watching Bush on TV this evening I couldn't help but wonder...
-
Cathy wrote: Oh gee how could I have missed that? The man is doing everything humanly possible to get us into a war with Iraq. No he isn't. He is doing his job, nothing more. Al Gore would be doing the same thing right now if he had been elected. Anyone would. Of course, I'm sure if it were a Democrat in there, you would behind him all the way. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
Amen - except Gore would have to consult with a fashion consultant first to find out how to look manly. Mike
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: True, but Bush also said he did not want war several times. Unfortunatly politicians lie, especially this one. My goodness, why aren't we trying to have him impeached. I see a lot more grounds for it. Who cares who the man's sleeping with? Is he doing his job or lining his pockets and carrying out personal grudges? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: A) In Bushes mind he is not starting the war just finishing it. Incredible! Michael A. Barnhart wrote: B) Read Exodus 17:8. Bushes God definitly does direct his people to war. Ok I just read it. It sounds like he told them to defend themselves. I also don't believe the bible can be taken literally. Cathy Life's uncertain, have dessert first!
Cathy wrote: Unfortunatly politicians lie, especially this one. bullshit. Cathy wrote: why aren't we trying to have him impeached. because the democrats can't do anything other than whine. Cathy wrote: I see a lot more grounds for it. name one legal reason. Cathy wrote: Who cares who the man's sleeping with? I do. he's sleeping with his wife. Cathy wrote: Is he doing his job or lining his pockets and carrying out personal grudges? His job - how utterly stupid can you be? Mike
-
Cathy wrote: Unfortunatly politicians lie, especially this one. My goodness, why aren't we trying to have him impeached. From this as a standard we would have to remove all politician of all countries. A little impractical. Your bias in stating Bush is more of a liar than previous is showing. Cathy wrote: Is he doing his job or lining his pockets and carrying out personal grudges? I could honestly say this sounds just as much like a complaint against Clinton as Bush. Cathy wrote: I also don't believe the bible can be taken literally. Then why did you start the thread implying he was not following his GOD. Cathy wrote: Ok I just read it. It sounds like he told them to defend themselves. A) The US was attacked on 9/11. (I am not saying the link ot Iraq has been shown, just noting in Bush's statements this is defense.) B) Kuwait was attacked and the US was asked to help defend it. The current situation is a continuation of those events so is still in defense. ""
I agree with most of your points, but in my opinion Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Kuwait was attacked and the US was asked to help defend it. The current situation is a continuation of those events so is still in defense lacks any substance. You can't call an self-initiated attack a defense on an event 10 years gone. Especially this time nobody's been attacked, demanding for help. I think the situation would differ if it were proved that Iraq is an danger and the world needs to be defensed. But at the moment your opinion would mean that one could also attack some other countries (f.i. NK) and then call it defense. Anyway, I don't want to restart that discussion ;).
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
-
Cathy wrote: Unfortunatly politicians lie, especially this one. bullshit. Cathy wrote: why aren't we trying to have him impeached. because the democrats can't do anything other than whine. Cathy wrote: I see a lot more grounds for it. name one legal reason. Cathy wrote: Who cares who the man's sleeping with? I do. he's sleeping with his wife. Cathy wrote: Is he doing his job or lining his pockets and carrying out personal grudges? His job - how utterly stupid can you be? Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Is he doing his job or lining his pockets and carrying out personal grudges? His job - how utterly stupid can you be? In fact a president surely won't have much chance to struggle it's own fights in policy. There're many other people behind him that tell him what to do and what to say. Not the president makes all the decisions. He can only give them a personal touch, and Bush is possibly personally influenced in his speeches - I fear that he personally really wants the war, whatever the reason may be. But anyway, I think there's no need for offense if someone utters other opinions, Mike.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
-
I agree with most of your points, but in my opinion Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Kuwait was attacked and the US was asked to help defend it. The current situation is a continuation of those events so is still in defense lacks any substance. You can't call an self-initiated attack a defense on an event 10 years gone. Especially this time nobody's been attacked, demanding for help. I think the situation would differ if it were proved that Iraq is an danger and the world needs to be defensed. But at the moment your opinion would mean that one could also attack some other countries (f.i. NK) and then call it defense. Anyway, I don't want to restart that discussion ;).
