The Iraq War: Somehow Even Worse than you Thought?
-
:zzz:
Sleeping would be one potential way to pretend Bush hasn't been the Worst President Ever. Burying your head in the ground could work, smoking crack, or one of the old Republican Standards have an affair, gay or straight whatever floats your Largest Deficit EVER barge. Bush and Cheney suck hard, it's no longer an opinion or prognostication, it's history and all of their undying supporters have now been proven wrong. All that remains is to see how many of them can stand up like men (gay or straight we liberals don't discriminate) and admit it, anyone? Let's see all those VALUES shining through eh? Ah yes the silent 1 vote, another Bush Whacker is heard from. Said there ain't no use in crying. Cause it will only, only drive you mad Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had? Oh-oh Heading out for the weekend everyone. Have a great one. Stopped in to see the votes on this post,
3.13/5 (8 votes)which is just about where the last two presidential votes ended up, we've come a long way baby. X|
Last modified: 3hrs 24mins after originally posted --
led mike
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Totally irrelevant. He sent money to Palestinian families, among them families of suicide bombers. It was never a support for terrorism.
"I get 72 virgins AND my family gets taken care of? Where do I sign?" Yeah, totally irrelevant. :rolleyes:
Diego Moita wrote:
Only chemical weapons used only against the Iraqis Kurdish and Shia people. Although that's horrendous by itself it is not a justification for an invasion. And he didn't have the means to use it against the US.
He had WMDs, was willing to use them, was actively seeking other WMDs, and was secretive. Leave him alone and he could have developed the means to use it against anybody. He certainly had the means to use it against US interests like bases and embassies.
Diego Moita wrote:
bullsh*t... El Baradei was one of the first to say that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, before the war.
You can hem and haw about this all day, but it was clearly stated "let the inspectors see everything, or we invade" and he refused. And nukes weren't the only thing they were looking for.
Diego Moita wrote:
It was imperialism
HA. This one cracks me up every time I hear it. How is this like Japan in the 30's or England, France & Spain a few centuries ago?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
Not forgetting the US and EU pumped millions in to Palestine during the same period.
BoneSoft wrote:
He had WMDs
Did you find any after the invasio? Nope.
BoneSoft wrote:
Leave him alone and he could have developed the means to use it against anybody. He certainly had the means to use it against US interests like bases and embassies
The best he could manage at his strongest was to hit Tel Aviv withe a few modified SS20s which were innefective. Do you think he is any stroger after 10 years of sanctions and restrictions? Nope.
BoneSoft wrote:
How is this like Japan in the 30's
Yes. Japan invaded other countries to get their resources. The US did the same.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
FAct is, the US wanted the oil. So it made up a story and invaded.
How can anyone still be promoting that ridiculous notion? We have not, and unfortunantly will not, confiscate any of Iraq's oil. It is hitting the market pretty much the same way it always did. I wish we would confiscate it. Bush invaded bacuse he thought it was the responsible thing to do and because he subscribed to the dubious notion that a democratic Islamic state in that region would be in the long term best interest of the world. There is absolutely nothing more to the story than that. I never supported the invasion because I felt that any military campaign that did not also include Syran and Iran would be worse than a complete waste of time, but there is no reason to believe that the president's motives were any thing less than honorable. (BTW, since you are not an American, your attitude is not offensive to me, you are entitled to your opinions. But when Americans slander the motives of a setting commander in chief while troops are legally committed to combat is the very worst kind of treason imaginable).
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
the same way it always did
But it wasnt, was it? He couldnt sell it, not till the oil for food was set uo by the EU. But if the US has allowed that to go ahead you would have had to pay in Euros for the oil, and that hurts, because you dont export. No, better to invade, and sell it in dollars. That way you can print as much paper and ink as you like to pay for it, which makes it effectively free.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Not forgetting the US and EU pumped millions in to Palestine during the same period.
BoneSoft wrote:
He had WMDs
Did you find any after the invasio? Nope.
BoneSoft wrote:
Leave him alone and he could have developed the means to use it against anybody. He certainly had the means to use it against US interests like bases and embassies
The best he could manage at his strongest was to hit Tel Aviv withe a few modified SS20s which were innefective. Do you think he is any stroger after 10 years of sanctions and restrictions? Nope.
