watching Bush on TV this evening I couldn't help but wonder...
-
A little off topic but I think he made up some new words tonight as well. Last I checked "forthrightly" is not in the dictionary. I beginning to see that GWB may be smarter than the general concensus thinks. He knows what to say and do in order to look good. But his public speaking skill make him look dumb, which I guess is also an advantage because people will "misunderestimate" him. Brad Jennings "if the golden arches shut shop, where else are the VB people going to get work." - Colin Davies
Brad Jennings wrote: Last I checked "forthrightly" is not in the dictionary. You check that often? :rolleyes: Paul We all will feed the worms and trees
So don't be shy - Queens of the Stone Age, Mosquito Song -
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.
Dear God... if you want me to attack Iraq: please give me no sign. Paul We all will feed the worms and trees
So don't be shy - Queens of the Stone Age, Mosquito Song -
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
Schlaubi wrote: The Iraqi disarmament is still a controversional topic - nobody could show evidences for or against it. Each of Hans Blix's reports to the UN state that he has yet to account for the chemical and biological weapons he is known to possess. Schlaubi wrote: However, the weapon inspectors seem to have failed in their plans to completely disarm Iraq. It was NOT THEIR JOB to disarm Iraq. It WAS THEIR JOB to verify that he had. Schlaubi wrote: But the question is whether he's really that dangerous Bush claims him to be. No it is not. The question is, "has he disarmed". Schlaubi wrote: I fear there're countries more dangerous for the world, Iran, North Korea... - you think the UN is up to that? Schlaubi wrote: Yeah, as other countries did. Proof? 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. ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: From this as a standard we would have to remove all politician of all countries Now there is a plan :) Paul We all will feed the worms and trees
So don't be shy - Queens of the Stone Age, Mosquito Song -
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 fear that he personally really wants the war, whatever the reason may be. Here's an analogy for you: Say you have this neighbor dog that keeps growling and barking at your kids. One day the dog bites one of your kids. You go to the local pound and demand that the dog be taken away. Months pass and nothing is done, the dog is still there threatening your kids. What do you do? Well, you decide, reluctantly, that the dog has to go. You're not a killer and you really like dogs but this one is a real menace. So you call the pound again and they still do nothing. The next morning you take matters into your own hands and you shoot the dog, thus removing the neighborhood menace. Now your neighbor hates you, but at least your kids are safe. IMO, Bush doesn't want war, he just wants to remove the threat facing us and our allies.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Jason Henderson wrote: That day changed eveything yes, apparently so.
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
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." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: 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 A terror attack by some radical Muslims caused the US to turn to self-defense" mode. Why does self-defense justify an attack on Iraq whithout knowing whether there's any relation to Quaeda? You can't attack any country that could possibly have any connection to terrorists without any evidence. Hope this attitude won't last for long.
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
-
Jason Henderson wrote: That day changed eveything yes, apparently so.
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: 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 A terror attack by some radical Muslims caused the US to turn to self-defense" mode. Why does self-defense justify an attack on Iraq whithout knowing whether there's any relation to Quaeda? You can't attack any country that could possibly have any connection to terrorists without any evidence. Hope this attitude won't last for long.
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
Its not the country of Iraq that we're attacking, its the leaders of Iraq. They have supported Hamas openly, and al-Queda linked terrorists in the Phillipines have also admitted receiving money from Iraq. The man is unstable and he DOES support terror. Therefore he must go by whatever means.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
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." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: then the UN be damned. no. read the fucking paragraph. GWB is telling the world that Saddam agreed to disarm, as the result of a UN action. GWB is telling the world that Saddam is not living up to the terms of a UN resolution. GWB is telling the world that the UN needs to enforce what it says. then GWB says (and his starry-eyed followers parrot), that, in effect, the UN is irrelevant. but, if the UN is irrelevant, you can't use it as a reason to invade a country. if you're going to do what you want regardless of what the UN says, then all of the UN resolutions must be irrelevant, too. GWB can't logically use 1441 as a rationale for invading Iraq unilaterally. so, that leaves the "threat to the US" argument, which, even tho GWB was careful to repeat a hundred times, is simply nonsense. there are a dozen other countries who are much more of a threat to the US than Iraq is. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
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.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Would you rather it didn't? i would prefer that it only changed things that are actually relevant. Iraq is not relevant. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: So blame me also then i expect you will take the blame for each and every iraqi civillian killed by stray US bombs. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Its not the country of Iraq that we're attacking, its the leaders of Iraq. They have supported Hamas openly, and al-Queda linked terrorists in the Phillipines have also admitted receiving money from Iraq. The man is unstable and he DOES support terror. Therefore he must go by whatever means.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: Its not the country of Iraq that we're attacking, its the leaders of Iraq. Only that an attack will affect hundred thousands of people, who have to suffer under the consequences of a war. Jason Henderson wrote: and al-Queda linked terrorists in the Phillipines have also admitted receiving money from Iraq Didn't hear anything similar. Are you sure about that? Because if this was proved there were no discussions about the connections between Al Quaeda and Iraq any more, but still they go on. Still nobody has a proof. Jason Henderson wrote: The man is unstable and he DOES support terror. If he does, why hasn't he been removed 10 years ago? And why did the US support him over years, even delivering chemical weapons?
