Jump to content


Bush Is A Good President


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#21 playingtowin

playingtowin

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 15 March 2006 - 10:42 PM

Well said Balloon Guy. Bush is definitely a good president and an honorable man. Bush is doing what it takes to make the U.S. a safer place and he is getting low approval ratings. O well. He won the election and now he is doing what he believes is the best for our country. Let's see what Clinton did...He pardoned a whole bunch of criminals wanted by the CIA his last day in office(wonder how much he made), he lost the code to the nukes while in office, and he passed up the opportunity to destroy Bin Laden with a drone strike. I don't think rating a president by what he can say is a very good barometer. People can say anything...what they do is what matters. Fancy talk and false promises are no good except for winning votes maybe.

#22 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,246 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 March 2006 - 10:45 PM

View PostHurricaneKyle, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 1:02 AM, said:

Sure it has, so has Venezuela cutting back how much oil it exports and OPEC raising the prices per barrel. Along with the fact that gas prices were artificially low in the early to mid 90's due to the Gulf War and a more favorable oil market worldwide.Bottom line once again is that politicians get too much credit when things go well, and too much blame when things don't. As was stated earlier by another poster, the state of economies don't shift overnight unless there is just a complete disaster. You don't have to like W, but when people who don't like him blame him for every ****ing thing possible then you sound about as ridiculous as those on the far right did when they blamed all the country's problems on Clinton. Take off the ideological blinders and he isn't as bad as you think.
I think this is a fallacial argument. You essentially say that you like Bush and/or Bush is good because all of the problems cannot be blamed on him. The latter is true, but does not necessarily mean the former.I agree that you cannot blame all or most of the problems on Bush, and also that politicians get too much credit in good or bad times. But that doesn't mean Bush has not made some significant mistakes.
Long signatures are really annoying.

#23 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 15 March 2006 - 11:06 PM

View Postpete_95973, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 7:27 PM, said:

That statement boggles my mind. Innocent? It is one thing to think that the war in IRAQ is not the best focus of our resources in the War on Terror....It is a crazy thing to think that the regime was innocent.
When I say innocent, I mean Iraq and Saddam didn't attack us- Bin Laden did. I think the elder Bush was justified in going to war with Iraq, but since that ship sailed and all was supposedly worked out, the U.S. went to war on Iraq for no legitimate reason.
Posted Image

#24 rivers21

rivers21

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 215 posts
  • Location:Park City, UT
  • Interests:Gaming, Poker

Posted 16 March 2006 - 12:02 AM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 12:06 AM, said:

When I say innocent, I mean Iraq and Saddam didn't attack us- Bin Laden did. I think the elder Bush was justified in going to war with Iraq, but since that ship sailed and all was supposedly worked out, the U.S. went to war on Iraq for no legitimate reason.
Daniel do you know how the war process works in the US? The house has to vote in favor of declaring war. Most DEMOCRATS voted in favor of the war based upon the false inteligence that Bush and the house recieved. Its not Bush's fault the inteligence was wrong. And we found out after the fact that it was wrong. So how can you just except him to pull the troops after Iraq is in disarray from our attacks. The least we can do is help them rebuild their country.
IPB Image

#25 playingtowin

playingtowin

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 12:55 AM

View Postrivers21, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 12:02 AM, said:

Daniel do you know how the war process works in the US? The house has to vote in favor of declaring war. Most DEMOCRATS voted in favor of the war based upon the false inteligence that Bush and the house recieved. Its not Bush's fault the inteligence was wrong. And we found out after the fact that it was wrong. So how can you just except him to pull the troops after Iraq is in disarray from our attacks. The least we can do is help them rebuild their country.
Exactly...first of all there was faulty intelligence regarding the WMD. However, after 9/11 the Bush administration adapted the idea of preemptive strikes towards countries that pose imminent danger to the U.S. or its allies. Congress approved both the miltiary operations in Afghanistan and Iraq by an overwhelming majority. Now there r those Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq, now trying to distance themselves now that they see the war is becoming unpopular. Whether or not Iraq did or did not have WMD(even though none has been discovered), Saddam's regime was torturing and killing people. Getting rid of Saddam's regime has made the world a safer place. The instability in Iraq now is part of the process towards a democratic gov't voted for by the people of Iraq. No offense Daniel, but what makes u think George W. Bush is the worst president in ur lifetime?

#26 spacemonkey

spacemonkey

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 97 posts
  • Location:Broke in Vegas

Posted 16 March 2006 - 01:52 AM

View Postrivers21, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 3:02 AM, said:

Daniel do you know how the war process works in the US? The house has to vote in favor of declaring war. Most DEMOCRATS voted in favor of the war based upon the false inteligence that Bush and the house recieved. Its not Bush's fault the inteligence was wrong. And we found out after the fact that it was wrong. So how can you just except him to pull the troops after Iraq is in disarray from our attacks. The least we can do is help them rebuild their country.
When everyone talks about So-And-So voting for or against the Iraq war, what they are referring too is a resolution supporting the use of the Military to force Iraq to fully comply with the WMD inspection treaty it signed after the first war. Congress has not actually declared war since WWII. During the campaign Kerry frequently stated that he voted for the resolution to try to force Saddam to comply hoping that a war could be avoided. Not the best position (particularly when I wouldn't want to go quail hunting with these guys, much less to war) but a reasonable one. While most of the world thought there wasn't significant justification for an invasion the Bush administration continued the course they'd planned for years.Invading Iraq was just not a good move and there's really no proper justification. If you say it was as a pre-emptive strike, there's no significant evidence that Iraq either had significant WMD or strong ties to a terrorist network that would use them to attack us. Iran and North Korea are far greater threats. If you say he was a horrible dictator and killed his own people, it's true but there's about a dozen regimes that are just as bad but don't sit on a big pile of oil. If we're trying to establish democracy in the Middle East then this isn't the ideal testing grounds. Iraq was created by the British out of three very different regions with no regard for the feelings of the inhabitants who have very little in common except for a violent history.But now that we're in there, I have no clue how to solve the problem. It's going to take a very, very smart person to do that and I'm fairly sure it's not the same guy who decided to stick our fist into that snake pit. Realistically the solution probably has to come from inside Iraq and it's anyone's guess as to whether they go into a civil war or if they pull themselves out and form a good government.

#27 chrozzo

chrozzo

    hi™

  • Members
  • 23,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Geico

Posted 16 March 2006 - 02:17 AM

View Postgobears, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 6:07 PM, said:

That is his problem - Bush does what he "feels" is right; anyone with a differing opinion or opposing argument is ignored or labeled unpatriotic regardless of the facts.
Yeah, just like Clinton thought that getting head in the oval office from an intern "felt" right.(Sorry, somebody had to say it)

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 8:46 PM, said:

If the election happened anywhere but in the U.S. Bush would not have won 30% of the vote.
Kinda take away the point of it being the US election though, doesnt it. Not meaning to sound like a jerk DN, but this statement is really just plain pointless. Should the US make their decisions to elect OUR leader based on foreign opinion? I should think not.

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 8:46 PM, said:

It boggles my mind, that he made one of the worst and most crucial mistakes to attack an innocent country and yet, he was re-elected.
Innocent?Iraq provided traininng grounds and monetery support for Al Qaeda IN Iraq, that is a proven fact. Iraq manufactured chemical and biological weapons and the equipment needed for their attack methods (rockets, missile). These were recovered and neutralized. Most people think that since no nuclear weapons were found, that there was less danger. These weapons can dispense just as much pain and suffering over a long period of time as nukes.
FCP CBO: Chief Beer Officer

I'm kind of a big deal.




#28 rogerwilco

rogerwilco

    poker sucks

  • Members
  • 1,974 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vienna

Posted 16 March 2006 - 03:48 AM

View Postchrozzo, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 11:17 AM, said:

Yeah, just like Clinton thought that getting head in the oval office from an intern "felt" right.(Sorry, somebody had to say it)
Yeah, so getting a blowjob by a secretary and denying it is a much worse crime than lying to the public about the reasons of going to war (and that is just one of the many things Bush fracked up) - because Clinton was the first US-president to ever mess around behind his wives back, right?. Very characteristic.

Quote

Iraq provided traininng grounds and monetery support for Al Qaeda IN Iraq, that is a proven fact. Iraq manufactured chemical and biological weapons and the equipment needed for their attack methods (rockets, missile). These were recovered and neutralized. Most people think that since no nuclear weapons were found, that there was less danger. These weapons can dispense just as much pain and suffering over a long period of time as nukes.
Iraq did not have a program for manufacturing chemical and/or biological weapons, that was a deliberate lie and there has been no evidence found yet to convincingly connect Hussein to Al Quaida (btw, I find it amazing that some people still believe, he had aything to do with 9/11), in fact Bin Laden was very much opposed to Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War.

#29 Trustno1

Trustno1

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin

Posted 16 March 2006 - 06:10 AM

(BUSH + CHENEY + RUMSFELD) < NIXON < CARTER < ETC...W orst president ever
WL/LM

Are newbies allowed signatures?

#30 keith crime

keith crime

    Ron Mexico's ghostwriter

  • Members
  • 7,436 posts
  • Location:folsom prison
  • Interests:flesh peddling

Posted 16 March 2006 - 06:26 AM

Bush is a good president ... for me to pooop on

#31 ShakeZuma

ShakeZuma

    A hot and bothered astronaut

  • Members
  • 14,680 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:crashing while I'm jacking off
  • Interests:Basket weaving, gardening, BDSM

Posted 16 March 2006 - 06:31 AM

View Postclowneyas, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 1:19 AM, said:

Truth is, he was elected by only 25%, since half of eligible voters were too lazy to vote.!
FYP Please don't confuse the two.

View Postclowneyas, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 1:19 AM, said:

Hopefully then people will wake up and realize the only way to get what you want accomplished is to vote for the Green Party! :club:
No way. I liked the Corvair.

View PostAmScray, on 30 August 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:

one cannot possibly ascribe themselves to the larger (D) philosophy without first being a poon

#32 Farnan

Farnan

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, Music

Posted 16 March 2006 - 07:13 AM

Daniel, W has done incredible things for this country, he's just a terrible public speaker. In contrast Clinton was an awesome speaker, lousy president and Reagen was the whole package. Don't buy into the liberal hype. Take the wire tapping, with democrats talking about impeachments for W having our guys listen when someone from Al Queda calls someone in the US. And what is the story? not hey someone just tipped the bad guys that we've been listening to them and now they need to change their communication methods. No the story is Bush is trying to become big brother, he's out of control. Most people, including myself, aren't necessarily pissed that he's wiretapping. We're pissed that he did so without the necessary precautions/procedures/oversight required by the Constitution. I'm not sure if there are any other lawyers running around here, but if you speak to an attorney (who isn't a pundit or working for the WH), they'll break this down for you---it IS a violation of the 4th amendment (search w/o a warrant or probable cause) and his argument that the "wartime powers" of the president trumps the 4A protections is laugable at best--though i suppose reasonable minds COULD differ. I'm under the school of thought---do it, do it legal and provide for adequate oversight. GWB's actions under this program and his response to criticism is indicative of his entire presidency---secretive and arrogant.The war..Read Tommy Franks book and you'll understand the 'not enough troops' argument, and the no plan lie. General Franks quit a year early from ComCincPac because he wanted his replacement to be hands on from the ground floor on what would be a multiple years involvement in Iraq. OK then, if no plan isn't going to work, how about collossal ****up of a postwar plan? Between allowing the place to be looted to no end, dismissing the first batch of Iraqi Army troops (EVERYONE deems this to be a HUGE HUGE misstep), use of the good ol' boys for government contracts, and the use of MERCENARIES shows this war was prosecuted HORRIBLY at best.The economy is doing very well, even though he inherited a recession from Clinton ( not Clinton's fault per se) and then had 9-11 devistate our travel industry, and not only did he arrest the downward spiral, he turned it around, while fighting a war. Do you know WHY our economy didn't completely tank? A combination of 2 things. One--Real Estate Market. Due to the Fed cutting rates (an INDEPENDENT institution from the President), the real estate market boomed which helped our economy stay afloat. Two--Government Spending. Our Government SPENT its way out of the recession. Yes, SPENT. We increased government spending by double digit percentages within 1 or 2 years of this "conservative" taking office. That money helped keep this economy going. Unfortunately, we didn't have the money to spend. A calculated risk or a future problem, who knows--only time will tell.Bush has won the war of LOW EXPECTATIONS. When the bar is set low, it isn't tough to make some people happy.Education, he teams up with Ted Kennedy to author an education bill, trying to get the Democrats to put aside partician politics and help our schools, and after total democratic involvement, they claim he's devisteated the schools, which the teacher's unions have done more damage than anything Bush has done. Gosh accountability for our teachers, what a horrible thing. Yeah, there is nothing better than setting up a system of accountability--making kids constantly study for tests instead of various types of learning----and then NOT FUND THE PROGRAM. That is brilliant slight of hand. Look like you're doing somethign and then DON'T--while those not paying attention still think you did something great. This asshat is a magician.Left tries to say Bush is a step above idiot, hey man, I don't care who your daddy is, you don't have brains, you don't fly fighter plans in the military. They don't have a set of keys for whoever comes along. Then he gets early deros because the flood of active pilots coming back from Vietnam and everyone cries special treatment I don't think he is an idiot in the "1+1=3" sense. A friend of mine has been in closed door meetings with him. First off, he loses 75% of his southern accent. Second, he knows EXACTLY what is going on, makes good points and doesn't stumble over words. How he is an idiot--is that he doesn't think through a problem and its consequences--he shoots from the hip. He takes a 30,000 foot view of the area and make a decision. As he says he "goes with his gut". Well, this guy has made some HORRIBLE decisions.I can understand not thinking everything Bush does is golden, but I feel very comfortable saying that Bush is an honorable man doing what he feels is right for everybody, without a care for how he is percieved. I will always support and feel proud that he is our president. Honorable? The guy can't say a truthful word!! And why didn't you like Clinton? And dont' say lying about a blowjob.The french can continue to take bribes and sells weapons to dictators which we will later defeat in a couple hours and snipe at our heels.The germans can pretend they are peace loving people.The Russians can try to control the middle east through political games. Ahh yes, the whipping dogs of the right---the french, germans and russians. I love it---screw the rest of the world, who cares what they think when they won't help us. But when we nix the Dubai port deal you scream "What does this look like to the arabs!!!!" But England, Australia and the USA will continue to protect the world, allowing the social experiments to continue while we spend the money needed to protect their prescious borders from the bad guys that will kill thier children to get on the front page of a newspaper. Heard of Darfur? That place has killers 100x worse than Saddam on his WORST day.Canada used to be in our group, but they wimped out this time around.Those of you foaming at the mouth now, remember one important thing. W will probably get one more Supreme Court appointtee making his legacy last probably for the next 40-50 years. And the Florida recounts all had Bush win. Oh, we know. We're concerned about this "legacy"---his poor decisions and lack of foresight will screw us for years to come.

#33 EvilGN

EvilGN

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 253 posts
  • Location:pensacola FL
  • Interests:Sports/Cars/Boating/Poker

Posted 16 March 2006 - 07:58 AM

View Postrogerwilco, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 5:48 AM, said:

Iraq did not have a program for manufacturing chemical and/or biological weapons, that was a deliberate lie and there has been no evidence found yet to convincingly connect Hussein to Al Quaida (btw, I find it amazing that some people still believe, he had aything to do with 9/11), in fact Bin Laden was very much opposed to Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War.
No evidence of chemical weapons? Then what was he using on his own people in the 80's and early 90's? He did have those weapons at one time, and got rid of them after the first war. But what he continued to do was make the rest of the world THINK he had them as a form of deterrance from Iran and others. He played games with the inpectors which just added to the false info later. The last point that proves this is the documents that came out this week that confirm even his own top generals thought he had them, and were totally shocked to find out they were about to fight a war with the US without them. To say Bush LIED is just liberal slander, but if you choose to believe the "fat man" who makes "movies" *cough* BS!, you have that right.
-On a large enough time line, the survival rate for everyone will drop to zero.
-This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.

#34 mk

mk

    nord-américain racaille

  • Members
  • 9,873 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 08:06 AM

Hey, remember when he gave a press conference in front of a big "Mission Accomplished" banner? That was funny. He has a future in comedy.Posted Image

#35 Trustno1

Trustno1

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin

Posted 16 March 2006 - 08:13 AM

View PostEvilGN, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 9:58 AM, said:

No evidence of chemical weapons? Then what was he using on his own people in the 80's and early 90's? He did have those weapons at one time, and got rid of them after the first war. But what he continued to do was make the rest of the world THINK he had them as a form of deterrance from Iran and others. He played games with the inpectors which just added to the false info later. The last point that proves this is the documents that came out this week that confirm even his own top generals thought he had them, and were totally shocked to find out they were about to fight a war with the US without them. To say Bush LIED is just liberal slander, but if you choose to believe the "fat man" who makes "movies" *cough* BS!, you have that right.
You mean this one?Posted Image
WL/LM

Are newbies allowed signatures?

#36 Farnan

Farnan

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, Music

Posted 16 March 2006 - 08:29 AM

View PostEvilGN, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 7:58 AM, said:

No evidence of chemical weapons? Then what was he using on his own people in the 80's and early 90's? He did have those weapons at one time, and got rid of them after the first war. But what he continued to do was make the rest of the world THINK he had them as a form of deterrance from Iran and others. He played games with the inpectors which just added to the false info later. The last point that proves this is the documents that came out this week that confirm even his own top generals thought he had them, and were totally shocked to find out they were about to fight a war with the US without them. To say Bush LIED is just liberal slander, but if you choose to believe the "fat man" who makes "movies" *cough* BS!, you have that right.
I don't think he deliberatly lied. Rather, i think GWB truely thought there were WMD. And I think he truely thought we had to go in there. Problem was, the evidence wasn't there to support it. The evidence he found, he KNEW was weak--but he presented it anyways. The evidence such as aluminum tubes--he KNEW they were dual-use and the numbers purchased wouldn't create enough centrifuges to create enough weapons-grade plutonium/uranium for a nuke--but he presented one side of it only. The evidence of the yellow-cake BS in Niger--they KNEW it was BS, but presented it anyways. All of the "reports" that the press mentioned of WMD--were FROM the government (though they weren't reported that way) in tandum with all of this bullshit evidence in such a way so as to convince the public that SH was an IMMINENT THREAT. He overstated the evidence and failed to give us the other side of the story--half-truths and misrepresentations shows a concious effort to convince the public of something they couldn't otherwise prove.Regardless of his inner belief that he THOUGHT they were there---he went with his gut instead of EVIDENCE. That isn't how we start wars. And the worst part is, WE WERE WRONG. That is why we usually require evidence to start wars.As far as his use in the past of WMD---HE USED IT ALL or destroyed it--and inspectors couldn't find any (even with full unfettered access). What else could SH have done?

#37 EvilGN

EvilGN

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 253 posts
  • Location:pensacola FL
  • Interests:Sports/Cars/Boating/Poker

Posted 16 March 2006 - 09:42 AM

View PostTrustno1, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 10:13 AM, said:

You mean this one?Posted Image
HAHAHAHA! nh(though last i checked he doesn't "produce" movies)
-On a large enough time line, the survival rate for everyone will drop to zero.
-This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.

#38 econ1

econ1

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Poker, Politics and Politics

Posted 16 March 2006 - 10:37 AM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 11:06 PM, said:

When I say innocent, I mean Iraq and Saddam didn't attack us- Bin Laden did. I think the elder Bush was justified in going to war with Iraq, but since that ship sailed and all was supposedly worked out, the U.S. went to war on Iraq for no legitimate reason.
Daniel - I love you bud but I gotta seriously disagree here (sorry - know you didn't want to start a huge political debate but you did!).The whole "Bush said we invaded Iraq because of Saddam's involvement in 9-11" riff has been expertly played up by the Dems but I challenege anyone to find me a quote where Bush or any administration official has said those words.It is a fine line to be sure but Bush's reasons for the Iraq invasion is that because 9-11 completely changed the rules of the game we were no longer in a position to let someone like Saddam Hussein run free.Did Saddam have a hand in plotting and carrying out 9-11? ABSOLUTELY NOT.Did Saddam completely disregard over a decade of INTERNATIONAL demands? Ablsolutely.Is there plentiful evidence of terrorists hiding out in Iraq (a country that at the time had an iron-fisted dictator who surel had to know they were there?) Absolutely.Did the entire world believe Saddam either had or was furiously pursuing WMD programs? Absolutely.So I guess the question becomes: you are the lead of the free world. At the very least you have the lives of some 300 million of your own citizens you are responsible for. The rules of engaement have just change dramatically and the realities of technology and transportation have made it clear that enemies of this country can and are determined to deliver the most haenous weapons possible INSIDE our borders. What do you do? Do you "play it safe" and rely on international negotiations that have failed misserably for over a decade to somehow magically begin to work or do you fight a new war in a new way?I completely understand individuals having problems with or disagreeing with Bush's decision. For my part I completely support it - regardless of whatever problems it may have brought with it.I guarantee that if Bush would have chose not to invade Iraq none of the people decrying him as a liar or worse right now would be giving him the benfit of the doubt if Saddam would have developed WMDs or worse.For the dissenters out there I highly reccomend you start reading Christopher Hitchen's articles on the subject. Hitchens in no Conservative - in fact he has a severely leftist (read Trotskyite) background and while he is not thrilled with the way the war has been prosecuted he has been completely willing to accept the dumptruck loads full of crap he has had to endure for supporting the initial decision.