BoneSoft wrote:
How is this like Japan in the 30's
Yes. Japan invaded other countries to get their resources. The US did the same.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Japan invaded other countries for land. They occupied with no intention of ever leaving. And if this was all some elaborate conspiracy for the sole purpose of getting oil, then why is gas now at an all time high? To believe this was all for nothing but oil is ludicrous.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Sleeping would be one potential way to pretend Bush hasn't been the Worst President Ever. Burying your head in the ground could work, smoking crack, or one of the old Republican Standards have an affair, gay or straight whatever floats your Largest Deficit EVER barge. Bush and Cheney suck hard, it's no longer an opinion or prognostication, it's history and all of their undying supporters have now been proven wrong. All that remains is to see how many of them can stand up like men (gay or straight we liberals don't discriminate) and admit it, anyone? Let's see all those VALUES shining through eh? Ah yes the silent 1 vote, another Bush Whacker is heard from. Said there ain't no use in crying. Cause it will only, only drive you mad Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had? Oh-oh Heading out for the weekend everyone. Have a great one. Stopped in to see the votes on this post,
3.13/5 (8 votes)which is just about where the last two presidential votes ended up, we've come a long way baby. X|
Last modified: 3hrs 24mins after originally posted --
led mike
Carter is the undisputed worst president ever.
led mike wrote:
and all of their undying supporters have now been proven wrong
How so?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
fat_boy wrote:
FAct is, the US wanted the oil. So it made up a story and invaded.
How can anyone still be promoting that ridiculous notion? We have not, and unfortunantly will not, confiscate any of Iraq's oil. It is hitting the market pretty much the same way it always did. I wish we would confiscate it. Bush invaded bacuse he thought it was the responsible thing to do and because he subscribed to the dubious notion that a democratic Islamic state in that region would be in the long term best interest of the world. There is absolutely nothing more to the story than that. I never supported the invasion because I felt that any military campaign that did not also include Syran and Iran would be worse than a complete waste of time, but there is no reason to believe that the president's motives were any thing less than honorable. (BTW, since you are not an American, your attitude is not offensive to me, you are entitled to your opinions. But when Americans slander the motives of a setting commander in chief while troops are legally committed to combat is the very worst kind of treason imaginable).
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
but there is no reason to believe that the president's motives were any thing less than honorable.
No proof maybe, but certainly plenty of reason.
Stan Shannon wrote:
is the very worst kind of treason imaginable
Not according to Thomas Jefferson, wait, aren't you always touting Jeffersonian Principles here in the SoapBox? Did you pick a bad day to to stop taking your schizophrenia medication?
led mike
-
Carter is the undisputed worst president ever.
led mike wrote:
and all of their undying supporters have now been proven wrong
How so?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Carter is the undisputed worst president ever.
You're wrong about that. http://www.wildnesswithin.com/worst.html[^] http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history[^] http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira49.html[^] http://www.heartheissues.com/worstpresidents.html[^]
-
I was tipped off to this article in The Australian[^] this morning. Here are some choice quotes from Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: "When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn't focus very much on the cost. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US100billion and $US200 billion - and for that slight moment of quasi-honesty he was fired. "(Then defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld responded and said 'baloney', and the number the administration came up with was $US50 to $US60 billion. We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3 trillion. "Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that." -------- "The ratio of injuries to fatalities in a normal war is 2:1. In this war they admitted to 7:1 but a true number is (something) like 15:1." What's your favorite Iraq War fun fact? Is it that we could end illiteracy worldwide with just one week's funding, or that there are already 100,000 US Servicepersons with mental problems?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3 trillion.
That will look like chicken feed if we stay there for another 50 years. Don't imagine it can't happen. The Brits were there for something like 40 years.[^]
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Carter is the undisputed worst president ever.
You're wrong about that. http://www.wildnesswithin.com/worst.html[^] http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history[^] http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira49.html[^] http://www.heartheissues.com/worstpresidents.html[^]
My mistake, Carter is the widely accepted worst president in history.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Iraq was a weak crippled country due to the sanctions and no fly zones. If that is a threat to the US then you must be even weaker.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I think Goliath said that too, just before he got a terminal headache.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
"The Iraq War: different than War." Yeah, real clear.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
"The Iraq War: different than War." Yeah, real clear.
His phrasing and your defense of it display a total ignorance of war and combat. He may have won the prize-awarded-to-economists-at-the-same-time-the-Nobel-Prize-is-given-out (But which sure as shit isn't a Nobel prize) but it appears his knowledge of the history of warfare is sadly lacking.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
the same way it always did
But it wasnt, was it? He couldnt sell it, not till the oil for food was set uo by the EU. But if the US has allowed that to go ahead you would have had to pay in Euros for the oil, and that hurts, because you dont export. No, better to invade, and sell it in dollars. That way you can print as much paper and ink as you like to pay for it, which makes it effectively free.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
But this very thread indicates the war might ultimately run into the many trillions of dollars. How can that possibly be construed as 'free' regardless of how you happend to produce the money? What you are essentially argueing is that Bush intentionally set out to destroy the AMerican economy, and sacrifice thousands of lives, so that oil companies could earn a little extra cash. I suppose you are free to believe that if you like, but I simply have a tad more faith in the motives of American leadership than that. I'm all for investigations into the issue, but if nothing nefarious turns up I want full public apologise from all involved, and possible investigations into the motives of his opponents who benefitted from such charges politically.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
My mistake, Carter is the widely accepted worst president in history.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
My mistake, Carter is the widely accepted worst president in history.
