Spillminds Bash Bush thread

eric:

apologies for making you upset, but i am not pretending to know exactly how your company runs. since you are so proud and defensive, it would seem that you have poured your heart and soul into the company to make it great. i am also assuming it is not an oil company, since those corporations tend to be much larger.

the point i was making about the tax cuts and the 'little guys' is that you are enjoying a much larger margin of benefit from the last round of (temporary) tax cuts. that's all. i wasn't saying you are evil, i wasn't saying you were screwing them.

unless you can quote me on these things, don't accuse me of saying them.

and, no, i don't like americans or anyone being killed for a cause i believe to be a fallacy.

on a humanitarian level, i have successfully debated that this was 'iraqi liberation' sudden concern was TOTALLY BUNK.

i have successfully debated that having WMD at one time is not the same as having them modern day, and threatening to use them against us. this being the OFFICIAL PREMISE FOR WAR.

i also think that our soldiers are over there dying for a cause that will neither protect us from future revenge attacks from hundreds of fronts, nor stabilize the region. these are optimistic viewpoints, and i would be suprised to see them come to pass.

the next leader of the new, democratic iraq? no one wants to be him, since he will be assassinated.

keep invading countries with ties to al qaeda? we simply don't have the funds gnor the manpower nor the public support to do it. i just want to focus on staying on top of the world of trade, power, etc. -without these bullshit pre-emptive strikes!
 
None of us have a crystal ball and can predict the future but I do believe the with all the attention focused on Iraq that there will be a relatively stable govt. running the country, and any improvements in stability in the middle east are welcomed by the world. I'm not so optimistic as to believe that this will magically rid the middle east of its problems, but stability and democracy do tend to slowly spread, look at the decline of communism.

And you are right we do not have the resources to invade every country with ties to AQ, that is why the world needs to work together at this task, and sometimes it will require military action, other times not, but other nations need to ante up.

Take a look at Iraq, 17 UN resolutions laughed at by saddam. My feeling is do not pass the resolutions if you are no going to back them up, otherwise it is just a game, and the UN loses all credibility. The UN knew he had chemical weapons; he used them on his own people for god sake, yet their inspectors were thrown out. Then he lets them back in under the treat of force from the US, has them monitored, blocks their access to sites, and submits false documents which do not account for the destruction of these weapons.

How much longer should he have been allowed to toy with the world? I think it might have been different if the UN acted as soon as he first threw them out. Maybe this could have all been avoided if he saw unity and resolve amongst the nations.
 
'but other nations need to ante up.' sure, but look how much other countries pledged when they had a chance? a meager 2 billion. i guess reality intrudes once again! any guess why this number is so low? :D (this should be good)

'Take a look at Iraq, 17 UN resolutions laughed at by saddam. My feeling is do not pass the resolutions if you are no going to back them up, otherwise it is just a game, and the UN loses all credibility. The UN knew he had chemical weapons; he used them on his own people for god sake, yet their inspectors were thrown out. Then he lets them back in under the treat of force from the US, has them monitored, blocks their access to sites, and submits false documents which do not account for the destruction of these weapons.'

i could start in with singling out iraq once again, but it's getting so OLD. hey, we forged documents and submitted false documents to the UN, not to mention blackmalied and 'amended' iraq's proclamation documents. this is no secret. you sure have a lot of trust where they don't have it in the public!!! and why do you think this is? coincidence?

'toy with the world'.... what exactly are you referring to here?
i'm very curious. i am guessing it is more of your bais spin affecting your objectivity. (just speculation) would love to hear an answer for that one as well!

p.s. terrorism will never go away while others in the world live in poverty and desperate conditions (even then, who knows). utopian ideal? yes? a stark reality? yes.

this 'war' did not serve to root out terror, nor do we have the resources to attack on eery single hypothetical front.

it's just amazing how people think saddam was ready to enslave americans (or had a master plan to) -incredibly pessimistic- and then turn around and be overly optimistic about the maintain stability of iraq?! now *that* is incredible optimism! just look at the news today!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030929/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480

boy, things are starting to look better? come again??!

i don't share your optimism. without stability, no outside investments, no goverment. NO PROGRESS.
 
Sorry, Eric, can I have this dance?

hey, we forged documents and submitted false documents to the UN,
Click to expand...


I think, my confused little friend, that you're referring to Britain's documents that had been forged by an Italian over the alleged attempt to purchase uranium from Africa.

British intelligence paid money for that document, they were duped. Ooops.

Not America. Not Dubya.


, not to mention blackmalied and 'amended' iraq's proclamation documents. this is no secret
Click to expand...

