The Iraq War: Somehow Even Worse than you Thought?
-
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! ¤ 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
-
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.