The Iraq War: Somehow Even Worse than you Thought?
-
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
-
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
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
-
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
Liberals are some of the most racist and discriminating people there are.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo. It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird. Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings. The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Everyone needs believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.
-
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
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, trot out your little Jefferson quote on sedition if it makes you feel better about being a traitor.
Yeah wouldn't want any of those pesky facts to get in the way of your opinions now would we.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Slander
Nice little bushy, good boy, maybe he'll toss you a doggy biscuit, oh wait, he doesn't have the money to pay for one! Oh wait, that won't stop him from spending the money will it?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
I know you brother, you long for the good old days of burning witches, inquisitions and slavery.
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, trot out your little Jefferson quote on sedition if it makes you feel better about being a traitor.
Yeah wouldn't want any of those pesky facts to get in the way of your opinions now would we.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Slander
Nice little bushy, good boy, maybe he'll toss you a doggy biscuit, oh wait, he doesn't have the money to pay for one! Oh wait, that won't stop him from spending the money will it?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
I know you brother, you long for the good old days of burning witches, inquisitions and slavery.
led mike
led mike wrote:
know you brother, you long for the good old days of burning witches, inquisitions and slavery.
I long for the good old days when the US was not a committed fascist state.
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:
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.
And the glaring difference is, in the case of Bush there are overwhelming indications and some evidence ( not proof positive, it's easy to lie about everything when there is no semen stained dress ) that those allegations are true. There was none of that for Carter that I can recall. Not that I really give a rats ass, One of The Worst Presidents Ever is fine with me.
led mike wrote:
All that remains is to see how many of them can stand up like men and admit it
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have no problem with Bush being similarly criticized.
Ok so there's sort of one, any more?
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
And the glaring difference is, in the case of Bush there are overwhelming indications and some evidence ( not proof positive, it's easy to lie about everything when there is no semen stained dress ) that those allegations are true. There was none of that for Carter that I can recall. Not that I really give a rats ass, One of The Worst Presidents Ever is fine with me.
led mike wrote:
All that remains is to see how many of them can stand up like men and admit it
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have no problem with Bush being similarly criticized.
Ok so there's sort of one, any more?
led mike
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
-
Oh give it a rest. That isnt what it was about. Sadam was not a supporter or aider to Islamic terorism. Heck, he was suffering it himself. As for WMD, he didnt have any did he? After all, you would have found it if he did so thats bull too. FAct is, the US wanted the oil. So it made up a story and invaded.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I would tend to agree on one point with Stan, I don't believe it was for oil. IMO the reason of the war is just a mix of arrogance (Cheney) with plain stupidity (GWB).
If you kill a whale, you get Greenpeace and Jacques Cousteau on your back, but wipe out sardines and you get a canning subsidy! Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
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.
-
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
-
I would tend to agree on one point with Stan, I don't believe it was for oil. IMO the reason of the war is just a mix of arrogance (Cheney) with plain stupidity (GWB).
If you kill a whale, you get Greenpeace and Jacques Cousteau on your back, but wipe out sardines and you get a canning subsidy! Fold with us! ¤ flickr
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
-
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:
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
-
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.