I have no idea of what you're talking about. I think you lost other people too. Legitimate news services only, please.

you sure have a lot of trust where they don't have it in the public!!! and why do you think this is? coincidence?
Click to expand...

LOL

You kill me, Spilly. You really do.


p.s. terrorism will never go away while others in the world live in poverty and desperate conditions (even then, who knows). utopian ideal? yes? a stark reality? yes.
Click to expand...

Tell you what, Spilly. Take a trip to El Paso, Texas. Right across the border is a quaint little hellhole named Juarez. Walk around and check things out, you'll see poverty and desperate conditions that will make you queasy. It sure did me, 2 years ago when I visited.

Hear of any Mexicans strapping bombs around themselves lately? No? Hmmm.. Cubans? No? Hmmm.... how about Guatamala? Vietnamese hijacking airliners? No?

Guess your little theory doesn't hold water, does it?



'toy with the world'.... what exactly are you referring to here?

i'm very curious. i am guessing it is more of your bais spin affecting your objectivity. (just speculation) would love to hear an answer for that one as well!
Click to expand...

Uh, I think it was obvious that Eric was referring to the way Saddam thumbed his nose at the demands that the United Nations made to him.

this 'war' did not serve to root out terror, nor do we have the resources to attack on eery single hypothetical front.
Click to expand...

Really? I've got some really cool video clips of the United States Air Force rooting out terrorists. Rooted them right out of their caves at mach 2. Let me guess - we were blowing up girl scouts, right?

Yes, actually, we do have the resources. Because there are a great many nations working with us in our efforts, contrary to what your liberal toke-buddies tell you. Actually, it seems like we're winning. Seen any more attacks lately? No? Hmmmm....

it's just amazing how people think saddam was ready to enslave americans (or had a master plan to)
Click to expand...

LOL

You know the drill. Let's see your proof. You're full of surprises... I want to see this. God, that's funny!!
 
'I think, my confused little friend, that you're referring to Britain's documents that had been forged by an Italian over the alleged attempt to purchase uranium from Africa.

British intelligence paid money for that document, they were duped. Ooops.

Not America. Not Dubya.'

confused? once again, you wish!

is cnn a reputable enough source for you?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

how about the american edited iraqi weapons declaration documents?

just try the cnn search:

http://websearch.cnn.com/search/sea...p&sites=google&query=iraq+blackmail+documents

how easily we forget! just like bush first blaming the CIA, the british, and then one week later changing his stance.

you think i haven't seen third world living? i've seen people HURTING, and yes these people are desperate! what is the immediately the cause of the desperate situation is not similar, though the struggle may be.

my theory is fine, it's your connections that are lacking.

'Really? I've got some really cool video clips of the United States Air Force rooting out terrorists. Rooted them right out of their caves at mach 2. Let me guess - we were blowing up girl scouts, right?'

yeah, i'm sure you got a couple of them! what kills ME is that you people always tend to mis interpret my posts. i didn't say we didn't get any of them, i said we cannot get all of them! please feel free to interpret my posts to suit your needs.

you are either unrealistic or niave to assume there will never be a terror attack here on our soil again.
 
Funny I read the Cnn link and I fail to see where the US forged anything as you put it :

"i could start in with singling out iraq once again, but it's getting so OLD. hey, we forged documents and submitted false documents to the UN, not to mention blackmalied and 'amended' iraq's proclamation documents. this is no secret. you sure have a lot of trust where they don't have it in the public!!! and why do you think this is? coincidence?"

What the article said was :

"Who made the forgeries?

But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?

Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.

Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so"

You should really watch your choice of words for it makes you lose all credibility.

And second link is not a CNN report at all, but rather a list of links to other sites, who's credibility is not known. Unless you are talking about the first link, which is from CNN. The one where Iraq makes the accusations, little wonder why. Like you tell people. Come on, get real man!

Do you acctually read the articles or just the headings?

Tell me one more thing. What the hell does this mean :

"you think i haven't seen third world living? i've seen people HURTING, and yes these people are desperate! what is the immediately the cause of the desperate situation is not similar, though the struggle may be."

You totally skirted the issue NT brought up. He made the analogy that there are many poor people in the world, most of whom do not resort to terrorist activities. How did that refute NT point ?
Poverty does not equal terrrorism, sorry!

Final point to be made. NT did not say there will never be a terroist attack here again. What he said was there hasn't been since 9-11. Spin, spin, spin.
 
spillmind,

I must agree with Eric and NT here... your argument that poverty necessarily leads to terrorism does not hold water. Otherwise, every Third World country would be flooded with terrorism, and most inner cities in America would face terrorist attacks. But they don't. There might be increased cirme, but not terrorism like we see in Muslim extremists.
Not to mention that OBL came from an extremely wealthy family. Using your theory, he should be one of the last people to turn to terrorism.
 