I agree, but I am not alone in considering Bush II to be the Republican version of Carter. On the other hand, looking at the choices we're being offered for the next election, it looks like one or the other of them will have to cede their position as their party's number one. :omg:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
but there is no reason to believe that the president's motives were any thing less than honorable.
No proof maybe, but certainly plenty of reason.
Stan Shannon wrote:
is the very worst kind of treason imaginable
Not according to Thomas Jefferson, wait, aren't you always touting Jeffersonian Principles here in the SoapBox? Did you pick a bad day to to stop taking your schizophrenia medication?
led mike
led mike wrote:
but certainly plenty of reason.
Reason for criticism, but not public slander. If the president is not guilty of the accusations than it is nothing but slander. That is a line that a patriotic citizen does not cross.
led mike wrote:
Not according to Thomas Jefferson, wait, aren't you always touting Jeffersonian Principles here in the SoapBox? Did you pick a bad day to to stop taking your schizophrenia medication?
Yeah, trot out your little Jefferson quote on sedition if it makes you feel better about being a traitor. Slander was slander in 1802 and it is slander today. Slander against a commander in chief in time of war for political gain regardless of its harm to the nation is something else altogether.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have.
Congrats, you learned well your neocons lesson So sad it s a set of lies.
I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly. Fold with us! ยค flickr
K(arl) wrote:
Congrats, you learned well your neocons lesson
Oh bullshit. Are you saying that Saddam didn't use WMDs? Are you saying that he didn't refuse to allow UN inspectors free access? Screaming neocon when someone tells the truth says a lot more about you than it does about him.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Regime that supported terrorists: fact - Saddam sent money to the families of suicide bobers thus encouraging it. track record for aquiring, using and sharing WMDs - also a fact. refusal to allow UN inspectors to look - Saddam had expelled them It may well be that he had suspended some of the above, but neither US nor NATO intelligence thought so. Nonetheless, they were not "a sad set of lies". Franky, had France not been so duplicitous in the run up to the war, constantly assuring Saddam that the US would never invade alone, he might have relented and allowed the inspectors back in, or even abdicated. Your country has some significant culpability here...
Rob Graham wrote:
Franky, had France not been so duplicitous in the run up to the war, constantly assuring Saddam that the US would never invade alone, he might have relented and allowed the inspectors back in, or even abdicated. Your country has some significant culpability here...
There's plenty to go around. Germany and Russia were making money hand over foot from their deals with Saddam. Had they not been so greedy and corrupt it's possible the embargo might have worked and the Iraq war would not have occurred.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I'm sure this Nobel Prize-winner will mourn his loss of credibility in your eyes. Try substituting the work "typical" and see if it lessens the psychic pain you're experiencing.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
I'm sure this Nobel Prize-winner
Who Stiglitz? Stiglitz is a conceited has-been. I would know - I know the man.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
My mistake, Carter is the widely accepted worst president in history.
I agree, but I am not alone in considering Bush II to be the Republican version of Carter. On the other hand, looking at the choices we're being offered for the next election, it looks like one or the other of them will have to cede their position as their party's number one. :omg:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
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
-
BoneSoft wrote:
My mistake, Carter is the widely accepted worst president in history.
I agree, but I am not alone in considering Bush II to be the Republican version of Carter. On the other hand, looking at the choices we're being offered for the next election, it looks like one or the other of them will have to cede their position as their party's number one. :omg:
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.
-
fat_boy wrote:
FAct is, the US wanted the oil. So it made up a story and invaded.
How can anyone still be promoting that ridiculous notion? We have not, and unfortunantly will not, confiscate any of Iraq's oil. It is hitting the market pretty much the same way it always did. I wish we would confiscate it. Bush invaded bacuse he thought it was the responsible thing to do and because he subscribed to the dubious notion that a democratic Islamic state in that region would be in the long term best interest of the world. There is absolutely nothing more to the story than that. I never supported the invasion because I felt that any military campaign that did not also include Syran and Iran would be worse than a complete waste of time, but there is no reason to believe that the president's motives were any thing less than honorable. (BTW, since you are not an American, your attitude is not offensive to me, you are entitled to your opinions. But when Americans slander the motives of a setting commander in chief while troops are legally committed to combat is the very worst kind of treason imaginable).
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
But when Americans slander the motives of a setting commander in chief while troops are legally committed to combat is the very worst kind of treason imaginable
What a good little German you are. You aren't a patriot. You are a sheep. The concept that questioning the motives of a sitting president would be the "very worst kind of treason imaginable" demonstrates the paucity of both your intelligence and imagination. Really? The "very worst?" Really?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
