Why do you like Bush ?

[JIHADTHIS]

please answer my question, and spare me the usual spin. it's getting old.
i really want you to answer it in full.

address if it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

if it wasn't, WHY ON EARTH WOULD WE DARE SEND OUR TROOPS TO DIE?!

and why i should support the WORST investment of blood and resources of my generation all blaming faulty intelligence from another country??!!! LET ME KNOW WHEN I'M OFF!

i'll assume i'm right on, since you have conveniently refused to address these points.

oh... but wait. dubya is a good honest christian. it's all good. VOTE BUSH! :sheesh:

Look at the bigger picture:

Door # 1
US invades Iraq, frees 25 million people, ends one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern times. A military threat to the stability of the region is removed.
Iraq becomes a Middle Eastern country not run by mullahs or a corupt kingdom which in turn shows the rest of the region how good their lives could be. Hopefully the Iranians, Syrians, etc see the positive changes in Iraq and emulate it themselves.

-or-

Door # 2
The US does nothing, allowing the problems to fester further out of control. Iraq passes off nukes or biochem weapons to an Islamic group who in turn uses it on the US killing thousands or millions. Saddam professed his hate of the US many times in the past.

Sorry I'll take my chances with door # 1.

Whether you want to face the reality or not, the US is under seige and at war, a war that was declared on us by the Islamofascists that want to subdue us all under sharia law.

 

[jimnyc]

a lot of questions STILL UNANSWERED. but go ahead and say how *i* beat around the bush and *i* don't give straight answers!

I responded to you point by point, not one question was left unanswered. Also, you didn't ask ME one question at all, so don't be bringing me your attitude.

i'm afraid i don't believe everything he says. a little PROOF would be nice. not hearsay, not speculation, PROOF!

Try reading the inspectors reports and reports from the 9/11 commission. His nuclear intentions were backed up by all of them, Blix and Kay included.

ummm then what the hell was powell doing at the UN trying to rally support and win votes for invasion? how did bush get congress to OK the invasion? by talking about his atrocities against citizens from a decade ago ALONE? something key is missing from that puzzle, and unless you count wanting to install a puppet government *and* get to all those natural resources, this new paint is not sticking to the old barn.

besides, what was the main reason? he gassed the kurds?

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO209A.html

spare us your PROPAGNDA. we're all wise to it by now. tell us then, why on earth should we invade iraq based on UN violations, when we were in violation invading? and when israel is is in violation everyday? and after we called the UN 'irrelevant' for not letting us invade? picking and choosing resolutions while other allies and ourselves violate others all the time is supposed to convince me of something? your anamolies are a farce, and so is this war!!!

The entire Bush administration went before many levels of congress, and yes, Powell included. There was discussion about WMD, as there was discussion about Kuwait, failed resolutions, shooting at our planes, unaccounted for chemical weapons, missiles that were in breach... it's a FACT that there was a myriad of reasons for the invasion, yuo just refuse to look beyond the WMD while at the same time accusing others of being blind.

The UN violated it's own policies by failing to backup resolutions that were in effect since 1991. Why have resolutions to begin with if they don't have the balls to enforce them?

propaganda, propaganda!!!! WHERE IS IT??? SHOW US WHERE IT IS? IF IT ISN'T THERE, MAYBE IT WASN'T THERE??? it's like trying to convict someone of murder with no weapon, and no hard proof. all on intention!!! Hell, we should be invading HALF THE PLANET ON INTENTION!!!!

I'm sorry you couldn't understand what I wrote, I'll dumb this down a bit and rephrase. You say "maybe it wasn't there???" IT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN 1998!!! TRY READING BLIX'S REPORT BEFORE MAKING STATEMENTS THAT GIVE OFF THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU ARE CLUELESS. I think inspectors physically seeing the chemicals and accounting for them is HARD PROOF. Where did they disappear to after inspectors were tossed in '98?

ok, they weren't then why the rush to invade? let me guess, NOW we weren't in a rush, RIGHT??! stop lying to us and yourself already.

just do a google search for 'rush to invade iraq' and tell us why there are thousands of hits. all these people aren't legit news netrworks and incredibly paranoid?

Sure, 12 years of negotiating with them shows we were in a rush.

There are lots of hits because there are lots of clueless liberals out there. Go to google and type '12 years of failed resolutions'. Well, wouldn't ya know it, 277,000 hits.

please answer my question, and spare me the usual spin. it's getting old.
i really want you to answer it in full.

address if it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

if it wasn't, WHY ON EARTH WOULD WE DARE SEND OUR TROOPS TO DIE?!

and why i should support the WORST investment of blood and resources of my generation all blaming faulty intelligence from another country??!!! LET ME KNOW WHEN I'M OFF!

i'll assume i'm right on, since you have conveniently refused to address these points.

oh... but wait. dubya is a good honest christian. it's all good. VOTE BUSH!