'"Who made the forgeries?

But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?

Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.

Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so"'

do you get the gist of what i am saying? the US and britain were 'duped' into believing this was true and correct. i am saying that we were reaching for a reason, and this is just an example of really REALLY wanting something to be true, when in fact it wasn't. why is is everyone else thought this was BS from day 1???

feel free to pick apart my wording instead of seeing my point.

and no, i didn't skirt his analogy, in fact you quoted me in my response.

'you think i haven't seen third world living? i've seen people HURTING, and yes these people are desperate! what is the immediately the cause of the desperate situation is not similar, though the struggle may be.'

these people in the middle east are under the impression that the US is much to blame for these problems. as this is a generalization, there is a lot of people who think this and are taught this in schools, and then see how we operate firsthand in iraq. choas and desperate situation are commonplace in iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031001/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_164

still thinking optimismically?

he said there has not been a terror attack since 9-11, i know what he was saying. i was saying this is a poor analogy of the long term fight on terror. that it cannot and should not be used as a marker of effectiveness of the invasion of iraq on the 'war on terror'.

you get angry at me for sounding demeaning in my posts, but then you make me explain points to you i thought i already made
:confused:
 
jeff:

it's not suprising you agree with eric and NT, i don't think you've ever sided with me, possibly just on principle. besides the point.

again, people, i didn't say that poverty creates terrorism. i was saying that poverty does create desperate situations for different people, brining up the possibility of them taking desperate measures. a broad generalization that has so many applications,
there can be no direct analogy for poverty and desperataion in the middle east vs. poverty and desperation in peru, guatemala.

the link i just posted shows the frustration of the iraqi people. sop go right ahead and deny the link between unemployment, domestic hardship and terrorm in iraq. :rolleyes:

i'll take it you agree then about the shadiness of the afrian uranium documents, and the siezure and editing of the iraqis proclomation documents. i guess you believe we didn't edit/elter them either?! then we did we jump on them first, and then re-distribute them? :rolleyes:

i'm not fooled by this administration, and i never was. you people seem to think we can do no wrong!
 
Spillmind,

I would agree with you publicly if there was something we actually agreed on. It's got nothing to do with names or former disagreements.

Here is your original quote:
originally posted by spillmind
terrorism will never go away while others in the world live in poverty and desperate conditions (even then, who knows). utopian ideal? yes? a stark reality? yes.
Click to expand...

I interpret your statement like this: If there is poverty/desperation, there will be terrorism. Thus, poverty and desperation is a cause, if not the cause, of terrorism. So wherever one finds poverty, one should find terrorism.

My argument, which I believe is supported by the state of many impoverished nations today, is that poverty does not cause terrorism - which you now apparently agree with, seeing as how you have said there is no comparison between the Middle East (crawling with terrorists) and Central America (not crawling with terrorists):

originally posted by spillmind
a broad generalization that has so many applications,
there can be no direct analogy for poverty and desperataion in the middle east vs. poverty and desperation in peru, guatemala.
Click to expand...

My argument is that terrorism is caused not by poverty, but by a lust for power combined with a fanatical devotion to a violent cause. In the case of radical Islam, this is especially true: militant Muslims have repeatedly stated how they believe Western nations are evil and/or Satanic, and long to establish their dominance over the West.

I did not comment on any of the other things on your post because I haven't educated myself well enough on them to take a position. Please do not assume that silence means agreement.
 
' but by a lust for power combined with a fanatical devotion to a violent cause.'

by george dubya that sounds like the US of A!

i guess it all depends who's 'side you are on', eh?
 
Originally posted by spillmind
' but by a lust for power combined with a fanatical devotion to a violent cause.'

by george dubya that sounds like the US of A!

i guess it all depends who's 'side you are on', eh?
Click to expand...

How intellegent.

Bush is already in power. His "cause" is the Republican Party, and to a lesser extent, Christianity, neither of which are violent by nature.

And America is already the world's greatest power, and has no need to make war with countries halfway around the globe - except for the fact that the nation harbors those who have attacked the US.