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
-
Jason Henderson wrote: So blame me also then i expect you will take the blame for each and every iraqi civillian killed by stray US bombs. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Its not the country of Iraq that we're attacking, its the leaders of Iraq. Only that an attack will affect hundred thousands of people, who have to suffer under the consequences of a war. Jason Henderson wrote: and al-Queda linked terrorists in the Phillipines have also admitted receiving money from Iraq Didn't hear anything similar. Are you sure about that? Because if this was proved there were no discussions about the connections between Al Quaeda and Iraq any more, but still they go on. Still nobody has a proof. Jason Henderson wrote: The man is unstable and he DOES support terror. If he does, why hasn't he been removed 10 years ago? And why did the US support him over years, even delivering chemical weapons?
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: suffer under the consequences of a war. No worse than suffering gas attacks by their own leader. Schlaubi wrote: Are you sure about that? Yes, I think I posted a link to the article here in the soapbox just a few days ago. A member of the terror group in the Phillipines came right out and said they received money from Iraq. What kind of proof do you need if you won't believe the proof before your eyes?
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Jason Henderson wrote: Sure, blame me for any accidents that happen too you got it. if you're driving your car in a hurry to get somewhere and you kill a kid on a bike, you're still responsible for killing him, even if you think you have a valid reason for driving fast. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Schlaubi wrote: The Iraqi disarmament is still a controversional topic - nobody could show evidences for or against it. Each of Hans Blix's reports to the UN state that he has yet to account for the chemical and biological weapons he is known to possess. Schlaubi wrote: However, the weapon inspectors seem to have failed in their plans to completely disarm Iraq. It was NOT THEIR JOB to disarm Iraq. It WAS THEIR JOB to verify that he had. Schlaubi wrote: But the question is whether he's really that dangerous Bush claims him to be. No it is not. The question is, "has he disarmed". Schlaubi wrote: I fear there're countries more dangerous for the world, Iran, North Korea... - you think the UN is up to that? Schlaubi wrote: Yeah, as other countries did. Proof? Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Each of Hans Blix's reports to the UN state that he has yet to account for the chemical and biological weapons he is known to possess. But it's not proved that he still owns them. One can only surmise it, even if it's very likely to be true. Mike Gaskey wrote: It was NOT THEIR JOB to disarm Iraq. It WAS THEIR JOB to verify that he had. Does that mean that if the inspectors had the chance to help to disarm Iraq, in case Iraq hasn't done it yet, wouln'd count? Would there still be a reason for an attack. And in fact Blix has never mentioned that Iraq has really outraged Resolution 1441. Thus no reason for war in the eyes of the UN. Mike Gaskey wrote: But the question is whether he's really that dangerous Bush claims him to be. No it is not. The question is, "has he disarmed". It is. If Bush hadn't requested a resolution, there'd be no question of disarmament. And the Resolution was passed because Saddam was claimed to be dangerous. Mike Gaskey wrote: Iran, North Korea... - you think the UN is up to that? Surely not - but what can they do when everyone focuses only on Iraq, and when Bush doesn't care about UN at all. Mike Gaskey wrote: Yeah, as other countries did. Proof? No proof yet, but in case of US I think it wouldn't get published, especially when US intelligence reveal such things.
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
-
What do you think a God of peace, love and justice would do with someone who rejects all of those things? Have the supreme court appoint him president of the United States? Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Each of Hans Blix's reports to the UN state that he has yet to account for the chemical and biological weapons he is known to possess. But it's not proved that he still owns them. One can only surmise it, even if it's very likely to be true. Mike Gaskey wrote: It was NOT THEIR JOB to disarm Iraq. It WAS THEIR JOB to verify that he had. Does that mean that if the inspectors had the chance to help to disarm Iraq, in case Iraq hasn't done it yet, wouln'd count? Would there still be a reason for an attack. And in fact Blix has never mentioned that Iraq has really outraged Resolution 1441. Thus no reason for war in the eyes of the UN. Mike Gaskey wrote: But the question is whether he's really that dangerous Bush claims him to be. No it is not. The question is, "has he disarmed". It is. If Bush hadn't requested a resolution, there'd be no question of disarmament. And the Resolution was passed because Saddam was claimed to be dangerous. Mike Gaskey wrote: Iran, North Korea... - you think the UN is up to that? Surely not - but what can they do when everyone focuses only on Iraq, and when Bush doesn't care about UN at all. Mike Gaskey wrote: Yeah, as other countries did. Proof? No proof yet, but in case of US I think it wouldn't get published, especially when US intelligence reveal such things.
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: No proof yet, but in case of US I think it wouldn't get published, especially when US intelligence reveal such things. Do you mean there's no intelligence elsewhere? Schlaubi wrote: Bush doesn't care about UN at all. Nor do I. A complete waste of time and money. It irritates me that President Bush has taken the time to interact with this collection of fools. Schlaubi wrote: It is. If Bush hadn't requested a resolution, there'd be no question of disarmament. And the Resolution was passed because Saddam was claimed to be dangerous. Wrong. There was no question of inforcing the disarmement terms until President Bush pushed the issue. He simply is forcing the UN to live up to it's responsibilities. Mike