Yes, it was absolutely necessary.

Lastly, please look back at my original reply. Was I disrespectful or condescending to you in any way? Can you not reply to me with the same respect that I have given you? If not, don't bother replying to me again.

 

[freeandfun1]

Why do you guys waste your time with Spill? He wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and slapped him in the face. He only is concerned about winning the argument and FACTS will not get in his way.

I don't even bother reading his dribble any more. My 7 year old niece has more intelligence that he does.

So as far as spill's spiel goes -

 

[insein]

Why do you guys waste your time with Spill? He wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and slapped him in the face. He only is concerned about winning the argument and FACTS will not get in his way.

I don't even bother reading his dribble any more. My 7 year old niece has more intelligence that he does.

So as far as spill's spiel goes -

Yes. Quite a waste of DNA.

 

[spillmind]

no topics or arguements, and demeaning insults to make yourselves feel better about your stance=

as for jim, my apologies for giving you attitude. i get a little worked up sometimes, and you have been nothing but respectful in replying.

I'm sorry you couldn't understand what I wrote, I'll dumb this down a bit and rephrase. You say "maybe it wasn't there???" IT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN 1998!!! TRY READING BLIX'S REPORT BEFORE MAKING STATEMENTS THAT GIVE OFF THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU ARE CLUELESS. I think inspectors physically seeing the chemicals and accounting for them is HARD PROOF. Where did they disappear to after inspectors were tossed in '98?

maybe they were *gasp* destroyed?? in any case, we need some proof either way. to assume any which way would be folly, and simply founded conclusion.

Yes, it was absolutely necessary.

well, you and i will just have to agree to disagree. if we hadn't invaded, saddam would STILL be under very tight sanctions, thousands of innocent people and our people would still be alive, tens of thousands of troops would be in much safer conditions, and saddam will STILL not be an immediate threat to the US. in my opinion (and it's only my opinion) is that we've gone about this totally ass backwards.

NK already has nukes

Iran is very close to getting nukes

Saddam WANTED NUKES.

...now you tell me the logical course of attack?

when a president presides over a failure of this proportion (you'll see when iraq's puppet democracy reverts to its ways of thousands of years of history), blames being wrong on allies, has the largest deficit ever, the worst job loss record in decades, i'm sorry, but HE'S GOT TO GO. i don't care what party or religion he hails from. it's common sense.

all these reasons are very good, but you can just as easily apply those to many countries. right axis, wrong evil. it's simply inconsistent.

i'm not saying that removing saddam was the wrong thing to do, per se, but he invaded at the wrong time, bumbled on many occasions, underestimating, overestimating, all with no end in sight. also much uncertainy about the sucess of the whole operation. we have paid far too much in blood and resources for what we have gained. it was not a smart move. and he should lose his job for that.

 

[Annie]

no topics or arguements, and demeaning insults to make yourselves feel better about your stance=

as for jim, my apologies for giving you attitude. i get a little worked up sometimes, and you have been nothing but respectful in replying.



maybe they were *gasp* destroyed?? in any case, we need some proof either way. to assume any which way would be folly, and simply founded conclusion.



well, you and i will just have to agree to disagree. if we hadn't invaded, saddam would STILL be under very tight sanctions, thousands of innocent people and our people would still be alive, tens of thousands of troops would be in much safer conditions, and saddam will STILL not be an immediate threat to the US. in my opinion (and it's only my opinion) is that we've gone about this totally ass backwards.

NK already has nukes

Iran is very close to getting nukes

Saddam WANTED NUKES.

...now you tell me the logical course of attack?

when a president presides over a failure of this proportion (you'll see when iraq's puppet democracy reverts to its ways of thousands of years of history), blames being wrong on allies, has the largest deficit ever, the worst job loss record in decades, i'm sorry, but HE'S GOT TO GO. i don't care what party or religion he hails from. it's common sense.

all these reasons are very good, but you can just as easily apply those to many countries. right axis, wrong evil. it's simply inconsistent.

i'm not saying that removing saddam was the wrong thing to do, per se, but he invaded at the wrong time, bumbled on many occasions, underestimating, overestimating, all with no end in sight. also much uncertainy about the sucess of the whole operation. we have paid far too much in blood and resources for what we have gained. it was not a smart move. and he should lose his job for that.

Spilly or Bully, knew one would do this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=129034#post129034

 

[spillmind]

and how does that change anything?