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
Schlaubi wrote: You can't call an self-initiated attack a defense on an event 10 years gone. You damn sure can. If they do not abid by the terms of the original surrender, than the original surrender is invalid regardless of how much time has passed. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
-
I agree with most of your points, but in my opinion Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Kuwait was attacked and the US was asked to help defend it. The current situation is a continuation of those events so is still in defense lacks any substance. You can't call an self-initiated attack a defense on an event 10 years gone. Especially this time nobody's been attacked, demanding for help. I think the situation would differ if it were proved that Iraq is an danger and the world needs to be defensed. But at the moment your opinion would mean that one could also attack some other countries (f.i. NK) and then call it defense. Anyway, I don't want to restart that discussion ;).
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
Schlaubi wrote: But at the moment your opinion would mean that one could also attack some other countries (f.i. NK) and then call it defense. I agree if there is no substance the line you mention is implied. :rose: I was not offering my opinion just a flaw in the orignial complaint. Schlaubi wrote: lacks any substance. It is not my opinion that events justify the actions that appear to about to happen. It is my belief that as part Peace Agreement of the invastion of Kuwait Iraq was requried to disarm. They have not done so. So I do not agree that this argument lacks substance. It may very well not be justified but that is a different line. :rose: ""
-
Schlaubi wrote: But at the moment your opinion would mean that one could also attack some other countries (f.i. NK) and then call it defense. I agree if there is no substance the line you mention is implied. :rose: I was not offering my opinion just a flaw in the orignial complaint. Schlaubi wrote: lacks any substance. It is not my opinion that events justify the actions that appear to about to happen. It is my belief that as part Peace Agreement of the invastion of Kuwait Iraq was requried to disarm. They have not done so. So I do not agree that this argument lacks substance. It may very well not be justified but that is a different line. :rose: ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I was not offering my opinion just a flaw in the orignial complaint. Sorry that I missed that point. :rose: Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It is not my opinion that events justify the actions that appear to about to happen. Sorry again, I misunderstood that :rose: Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It is my belief that as part Peace Agreement of the invastion of Kuwait Iraq was requried to disarm. They have not done so. So I do not agree that this argument lacks substance. It may very well not be justified but that is a different line. I think the problem about that topic is that everyone can turn the facts in a direction that supports his opinion - both you and me. I could ask why it needed 10 years to realize that Iraq did not follow all the required regulations, suddenly feeling the need for defense. But as you already mentioned, it may or may not be justified, we can't change anything either.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
-
Cathy wrote: Unfortunatly politicians lie, especially this one. My goodness, why aren't we trying to have him impeached. From this as a standard we would have to remove all politician of all countries. A little impractical. Your bias in stating Bush is more of a liar than previous is showing. Cathy wrote: Is he doing his job or lining his pockets and carrying out personal grudges? I could honestly say this sounds just as much like a complaint against Clinton as Bush. Cathy wrote: I also don't believe the bible can be taken literally. Then why did you start the thread implying he was not following his GOD. Cathy wrote: Ok I just read it. It sounds like he told them to defend themselves. A) The US was attacked on 9/11. (I am not saying the link ot Iraq has been shown, just noting in Bush's statements this is defense.) B) Kuwait was attacked and the US was asked to help defend it. The current situation is a continuation of those events so is still in defense. ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US was attacked on 9/11. (I am not saying the link ot Iraq has been shown, just noting in Bush's statements this is defense.) then don't even bring it up. 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. you might as well be accusing Saddam for the weak economy, AIDS or driving Adam and Eve out of Eden. it's a cheap sales ploy. he's trying to link the product to an unrelated emotional issue - like cute puppies and fabric softener, or pretty women playing volleyball with Newport Lights. it's an effective sales technique - as long as the consumer isn't paying attention. obviously, some people fall for the pitch. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Kuwait was attacked and the US was asked to help defend it. The current situation is a continuation of those events so is still in defense. the Kuwait situation was resolved in a matter of days. this new situation is GWB's obsessive desire to get rid of Saddam - using whatever rationalization he can - false links to terrorism, unproven WMD claims, secret intelligence, etc.. if the US has intelligence about Saddam and WMDs but isn't telling the UN about it, then the US itself is in violation of UN:1441 . para. 10: "10. Requests all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates; including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA; " and, if GWB is willing to invade Iraq without UN approval, how can he claim to do it in the name of a UN resolution (either 1441 or those from the first gulf war)? if you don't follow the rules and decisions of the UN except when they agree with you, how can you claim to be acting on their behalf? A: you can't. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Is he doing his job or lining his pockets and carrying out personal grudges? His job - how utterly stupid can you be? In fact a president surely won't have much chance to struggle it's own fights in policy. There're many other people behind him that tell him what to do and what to say. Not the president makes all the decisions. He can only give them a personal touch, and Bush is possibly personally influenced in his speeches - I fear that he personally really wants the war, whatever the reason may be. But anyway, I think there's no need for offense if someone utters other opinions, Mike.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
Schlaubi wrote: I think there's no need for offense if someone utters other opinions Opinions are one thing, unsubstantiated accusations are quite another. Just for the record, my opinion is that we (the US and allies at the point it happens) are going to war with Iraq. Furthermore I honestly and firmly believe it was not necessary if the United Nations did the job it was organized to do. After the invasion by Iraq into Kuwait and the subsequent trouncing of Saddam, a set of conditions were agreed on to bring an end to the conflict. Those conditions included, among others, compensation to Kuwait for the destruction wrought by Iraq, the return of prisoners taken by Iraq, and, disarmament by Iraq - none of this was done. Disarmament is what Bush is after. The UN Security Council, via Resolution 1441 specifically gave Saddam and Iraq one last chance to disarm. The weapons inspectors were to verify the accuracy of Iraq's claims of having disarmed. Iraq obviously has not and now the idea of inspections has changed to one where it is their job to find the weapons, report to Saddam, he then destroys those weapons that he "forgot" about. Now the Security Council and weak-knee'd liberals in the US are crying about "more time" when if they had all stood firm Saddam would have had to disarm already. He's (Saddam) stringing them and us along and he is being aided and abetted by France, Russia, China, and our cadre of home grown leftists. France, point in fact, has been secretly helping Saddam maintain his armaments. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm[^] So if there is a war, who is really responsible? Mike
-
Cathy wrote: Unfortunatly politicians lie, especially this one. bullshit. Cathy wrote: why aren't we trying to have him impeached. because the democrats can't do anything other than whine. Cathy wrote: I see a lot more grounds for it. name one legal reason. Cathy wrote: Who cares who the man's sleeping with? I do. he's sleeping with his wife. Cathy wrote: Is he doing his job or lining his pockets and carrying out personal grudges? His job - how utterly stupid can you be? Mike
-
what diety he is talking about. He said he's praying for guidance about Iraq. I'm thinking there is no way God would direct him to start a war with anyone. Only Satan wants wars. Conclusion: Bush must be a Satan Worshiper. Cathy Life's uncertain, have dessert first!
:zzz: BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
Blaming religion seems a popular reason to start war - always has been. I guess leaders think that if they tell the general population they are going to war under their "god's" guidance, their people will automatically feel justified in the action. Quite ridiculous, as you say.
I may try to delete my CP cookies. But its almost like tossing the keys of the appartment into the river. - Andreas Saurwein
I'm so tired of hearing about Bush getting strength, certainty, comfort, etc., from his faith. He's decided what he wants to do then prays and, lo and behold, gets the answer he wants. Isn't it lucky that God is on his side. It's logically equivalent to Osama.