So while that makes for a great sound byte (BTW, if you really believe that Bush and/or America are terrorsits, you've been listening to too many Dean speeches) it is logically indefensible.
 
yeah, i thought you'd like that one. i wonder if you ever see it from the perspective, so i threw it in there.

and no, there was no need to make war with countries around the world harboring our specific most hated form of terrorists, and just taking on one country (that was coincidentally rich with oil) and not the others suspected of the very same things is inconsistent. period.

bush won't be in office long enough to take out every country 'he' or whomever thinks is harboring terrorists. we've had enough bad information from everything from WMDs to saddam's exact location, to underestimating resistance, needs. where do the mistakes need to reach for you to scream uncle?

his 'cause' should be the people of the USA, not a party affiliation, and i firmly believe in the constitutinal right to freedom of religion. the fact the he tries to impose it upon others is something to be embarrassed of. false good intentions. i have no use for that nonsense!

http://www.namibian.com.na/2003/march/world/03C3F44DAB.html

rip the source if you like, since yahoo! got rid of the archived story. i have the AP version printed out, but i ain't scanning that thing in to prove what everyone already knows.

i don't trust bush's intentions, nor his lobbyists. there have been too many lies, too nuch 'misinformation'. and i don't understand why you do.
 
Originally posted by spillmind
and no, there was no need to make war with countries around the world harboring our specific most hated form of terrorists,
Click to expand...

There is no need to make war against terrorists who have attacked us?!? Should we have acquiesed to the terrorists' demands then?

and just taking on one country (that was coincidentally rich with oil) and not the others suspected of the very same things is inconsistent. period.
Click to expand...

If you mean Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, and/or Saudi Arabia - I agree, we should be putting pressure on these governments as well, to join to the war against terrorists. However, the leaders of these countries are not storing up WMDs, nor are they posing a threat to America as Iraq did. But I absolutely agree that we should take off the kid gloves with countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria.

bush won't be in office long enough to take out every country 'he' or whomever thinks is harboring terrorists. we've had enough bad information from everything from WMDs to saddam's exact location, to underestimating resistance, needs. where do the mistakes need to reach for you to scream uncle?
Click to expand...

Let's see... on a different thread, there is a report about people trying to smuggle WMDs out of Iraq, through Kuwait, to Europe. So will you believe that there were WMDs in Iraq now?!?

his 'cause' should be the people of the USA, not a party affiliation, and i firmly believe in the constitutinal right to freedom of religion. the fact the he tries to impose it upon others is something to be embarrassed of. false good intentions. i have no use for that nonsense!
Click to expand...

So you support the consititutional right to freedom of religion. Does that mean you supoort President Bush's freedom of religion to mention his relationship with God in his speeches?
 
'There is no need to make war against terrorists who have attacked us?!? Should we have acquiesed to the terrorists' demands then?'

apparently diplomacy had been excersised to it's fullest extent? if you do, there are plenty who do not share your views. considering the timing, rather suspect to many who don't believe our government's intentions hook line and sinker.

'If you mean Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, and/or Saudi Arabia - I agree, we should be putting pressure on these governments as well, to join to the war against terrorists. However, the leaders of these countries are not storing up WMDs, nor are they posing a threat to America as Iraq did. But I absolutely agree that we should take off the kid gloves with countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria.'

do you have proof saddam was storing up WMDs to use against us? if you do, the world is waiting. if not, this is not a legitimate reason. i'm getting tired of people saying having 'WMD' at one time is the EXACT SAME THING as having them present day and threatening to use them.

on a side note, you support bush's policy of rooting out terror, you have identified al qaeda as the most wanted terror group #1 -and therefore you should oppose our stance with SA (in bed with them). since that country harbors these terrorists as well.

you notice the news trying to hype up SA cracking down on terror. most of you should be smart enough to see a PR move when you see one. while it may be partially true, the fact remains we couldn't invade these countries because we don't the the MONEY to do so!

i mean, what's the sense in taking a lawnmower to a yard of weeds? if killing them all is your intention, it will never work. face it, none of your reasons for war are very consistant!

'Let's see... on a different thread, there is a report about people trying to smuggle WMDs out of Iraq, through Kuwait, to Europe. So will you believe that there were WMDs in Iraq now?!?'

that's great, i wonder why this was not front page news. i wonder why the gov doesn't point and say 'they smuggled them all out!' yeah, all this under satellite surveillance and constant bombing from drones? the entire stockpile bush was referring to? (do i need to post the numbers he was lying about?)

oh that's right, bush never lies, he just gets bad information
:rolleyes: NOW AGAIN: where do the mistakes need to reach for you to scream uncle? maybe never? :confused: blind faith will not serve you well with this topic.