(and be sure to point out her article last week that slams kerry for dishonoring H clinton, and trying to supress his wife) she'll call it like it is.

but let me guess: refuse to answer these points and call me clueless, say my points are of a child, CALL ME A BACKSTABBER **BEHIND MY BACK** all tangents and insults that only try to bolster a weak arguement. this is also the much easier route. can't say that i blame any of you.

i've made my case, you can choose to continue on with your blind faith. our country DESERVES that it have its people very seriously question our leadership. in my opinion, it is YOUR DUTY as good americans to do so.

 

[Annie]

and how does that change anything?

(and be sure to point out her article last week that slams kerry for dishonoring H clinton, and trying to supress his wife) she'll call it like it is.

but let me guess: refuse to answer these points and call me clueless, say my points are of a child, CALL ME A BACKSTABBER **BEHIND MY BACK** all tangents and insults that only try to bolster a weak arguement. this is also the much easier route. can't say that i blame any of you.

i've made my case, you can choose to continue on with your blind faith. our country DESERVES that it have its people very seriously question our leadership. in my opinion, it is YOUR DUTY as good americans to do so.

You mean this one Spilly, done the 19th?: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9054&highlight=Dowd

Don't you spew your upsets about what others say about you, with all the caustic remarks you make.

 

[insein]

and how does that change anything?

(and be sure to point out her article last week that slams kerry for dishonoring H clinton, and trying to supress his wife) she'll call it like it is.

but let me guess: refuse to answer these points and call me clueless, say my points are of a child, CALL ME A BACKSTABBER **BEHIND MY BACK** all tangents and insults that only try to bolster a weak arguement. this is also the much easier route. can't say that i blame any of you.

i've made my case, you can choose to continue on with your blind faith. our country DESERVES that it have its people very seriously question our leadership. in my opinion, it is YOUR DUTY as good americans to do so.

No we've just learned a long time ago that facts are fiction to you and Reality is Fantasy. Therefore its pointless to argue with a fanatic such as yourself. You don't live by the same rules of normal thinking human beings as the rest of us do. Have a nice day. :gross2:

 

[Zhukov]

ok, OK!!! bush never hyped up ANYTHING, and he never used the word 'NUCLEAR' once, now did he? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

All this and still not a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

propaganda, propaganda!!!! WHERE IS IT??? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

After reading this particular rant concerning well established facts.........well, let's just say I've officially decided trying to reason with you is quite beyond a waste of time.

I freely admit it was stupid of me to even bother.

let me know, and i'll pay your way to the movie.

Please send $10 cash (I might want a drink) to:

<<<deleted>>>
<<<deleted>>>
<<<deleted>>>

But send it quickly, because I'll be moving to Florida in about 2 weeks.

 

[Annie]

Zhukov posted:

But send it quickly, because I'll be moving to Florida in about 2 weeks.

 

[spillmind]

Don't you spew your upsets about what others say about you, with all the caustic remarks you make.

I'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING SO SHADY AS TO CALL SOMEONE A BACKSTABBER BEHIND THEIR BACKS FOR DISAGREEING WITH ME. i don't need to slither that low

No we've just learned a long time ago that facts are fiction to you and Reality is Fantasy. Therefore its pointless to argue with a fanatic such as yourself. You don't live by the same rules of normal thinking human beings as the rest of us do. Have a nice day.

i formally challenge you to present some facts about why it was a great decision to invade iraq and how it's been good for our country, and our world, and how we are safer for it. present some evidence, link something, or make a freaking point. is it really too much to ask besides your pop shots from the sidelines? your dismissal is a cop out, so step up to the plate!

All this and still not a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

so let me get this straight: you will be happy once i post a link that quotes bush as using the word: 'nuclear'?? the 'missing the bigger picture of the year' award goes to you!

NOT ONE PERSON HAS SHOWN WERE ALL THESE WEAPONS WENT, WERE THEY ARE, BUT YOU ALL CLAIM TO BE EXPERTS ON THE FACT THAT SADDAM HAD THEM AND WANTED TO USE THEM!!!

how can i make this more clear? it would be one thing if we invaded and found them, BUT WE DIDN'T! SO WHERE ARE THEY?!

you people want me to prove something that YOU BELIEVE, and you say debating with me about it is a waste of time? give me a break!

i've been waiting for anyone to post any information on the whereabouts of ANYTHING in Bush's state of the union address!!! if you don't know where they are, then it's very possible that these claims were WRONG. and if they were wrong, it was all the brit's fault?!!! why am i the only one that has a problem with us carrying most of the load, while diverting all this blame??!!

i would BE ECSTATIC if we found everything that we sold to the world as FACT. it would make me feel a HELL of a lot better about our effort in iraq.
i simply don't understand how you could have the nation's best interest in mind by not asking these questions!

and in terms of LEGITIMATE threats, NK and iran rank much higher on my list that iraq ever did! nobody agrees with me there, either?

i'm sorry that most of you disagree with me on principle, and have reverted to defense mode and totally forgetting that i am not trying to fight with you guys. WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM!!!

Please send $10 cash (I might want a drink) to:

i am not bullshitting you. I feel better about using paypal, or even sending you a check, as long as you are honest with me and go an see the movie. i'll even make it 15$ to cover gas and popcorn, if you like.

 

[Zhukov]

Fine, send me a check. I give you my word I'll go see F9/11.

 

[JohnGalt]

Sorry for joining late, I posted this before but very few saw it... hopefully more will read it this time.

This is the page

Ok, Bush is a bad President? Hopefully what my friend found for me will put this into perspective:

"The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.

Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective. Keep in mind the phrase, "never attacked us" refers to our homeland

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it.

One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror.

Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the worst president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,

an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.

North Korea never attacked us.

From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,

an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. (WRONG) We were fighting there (as advisors) in 1954 when it was French Indu China?).

Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,

an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.

Bosnia never attacked us.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us,

President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,

put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,

captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.

Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq

than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.

That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time

than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard

than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq

than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!"

Hopefully you get a little kick out of that.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

i'm sorry that most of you disagree with me on principle, and have reverted to defense mode and totally forgetting that i am not trying to fight with you guys. WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM!!!

Spill, What's your thoughts on my reply to you that's posted above?

 

[insein]

i formally challenge you to present some facts about why it was a great decision to invade iraq and how it's been good for our country, and our world, and how we are safer for it. present some evidence, link something, or make a freaking point. is it really too much to ask besides your pop shots from the sidelines? your dismissal is a cop out, so step up to the plate!

so let me get this straight: you will be happy once i post a link that quotes bush as using the word: 'nuclear'?? the 'missing the bigger picture of the year' award goes to you!

NOT ONE PERSON HAS SHOWN WERE ALL THESE WEAPONS WENT, WERE THEY ARE, BUT YOU ALL CLAIM TO BE EXPERTS ON THE FACT THAT SADDAM HAD THEM AND WANTED TO USE THEM!!!

how can i make this more clear? it would be one thing if we invaded and found them, BUT WE DIDN'T! SO WHERE ARE THEY?!

you people want me to prove something that YOU BELIEVE, and you say debating with me about it is a waste of time? give me a break!

i've been waiting for anyone to post any information on the whereabouts of ANYTHING in Bush's state of the union address!!! if you don't know where they are, then it's very possible that these claims were WRONG. and if they were wrong, it was all the brit's fault?!!! why am i the only one that has a problem with us carrying most of the load, while diverting all this blame??!!

i would BE ECSTATIC if we found everything that we sold to the world as FACT. it would make me feel a HELL of a lot better about our effort in iraq.
i simply don't understand how you could have the nation's best interest in mind by not asking these questions!

and in terms of LEGITIMATE threats, NK and iran rank much higher on my list that iraq ever did! nobody agrees with me there, either?

Sigh. I'm going to regret this but...

In regards to Iraq's Nuclear materials.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5383653/

In regards to Iraq's Nuclear want.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126124,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml
http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/161408-4092-010.html

In regard's To Iraq's WMD's and whereabouts.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml

In regards to Al Queda/Iraq links.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml

I doubt you'll "debate" this. But theres some evidence for ya, spilly.

 

[JohnGalt]

Thanks Insein, now I have some bookmarks to whip out just in case.

 

[Bonnie]

Sigh. I'm going to regret this but...

In regards to Iraq's Nuclear materials.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5383653/

In regards to Iraq's Nuclear want.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126124,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml
http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/161408-4092-010.html

In regard's To Iraq's WMD's and whereabouts.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml

In regards to Al Queda/Iraq links.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml

I doubt you'll "debate" this. But theres some evidence for ya, spilly.

:rotflmao: I was going to say the exact same thing and post some articles but you did a much better job than I would have done..........So I'll just say

 

[Annie]

And I just wanna say, "You guys and gals on the right rock!" Even some on the left!

Hey, I'm goin' for the 'kinder, gentler me!'

 

[Bonnie]

And I just wanna say, "You guys and gals on the right rock!" Even some on the left!

Hey, I'm goin' for the 'kinder, gentler me!'

So your saying you are a kind and gentle drunk? :funnyface

Only kidding, I mean that in the most loving way