-
Schlaubi wrote: You can't call an self-initiated attack a defense on an event 10 years gone. You damn sure can. If they do not abid by the terms of the original surrender, than the original surrender is invalid regardless of how much time has passed. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
Stan Shannon wrote: "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush. other memorable quotes: "We're not into nation-building." "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." "I'm going to talk about making sure we strengthen the military, we strengthen our alliances, we strengthen the international economy through free trade." (one out of three ain't bad?) GWB
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Schlaubi wrote: I think there's no need for offense if someone utters other opinions Opinions are one thing, unsubstantiated accusations are quite another. Just for the record, my opinion is that we (the US and allies at the point it happens) are going to war with Iraq. Furthermore I honestly and firmly believe it was not necessary if the United Nations did the job it was organized to do. After the invasion by Iraq into Kuwait and the subsequent trouncing of Saddam, a set of conditions were agreed on to bring an end to the conflict. Those conditions included, among others, compensation to Kuwait for the destruction wrought by Iraq, the return of prisoners taken by Iraq, and, disarmament by Iraq - none of this was done. Disarmament is what Bush is after. The UN Security Council, via Resolution 1441 specifically gave Saddam and Iraq one last chance to disarm. The weapons inspectors were to verify the accuracy of Iraq's claims of having disarmed. Iraq obviously has not and now the idea of inspections has changed to one where it is their job to find the weapons, report to Saddam, he then destroys those weapons that he "forgot" about. Now the Security Council and weak-knee'd liberals in the US are crying about "more time" when if they had all stood firm Saddam would have had to disarm already. He's (Saddam) stringing them and us along and he is being aided and abetted by France, Russia, China, and our cadre of home grown leftists. France, point in fact, has been secretly helping Saddam maintain his armaments. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm[^] So if there is a war, who is really responsible? Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: So if there is a war, who is really responsible? Bush, period. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: True, but Bush also said he did not want war several times. Unfortunatly politicians lie, especially this one. My goodness, why aren't we trying to have him impeached. I see a lot more grounds for it. Who cares who the man's sleeping with? Is he doing his job or lining his pockets and carrying out personal grudges? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: A) In Bushes mind he is not starting the war just finishing it. Incredible! Michael A. Barnhart wrote: B) Read Exodus 17:8. Bushes God definitly does direct his people to war. Ok I just read it. It sounds like he told them to defend themselves. I also don't believe the bible can be taken literally. Cathy Life's uncertain, have dessert first!
Cathy wrote: Ok I just read it. It sounds like he told them to defend themselves. I also don't believe the bible can be taken literally. You slam Bush for being a Satan worshiper (when you clearly know nothing about his christian religion), then you go and make a statement like this. I'll be sure to not take anything you say literally from now on.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Cathy wrote: I also don't believe the bible can be taken literally. Pretty sad the way people twist it to their interpretation of their situation. Of course, this problem is not unique to any one religion. Zealous freaks from all sorts of religions who have the propoganda gene in them come out with wierd and wonderful interpretations. Like the muslim cleric who stated that the Columbia's fate was God's curse on the Isreali onboard, as "proved" by the fact it crashed in an area of Texas called Palestine. X|
I may try to delete my CP cookies. But its almost like tossing the keys of the appartment into the river. - Andreas Saurwein
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I was not offering my opinion just a flaw in the orignial complaint. Sorry that I missed that point. :rose: Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It is not my opinion that events justify the actions that appear to about to happen. Sorry again, I misunderstood that :rose: Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It is my belief that as part Peace Agreement of the invastion of Kuwait Iraq was requried to disarm. They have not done so. So I do not agree that this argument lacks substance. It may very well not be justified but that is a different line. I think the problem about that topic is that everyone can turn the facts in a direction that supports his opinion - both you and me. I could ask why it needed 10 years to realize that Iraq did not follow all the required regulations, suddenly feeling the need for defense. But as you already mentioned, it may or may not be justified, we can't change anything either.
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
Schlaubi wrote: I think the problem about that topic is that everyone can turn the facts in a direction that supports his opinion - both you and me. I could ask why it needed 10 years to realize that Iraq did not follow all the required regulations, suddenly feeling the need for defense. But as you already mentioned, it may or may not be justified, we can't change anything either. Why 10 years? Well there was a president in office for 8 of those years that let Saddam run roughshod over the whole inspection process. Then there was that 9/11 thing that happened. Now we are in self-defense mode and we will remove anyone that supports terror from power.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Schlaubi wrote: I think there's no need for offense if someone utters other opinions Opinions are one thing, unsubstantiated accusations are quite another. Just for the record, my opinion is that we (the US and allies at the point it happens) are going to war with Iraq. Furthermore I honestly and firmly believe it was not necessary if the United Nations did the job it was organized to do. After the invasion by Iraq into Kuwait and the subsequent trouncing of Saddam, a set of conditions were agreed on to bring an end to the conflict. Those conditions included, among others, compensation to Kuwait for the destruction wrought by Iraq, the return of prisoners taken by Iraq, and, disarmament by Iraq - none of this was done. Disarmament is what Bush is after. The UN Security Council, via Resolution 1441 specifically gave Saddam and Iraq one last chance to disarm. The weapons inspectors were to verify the accuracy of Iraq's claims of having disarmed. Iraq obviously has not and now the idea of inspections has changed to one where it is their job to find the weapons, report to Saddam, he then destroys those weapons that he "forgot" about. Now the Security Council and weak-knee'd liberals in the US are crying about "more time" when if they had all stood firm Saddam would have had to disarm already. He's (Saddam) stringing them and us along and he is being aided and abetted by France, Russia, China, and our cadre of home grown leftists. France, point in fact, has been secretly helping Saddam maintain his armaments. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm[^] So if there is a war, who is really responsible? Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Just for the record, my opinion is that we (the US and allies at the point it happens) are going to war with Iraq. I agree with you. Apparently there's no other possiblity considered any more. Mike Gaskey wrote: After the invasion by Iraq into Kuwait and the subsequent trouncing of Saddam, a set of conditions were agreed on to bring an end to the conflict. Those conditions included, among others, compensation to Kuwait for the destruction wrought by Iraq, the return of prisoners taken by Iraq, and, disarmament by Iraq - none of this was done. Well, I don't really know what of these conditions have been done. The Iraqi disarmament is still a controversional topic - nobody could show evidences for or against it. I don't have any clue what's happened with any prisoners. But I think that Kuwait has surely gained financial support by the US, even if it hasn't been published. Mike Gaskey wrote: Disarmament is what Bush is after. The UN Security Council, via Resolution 1441 specifically gave Saddam and Iraq one last chance to disarm. The weapons inspectors were to verify the accuracy of Iraq's claims of having disarmed. Iraq obviously has not and now the idea of inspections has changed to one where it is their job to find the weapons, report to Saddam, he then destroys those weapons that he "forgot" about. As I mentioned above, nothing has been proved until now. However, the weapon inspectors seem to have failed in their plans to completely disarm Iraq. And surely Saddam isn't the nice guy following orders form the outside. But the question is whether he's really that dangerous Bush claims him to be. Even if he didn't fulfill all regulations, does that mean that he's owning WMD? So does it justify an attack? I fear there're countries more dangerous for the world, ownig or planing to produce WMD. And nobody really demands for resolutions and attacks in their case. Mike Gaskey wrote: France, point in fact, has been secretly helping Saddam maintain his armaments. Yeah, as other countries did. Who knows whether or not the US dealed with Iraq?
We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve
-
Stan Shannon wrote: "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush. other memorable quotes: "We're not into nation-building." "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." "I'm going to talk about making sure we strengthen the military, we strengthen our alliances, we strengthen the international economy through free trade." (one out of three ain't bad?) GWB
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US was attacked on 9/11. (I am not saying the link ot Iraq has been shown, just noting in Bush's statements this is defense.) then don't even bring it up. 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. you might as well be accusing Saddam for the weak economy, AIDS or driving Adam and Eve out of Eden. it's a cheap sales ploy. he's trying to link the product to an unrelated emotional issue - like cute puppies and fabric softener, or pretty women playing volleyball with Newport Lights. it's an effective sales technique - as long as the consumer isn't paying attention. obviously, some people fall for the pitch. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Kuwait was attacked and the US was asked to help defend it. The current situation is a continuation of those events so is still in defense. the Kuwait situation was resolved in a matter of days. this new situation is GWB's obsessive desire to get rid of Saddam - using whatever rationalization he can - false links to terrorism, unproven WMD claims, secret intelligence, etc.. if the US has intelligence about Saddam and WMDs but isn't telling the UN about it, then the US itself is in violation of UN:1441 . para. 10: "10. Requests all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates; including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA; " and, if GWB is willing to invade Iraq without UN approval, how can he claim to do it in the name of a UN resolution (either 1441 or those from the first gulf war)? if you don't follow the rules and decisions of the UN except when they agree with you, how can you claim to be acting on their behalf? A: you can't. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
Chris Losinger wrote: and, if GWB is willing to invade Iraq without UN approval, how can he claim to do it in the name of a UN resolution (either 1441 or those from the first gulf war)? if you don't follow the rules and decisions of the UN except when they agree with you, how can you claim to be acting on their behalf? A: you can't. We are still a soveriegn nation and if we deem it necessary to attack in self-defense then the UN be damned.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi