The Iraq War: Somehow Even Worse than you Thought?
-
No, the very thought of oil being sold in euros scares the shit out of america because it is only that the dollar is backed by the black gold standard that your economy survives.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
No, the very thought of oil being sold in euros scares the sh*t out of america because it is only that the dollar is backed by the black gold standard that your economy survives.
I think you're entirely wrong about that. In fact, I think the dollar has been far too strong for far too long. That is one of the primary reasons for our trade deficit. Our economy survives because we remain more committed to basic free market economics than do other nations, it really has nothing to do with oil as a commodity except to the extent oil unfortunantly remains the energy source driving the current international economy, which certainly is not the fault of the US.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
But at worse, Carter has only ever been accused of incompetence. I have no problem with Bush being similarly criticized. However, Bush is accused of far worse. His political opponents routinely and publically demonize him for intentionally lieing in order to trick them into supporting his war effort, going to war illegally, and subverting civil rights for some kind of nefarious ulterior motive. That is simply beyond the pale and something no citizen with any degree of loyalty to the processes that define our system of government should tolerate.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
intentionally lieing in order to trick them into supporting his war effort
This is only because he lied.
Stan Shannon wrote:
going to war illegally
Never heard that. I personally have a lot of trouble with preemptive strikes as loved by Curtis LeMay and Dick Cheney, but I never heard anyone suggest they were actually illegal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
subverting civil rights for some kind of nefarious ulterior motive
This is only because he has been subverting civil rights wholesale.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Bush certainly isn't the best we've ever had, but I don't know if I'd go that far. But considering the up coming alternatives, I think I'd rather have Bush for a 3rd term. :laugh: In my humble opinion, the worst Bush has done is neglect a lot of issues at home, and intentionally ignore some issues like immigration. The only thing I really question about Iraq is the timing and the plan. I think there was less justification than Afghanistan, but not a huge amount. If I were a liberal with a tin foil beanie, I think my conspiracy theory would be that Iraq was a Christmas present for his dad, not an elaborate ploy to get oil 3 cents cheaper per barrel.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
If I were a liberal with a tin foil beanie, I think my conspiracy theory would be that Iraq was a Christmas present for his dad.
Well, of those theories, I always favored the idea that Cheney & Rumsfeld were show Bush Sr that he was wrong a decade earlier.
BoneSoft wrote:
not an elaborate ploy to get oil 3 cents cheaper per barrel.
Cheney did say at one point that Iraq's oil was going to pay for the war. I have no idea whether he was sober or not at the time.
BoneSoft wrote:
I think I'd rather have Bush for a 3rd term.
I still like my scenario. Tancredo ends up with job. :-D
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
intentionally lieing in order to trick them into supporting his war effort
This is only because he lied.
Stan Shannon wrote:
going to war illegally
Never heard that. I personally have a lot of trouble with preemptive strikes as loved by Curtis LeMay and Dick Cheney, but I never heard anyone suggest they were actually illegal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
subverting civil rights for some kind of nefarious ulterior motive
This is only because he has been subverting civil rights wholesale.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
This is only because he lied.
No, you are a liar for saying that.
Oakman wrote:
Never heard that. I personally have a lot of trouble with preemptive strikes as loved by Curtis LeMay and Dick Cheney, but I never heard anyone suggest they were actually illegal.
Many American citizens supported these statements...[^]
Oakman wrote:
This is only because he has been subverting civil rights wholesale.
Really? Presidents have been subvering civil rights flagrantly since the Lincoln administration. But then, do we really want leadership that puts every last constitutional interpretation ahead of their other specifically defined constitutional duties? To allow AMerican citizens to die out of respect for some terrorist's 'right' to use a telephone is a far worse abuse of his oath to the constitution than would be violating that so called right in order to save lives. It is the duty of the other branches of the government to monitor the presidents activities in that regard and to take appropriate action if such authority has been unnecessarily abused. That is always how our system has worked and there is no evidence that any thing differnt is going on now.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, there is in fact no evidence of any kind.
Whatever, there are countless intelligence and military members that have talked and written books and articles about the Bush lies on Iraq. I said it's not proof positive because it's easy to lie for Bush or any of those people, but all of them are lying? What, it's a conspiracy? Whatever, put your head back in the ground, it's probably best for everyone anyway. :zzz:
led mike
led mike wrote:
there are countless intelligence and military members that have talked and written books and articles about the Bush lies on Iraq.
From which I am certain they have made quite a handsome profit.
led mike wrote:
What, it's a conspiracy?
Now thats a very good question. How do you know its not? You don't seem to have any problem allowing your self to be convinced that Bush was on some kind of neocon conspiracy to increase Halliburton's profits (or something like that)
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Mission Accomplished! And for only 3 trillion dollars, a bargain at twice the price!
-
Sure... 1) I don't see how US & EU money to Palestine is relevant. 2) Didn't find doesn't mean they weren't there or even wasn't there. And it really doesn't matter, there was ample reason to believe they were there. If they weren't, then what was the harm in letting the inspectors in for a look-see? 3) What he could and could not hit at the time says nothing about what he could in the future. And like I said, he was actively seeking more WMDs and technologies. Plus with said secrecy, how could anybody be sure what he really had the capabilities of striking? Did you have nothing to say about the Imperial Japanese analogy?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
And I find that analysis perfectly justified. I would not say I agree with it entirely, as I think a case can be made that Iraq was a perfectly justified military operation, but I do think that Cheney and Rumsfield did possess an arrogant confidence in being able to conduct surgical 'smart' wars, and that Bush's wartime leadership was based upon principles he learned in business school.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Friday, February 29, 2008 5:28 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I find that analysis perfectly justified.
Certainly ... in that the analyst is "perfectly justified" in being himself arrogant and stupid.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I would not say I agree with it entirely, as I think a case can be made that Iraq was a perfectly justified military operation ...
Look, there is only one war. The "Iraq War" and the "Afghan War" are but battles in the actual war. Most of the arm-chair analysis/carping of the Bush adminsitration's conduct of the war is faulty because it ignores the very important constraint they are under -- they are trying to wage a war against "radical" Islam without causing all the Muslim in the world to decide that it is Islam itself we are at war with. Now, in actual fact, we *are* at war with Islam itself -- because Islam itself is and has always been and will always be at war with all-that-is-not-Islam. But, is it not worth the effort to try to fight this war while simultaneously convincing the majority of Muslims in the world to sit out the present phase?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I find that analysis perfectly justified.
Certainly ... in that the analyst is "perfectly justified" in being himself arrogant and stupid.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I would not say I agree with it entirely, as I think a case can be made that Iraq was a perfectly justified military operation ...
Look, there is only one war. The "Iraq War" and the "Afghan War" are but battles in the actual war. Most of the arm-chair analysis/carping of the Bush adminsitration's conduct of the war is faulty because it ignores the very important constraint they are under -- they are trying to wage a war against "radical" Islam without causing all the Muslim in the world to decide that it is Islam itself we are at war with. Now, in actual fact, we *are* at war with Islam itself -- because Islam itself is and has always been and will always be at war with all-that-is-not-Islam. But, is it not worth the effort to try to fight this war while simultaneously convincing the majority of Muslims in the world to sit out the present phase?
Well, fine. I might even add that the invasion of Iraq turned out to be a brilliant ploy at drawing al quida out into the open to engage us directly. Their very efforts to defeat us there is all the proof any one needs of the prudence of Bush's strategy. It also leaves us virtually enveloping Iran for future operations. I have no major problems with any of that. But, I was never a supporter of Rumsfeld's military doctrine. I don't believe in 'smart' wars and I think that while special forces operations may be great for very small scale operations, the notion that any thing other than full scale, conventional military campaigns will be needed to confront any enemy is absurd. And I do think that Bush's leadership is based upon business principles and leaves a lot to be desired in terms of military management. I don't think Bush has provided the quality of leadership we should have expected during this time of crisis. I also agree with others that if we are going to committ ourselves to an ongoing war againt Islam, we should have reinstituted the draft and created a much larger conventional military force for that purpose.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
But I never said his motives should not be questioned. I'm saying that a certain level of respect for the processes that define our democracy is certainly the duty of any citizen. The vitriole against Bush has gone far beyond questioning his motives to out right accusations that he is repsonsible for sacrificing American life and treasure for his own personnal selfish reasons. This has created a situation wherein either the president is a traitor to the nation or his detractors are. There is no other possible interpretation of the situation.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
The vitriole against Bush has gone far beyond questioning his motives to out right accusations that he is repsonsible for sacrificing American life and treasure for his own personnal selfish reasons.
That's only because he has sacrificed American lives and resources for his own personal selfish reasons.
Stan Shannon wrote:
This has created a situation wherein either the president is a traitor to the nation or his detractors are
Well, his detractors aren't.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
This is only because he lied.
No, you are a liar for saying that.
Oakman wrote:
Never heard that. I personally have a lot of trouble with preemptive strikes as loved by Curtis LeMay and Dick Cheney, but I never heard anyone suggest they were actually illegal.
Many American citizens supported these statements...[^]
Oakman wrote:
This is only because he has been subverting civil rights wholesale.
