, ignoring increasing signs of what was coming. How can
you say Bush is brilliant by any standard of the word when he was completely
unprepared in the face of his own subordinates’ warnings?
| |
Even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight-- what brilliant action would
suggest he to have done?
|
Read the 9/11 commisions findings.
| |
| |
| |
| |
He didn’t have an ounce of forethought on that,
|
Not sure what you mean here. I thought everyone agreed that swift
intervention in Afganistan was precisely the correct and immediate
response.
|
FOREthought - as in preventing the tragedy from happening. You are talking
about a reactive response.
|
And you are talking crazy. Do you honestly believe that he could have done
something to prevent 9-11?
|
Read the 9/11 commision’s report. Yes. We could have.
| |
Remember, the whole thing was planned long before
he even came to office.... Seems to me that Clinton should have pursued
the matter more vigorously after the first attack on the WTC!
|
Clinton is not running for re-election. Clinton was not on watch when the World
trade Center was destroyed. Clinton is not responsible for allowing bin Laden
to go unpunished for three years. Bush ignored all the warning signs regardless
of what Clinton did or did not do. Using Clinton as the universal excuse is
about the lamest defense there is.
| |
| |
| |
| |
just like he
didn’t have an ounce of forethought about how to handle Iraq once Saddam
was booted.
|
Please cite for me one article where someone predicted the outcome of
SH’s deposition.
|
I take it you don’t realize you just made my point for me?
|
That George W Bush can’t predict the future???? What kind of a silly
indictment is that???
|
Funny, I figured it out. Why the heck couldn’t Bush? Because he didn’t think!
Silly indictment? That’s about the worse indictment I can make of a president.
| |
| |
| |
| |
Brilliant for not hunting down the one scumbag he had a world mandate
to hunt down?
|
Please. Are you implying that every possible effort isn’t still being made
to find and capture OBL?
|
I thought I was saying point blank that Bush has wasted resources, time, and
energy into a wild goose chase instead on concentrating on the task at hand.
|
Why in the world would you think that the 2 would be mutually exclusive?
|
Why in the world would you think that we have unlimited resources? Haven’t you
noticed they have resorted to refusing enlistment endings? Do we have an
endless pocketbook? Do we endless trained personnel? Do we have unlimited
equipment?
| |
| |
Imply? Please. Do you see the head of Osama bin Laden three years later?
I sure don’t.
|
What I do see is no follow-up attack has ocurred on US soil three years
later. Do you suppose that was in OBL’s little playbook? I sure don’t.
|
How many years did you say that the WTC attack took? Disrupting the attacks and
ending the attacks are two different things.
| |
| |
| |
Don’t be so sure. Wait until the Islamo-fascists start attacking them
(Beslan???). And watch out. Don’t be surprised if Russia starts shaking
things up in
|
Maybe that wouldn’t have happened if Bush had captured bin Laden instead of
futzing about in Iraq.
|
Again, we have a big army. I think that they can walk and chew gum at the
same time. I can’t believe that you believe that Bush isn’t doing every
single thing he can to capture OBL. Look at it from a re-election POV--
finding OBL would virtually ensure victory in November!
|
You do realize that you are agreeing that Bush is an idiot with that statement?
:-)
| |
| |
| |
Pakistan!
| |
Brilliant? Hardly - he’s an idiot.
|
I believe that that kind of knee-jerk epithet is beneath you, -->Bruce<--!
|
I think I backed up my statements fairly well.
|
What he did wasn’t stupid. You may disagree with what he did, but he has
protected US soil from terrorism for 3 years and has acted to insure the flow
of oil to protect our economy and our way of life. I’d say that’s what a
President should do. He defended our country.
|
Ahhhh, oil. Allow me to cut and paste from way up there at the top of this
message:
JOHN: Why are we still meeting resistance in Iraq? All we want to do is help
the Iraqis set up a government that insures freedom for her people and leave!
What is wrong with that????
Green-Eyed Devil’s Advocate: that may not be all Bush and Cheney are attempting
to do.
Thank you for supporting my point.
And he sat on his thumbs while 3000 people were murdered, and only then did he
get off his butt and do something, and even that was misdirected. I’m not
impressed.
| |
| |
Certainly better than your
claims of him being brilliant.
|
Taking the war to the terrorists was bold. I’d rather fight them “there”
with our military than here with our civilians.
|
That decision wasn’t exactly rocket science.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I wouldn't state that Dubya The Idiot did nothing. He did something--he told all his buddies--remember that many of them didn't, or wouldn't, fly in the preceeding weeks leading up to 9/11. Note that this pre 9/11 (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) I believe that the Bush administration believed he had them and could at any time make them available to al-Qaeda. That was the source of the immediacy, not that some attack was imminent. (...) Do you have a better explanation of the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) I don't agree. He sold the war on the premise that SH was a bad man who possessed WMDs and wouldn't think twice about making those weapons available to our enemies. I never bought the direct threat idea-- just the aid and abett idea. After (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
57 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