#39 Farnan

Farnan

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, Music

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:07 AM

View Postecon1, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 10:37 AM, said:

The whole "Bush said we invaded Iraq because of Saddam's involvement in 9-11" riff has been expertly played up by the Dems but I challenege anyone to find me a quote where Bush or any administration official has said those words.
I agree he never said those words. But what he did do is say that Iraq had "links" to Al Qaeda, which in many peoples minds implicates Iraq in 9/11 (though that is a STUPID, illogical conclusion). He also constantly talked about Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath, again, causing the casual observer and the not-to-quick john-q-public to think there is a link. I presonally think this administration saw this reaction and sought to exploit it.

Quote

It is a fine line to be sure but Bush's reasons for the Iraq invasion is that because 9-11 completely changed the rules of the game we were no longer in a position to let someone like Saddam Hussein run free.
He was hardly running free. We were watching him like a hawk, bombing him on a daily basis and had significant sanctions imposed. He was well contained. And our findings after the war proved this to be true.

Quote

Did Saddam have a hand in plotting and carrying out 9-11? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
If only the rest of the country also understood that.

Quote

Did Saddam completely disregard over a decade of INTERNATIONAL demands? Ablsolutely.
Yep, lots of countries have disregarded international demands.

Quote

Is there plentiful evidence of terrorists hiding out in Iraq (a country that at the time had an iron-fisted dictator who surel had to know they were there?) Absolutely.
Prove it.

Quote

Did the entire world believe Saddam either had or was furiously pursuing WMD programs? Absolutely.
Bullshit. Prove it. He didn't have ****. He may have tricked his generals into thinking they had some, but they didn't have anything that even remotely resembled a program that could be re-activated, let alone a program that could be considered as "furiously pursing WMD".

Quote

So I guess the question becomes: you are the lead of the free world. At the very least you have the lives of some 300 million of your own citizens you are responsible for. The rules of engaement have just change dramatically and the realities of technology and transportation have made it clear that enemies of this country can and are determined to deliver the most haenous weapons possible INSIDE our borders. What do you do? Do you "play it safe" and rely on international negotiations that have failed misserably for over a decade to somehow magically begin to work or do you fight a new war in a new way?
I'd assess the overall risk. Everyone knew an occupation would be a ****ing mess. SH was contained. We bombed him daily to keep him in check. I think we should have spend that TRILLION dollars we've dumped into that country and sured up our BORDERS.

Quote

For the dissenters out there I highly reccomend you start reading Christopher Hitchen's articles on the subject. Hitchens in no Conservative - in fact he has a severely leftist (read Trotskyite) background and while he is not thrilled with the way the war has been prosecuted he has been completely willing to accept the dumptruck loads full of crap he has had to endure for supporting the initial decision.
And for every leftie who supports this, there are a couple more righties who think this was a collossal mistake. I read up on this crap constantly--from all sorts of sources. This was a mess from the beginning and continues to this day.

#40 ShakeZuma

ShakeZuma

    A hot and bothered astronaut

  • Members
  • 14,680 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:crashing while I'm jacking off
  • Interests:Basket weaving, gardening, BDSM

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:14 AM

Could you possibly point to some evidence that we were "bombing him daily"?

View PostAmScray, on 30 August 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:

one cannot possibly ascribe themselves to the larger (D) philosophy without first being a poon




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users