'So you support the consititutional right to freedom of religion. Does that mean you supoort President Bush's freedom of religion to mention his relationship with God in his speeches?'

ok, i'm getting a feeling you are christian! maybe not.

no, i don't have a problem with his relationship to god. but when 'god' and 'war' make it into the same paragraph, implying god is lighting his path to make way for war. yes, i have a HUGE problem with that. after all, jesus is liberal (by usmessageboard definitions) man, i'm gonna get roasted for that one.

but remember THOU SHALL NOT KILL... this is for another thread, but you don't have the god-given right to commision the deaths of anybody. sorry. i'd sure hate to be ol' shrub jr. (or sr.) at the pearly gates (if they exist). trying to swallow the pious attempt at a just cause while stomaching the body count can be very trying, indeed!
 
As far as Saudi Arabia... I agree, the Saudis are crooked at best, and I do disagree with the administration's policies toward them.

(See! We agreed!)

As far as diplomacy... if Saddam had come out and joined the US in the war on al-Qaeda, instead of harboring their members in his country, there would have been something to talk about. As it is, they flipped the US and the UN the bird for twelve years.

"NOW AGAIN: where do the mistakes need to reach for you to scream uncle? maybe never?"
The 'mistakes'... well, as you can see, they have discovered WMD being smuggled out of the country. However, you seem to think that because it wasn't on the front page of the NY Times, it didn't occur. So what exactly is your burden of proof?

"ok, i'm getting a feeling you are christian! maybe not.
no, i don't have a problem with his relationship to god. but when 'god' and 'war' make it into the same paragraph, implying god is lighting his path to make way for war. yes, i have a HUGE problem with that. after all, jesus is liberal (by usmessageboard definitions) man, i'm gonna get roasted for that one.
but remember THOU SHALL NOT KILL... this is for another thread, but you don't have the god-given right to commision the deaths of anybody. sorry. i'd sure hate to be ol' shrub jr. (or sr.) at the pearly gates (if they exist). trying to swallow the pious attempt at a just cause while stomaching the body count can be very trying, indeed!"

Yes, I am Christian. No, i don't believe in establishing a theocracy in America. I will do what I can to convince people of my beliefs by reason, not force.
Anyway, you're right, this probably could be on the religon thread, or forum (if there was one, HINT HINT moderator), but:
1. I don't remember hearing Bush say that God told him to go to war.
2. Jesus was a liberal in that he bucked the system. I don't think He would find much in common with today's anything-goes, do-whatever-feels-good liberals.
3. Thou shalt not kill... I could probably write a pamphlet on this one. Here's the short version: the Hebrew in that verse means 'murder.' Death was the established punishment for several crimes, but unjustified murder was outlawed by the sixth commandment.
 
oooh! this *is* good!

'3. Thou shalt not kill... I could probably write a pamphlet on this one. Here's the short version: the Hebrew in that verse means 'murder.' Death was the established punishment for several crimes, but unjustified murder was outlawed by the sixth commandment.'

i wasn't aware there was so much grey area! so if the imposed death was justified (justified being the operative word), who determines this ultimate justification? our justice system?

2. Jesus was a liberal in that he bucked the system. I don't think He would find much in common with today's anything-goes, do-whatever-feels-good liberals.

i'll leave this for another thread

1. I don't remember hearing Bush say that God told him to go to war.

maybe you just don't notice his religious zealousy. how's this for bush stating the gist of what i just asserted?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2921345.stm

'if Saddam had come out and joined the US in the war on al-Qaeda, instead of harboring their members in his country,'

please post some proof to back up this 'harboring' claim. this is much different than 'residing'. there are many remote areas in and around these regions.
i would be very interested to see!

'"NOW AGAIN: where do the mistakes need to reach for you to scream uncle? maybe never?"
The 'mistakes'... well, as you can see, they have discovered WMD being smuggled out of the country. However, you seem to think that because it wasn't on the front page of the NY Times, it didn't occur. So what exactly is your burden of proof? '

from the (p)resident's transcripts that i posted much earlier:

'In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11. '

i would like to see what proof you have that clearly shows iraq being busted trying to move this stockplie out through kuwait.

this should be good!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Howard Dean Quote

< Previous Thread

Down the stretch...

Next Thread >

Latest Discussions

H
Biden goes off the rails again: “Got Arrested Standing on a Porch with a Black Family” During Civil Rights Movement”
2
Replies
38
Views
163
EMH
EMH
Procrustes Stretched
The Notorious “catch and kill" campaign: Turning the National Enquirer into an arm of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign
20 21 22
Replies
425
Views
3K
Yarddog
Yarddog
Weatherman2020
Freudian Slip by Joe?
Replies
2
Views
19
elektra
elektra
Magnus
Gateway Pundit Declares Bankruptcy
6 7 8
Replies
141
Views
973
Hollie
H
Dayton3
Why do people bitch & whine about the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty so much?
21 22 23
Replies
459
Views
4K
EMH
EMH
View more…

Forum List

Back
Top