Really? Presidents have been subvering civil rights flagrantly since the Lincoln administration. But then, do we really want leadership that puts every last constitutional interpretation ahead of their other specifically defined constitutional duties? To allow AMerican citizens to die out of respect for some terrorist's 'right' to use a telephone is a far worse abuse of his oath to the constitution than would be violating that so called right in order to save lives. It is the duty of the other branches of the government to monitor the presidents activities in that regard and to take appropriate action if such authority has been unnecessarily abused. That is always how our system has worked and there is no evidence that any thing differnt is going on now.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you are a liar for saying that.
Oh I am a liar a thousand times over, but not for saying that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Many American citizens supported these statements...[^]
I don't know how to break it to you, but Kofi Annon is not an American citizen. Was this the best citation you could find???
Stan Shannon wrote:
Presidents have been subvering civil rights flagrantly since the Lincoln administration
Which means that you have come around 180 degress and agree the Bush has been doing so. Does that make you a traitor? All of the rest of your argument boils down to "we had to destroy the country in order to save it." I, personally, am not ready to trade liberty for security, no matter how many sheep cry out for it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Well, fine. I might even add that the invasion of Iraq turned out to be a brilliant ploy at drawing al quida out into the open to engage us directly. Their very efforts to defeat us there is all the proof any one needs of the prudence of Bush's strategy. It also leaves us virtually enveloping Iran for future operations. I have no major problems with any of that. But, I was never a supporter of Rumsfeld's military doctrine. I don't believe in 'smart' wars and I think that while special forces operations may be great for very small scale operations, the notion that any thing other than full scale, conventional military campaigns will be needed to confront any enemy is absurd. And I do think that Bush's leadership is based upon business principles and leaves a lot to be desired in terms of military management. I don't think Bush has provided the quality of leadership we should have expected during this time of crisis. I also agree with others that if we are going to committ ourselves to an ongoing war againt Islam, we should have reinstituted the draft and created a much larger conventional military force for that purpose.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, I was never a supporter of Rumsfeld's military doctrine. I don't believe in 'smart' wars and I think that while special forces operations may be great for very small scale operations, the notion that any thing other than full scale, conventional military campaigns will be needed to confront any enemy is absurd. And I do think that Bush's leadership is based upon business principles and leaves a lot to be desired in terms of military management. I don't think Bush has provided the quality of leadership we should have expected during this time of crisis. I also agree with others that if we are going to committ ourselves to an ongoing war againt Islam, we should have reinstituted the draft and created a much larger conventional military force for that purpose.
These are traitorous statements. The very worse form of traitorous statements! Call out the firing squads! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you are a liar for saying that.
Oh I am a liar a thousand times over, but not for saying that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Many American citizens supported these statements...[^]
I don't know how to break it to you, but Kofi Annon is not an American citizen. Was this the best citation you could find???
Stan Shannon wrote:
Presidents have been subvering civil rights flagrantly since the Lincoln administration
Which means that you have come around 180 degress and agree the Bush has been doing so. Does that make you a traitor? All of the rest of your argument boils down to "we had to destroy the country in order to save it." I, personally, am not ready to trade liberty for security, no matter how many sheep cry out for it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I, personally, am not ready to trade liberty for security, no matter how many sheep cry out for it.
I agree, but I don't see any freedoms that we've lost. And so far nobody who rails about it can point any out. The only one I know of is lax restrictions on surveillance. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Enough people argue this that I don't question that there could something to it, but like I said, so far nobody's been able to point them out to me.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The vitriole against Bush has gone far beyond questioning his motives to out right accusations that he is repsonsible for sacrificing American life and treasure for his own personnal selfish reasons.
That's only because he has sacrificed American lives and resources for his own personal selfish reasons.
Stan Shannon wrote:
This has created a situation wherein either the president is a traitor to the nation or his detractors are
Well, his detractors aren't.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That's only because he has sacrificed American lives and resources for his own personal selfish reasons.
If you are free to make such unsubstantiated slanderous comments about the president, which only serve to embolden the very enemies which are currently killing American troops, than I am certainly free to similarly accuse you of being a traitor. The blood of our servicemen is own your hands asshole.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, I was never a supporter of Rumsfeld's military doctrine. I don't believe in 'smart' wars and I think that while special forces operations may be great for very small scale operations, the notion that any thing other than full scale, conventional military campaigns will be needed to confront any enemy is absurd. And I do think that Bush's leadership is based upon business principles and leaves a lot to be desired in terms of military management. I don't think Bush has provided the quality of leadership we should have expected during this time of crisis. I also agree with others that if we are going to committ ourselves to an ongoing war againt Islam, we should have reinstituted the draft and created a much larger conventional military force for that purpose.
These are traitorous statements. The very worse form of traitorous statements! Call out the firing squads! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
No, that is prudent criticism of decisions with which I disagree. I am certain that the motives for making those decisions were perfectly honorable, and if they were not, I am confident that appropriate measures will be taken to ascertain the culpability of those involved.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
I, personally, am not ready to trade liberty for security, no matter how many sheep cry out for it.
I agree, but I don't see any freedoms that we've lost. And so far nobody who rails about it can point any out. The only one I know of is lax restrictions on surveillance. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Enough people argue this that I don't question that there could something to it, but like I said, so far nobody's been able to point them out to me.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
I agree, but I don't see any freedoms that we've lost.
For me, the blatant disregard for the extremely permissive checks placed on the executive branch when it comes to wiretapping (they can ask for permission two weeks after they've placed the wiretap!) is an egregious violation of civil rights. It is so very reminiscent of the European tolitarians that it reeks.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
That's only because he has sacrificed American lives and resources for his own personal selfish reasons.
If you are free to make such unsubstantiated slanderous comments about the president, which only serve to embolden the very enemies which are currently killing American troops, than I am certainly free to similarly accuse you of being a traitor. The blood of our servicemen is own your hands asshole.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
led mike wrote:
And the glaring difference is, in the case of Bush there are overwhelming indications and some evidence
No, there is in fact no evidence of any kind. There are accusations which range all the way from the Katrina 'genocide' to the Cheney attempt to slaughter his hunting party. But that is all there are - accusations. Believe me, I absolutely want the political opposition to produce proof for any of these accusations. In fact, I demand that the produce it, and if they don't I accuse them of being traitors who have used every possible excuse to gain politically from the very harm which they have inflicted upon the nation.
led mike wrote:
Ok so there's sort of one, any more?
Kiss my ass. I have been a critic of Bush from the very beginning of his presidency. I'll give him credit for putting conservatives in the federal judiciary, which is why I voted for him, but otherwise he has been a very great disappointment. But see, that is criticism, I'm not impugning his motives. I'm sure he has done the things he has done with the best of intentions even if I do disagree with them.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have been a critic of Bush from the very beginning of his presidency. I'll give him credit for putting conservatives in the federal judiciary, which is why I voted for him, but otherwise he has been a very great disappointment. But see, that is criticism, I'm not impugning his motives.
But your criticism isn't the same as most people's. You're unhappy with him because he hasn't gone far enough as a right wing drone and hasn't done enough to help establish the Shannon christian theocracy. Yours is criticism of omission, not commission.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
No, that is prudent criticism of decisions with which I disagree. I am certain that the motives for making those decisions were perfectly honorable, and if they were not, I am confident that appropriate measures will be taken to ascertain the culpability of those involved.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you are a liar for saying that.
Oh I am a liar a thousand times over, but not for saying that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Many American citizens supported these statements...[^]
I don't know how to break it to you, but Kofi Annon is not an American citizen. Was this the best citation you could find???
Stan Shannon wrote:
Presidents have been subvering civil rights flagrantly since the Lincoln administration
Which means that you have come around 180 degress and agree the Bush has been doing so. Does that make you a traitor? All of the rest of your argument boils down to "we had to destroy the country in order to save it." I, personally, am not ready to trade liberty for security, no matter how many sheep cry out for it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I don't know how to break it to you, but Kofi Annon is not an American citizen. Was this the best citation you could find???
Again, my comment was that many Americans have agreed with those statements rather than defending their president againt them.
Oakman wrote:
Which means that you have come around 180 degress and agree the Bush has been doing so. Does that make you a traitor?
Which means nothing of the sort.
Oakman wrote:
All of the rest of your argument boils down to "we had to destroy the country in order to save it." I, personally, am not ready to trade liberty for security, no matter how many sheep cry out for it.
Than I trust that you refuse to pay taxes, since your so opposed to political oppresion and all. I also assume that you demand that the courts allow you to participate in how your community defines the rules and standards it is governed by like a free man is supposed to be able to do. Every single law we have represents trading freedom for security. It is utterly insane to believe that the commander in chief can be restrained from prosecuting the duties the constitution grants him to defend the nation out of respect for every possible judicial interpretation of the constitution. If you care more about some entirely questionable 'right' to use a telephone than you do about the lives of your fellow citizens you are not some kind of heroic defender of liberty, you are simply an idiot. If it will help save someones life, I not merely allow them to wiretap my phone, I demand they do so. The 'right' to put my voice into a wire owned by the telephone company simply is not that precioius to me.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization