Bush or Kerry

[Nathan]

The vomit comment was from someone else Vimy I'm done for the night though...more tomorrow, and check out my Mayonnaise or Mustard thread!

[VimyJ]

You don't see plastic surgeons putting fake noses on women's chests do you?

No.

But as far as Iraq goes, I've seen plenty of people trying to put a shine on a turd.

What's that Monty Python sketch about the pet store owner trying to pass off a dead parrot as a beagle or a goldfish?

[StrangeLove]

Quote »But as far as Iraq goes, I've seen plenty of people trying to put a shine on a turd. [/quote]

Just like people who work on AE86s!

[Sopdadope]

Just like people who work on AE86s!

:in Martin Lawrence voice: "dat's cold man......dat's cold." lol

[MaineExport]

Any thoughts?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584

Good read... thanks Hitman.

[MaineExport]

No.

But as far as Iraq goes, I've seen plenty of people trying to put a shine on a turd.

What's that Monty Python sketch about the pet store owner trying to pass off a dead parrot as a beagle or a goldfish?

Well, as ugly as a tird can get... it is a necessary and important part of survival. So shine that baby up as best as you can for all those who would detract from its utility for their own purposes of vanity.

And the parrot isn't dead.... "he's pining for the fjords!"

Or maybe resting after a long squawk...

[VimyJ]

Good read... thanks Hitman.

I can't wait to see the documentary. (Disclaimer: I even thought Moore went over the top a couple of times in "Bowling for Columbine" though I swear that's what caused the onset of Chuck Heston's Alzhiemers. Raygun got a little fuzzy on the tough IranContra questions too if I remember correctly.)

However, the words do leap to mind that describing that smarmy Coulterish article "as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental."

[gabossie]

I don't really have time to add to this conversation at the moment, but for anyone who was interested, the author I was trying to remember was Daniel Quinn. He has 5 or 6 books out and I've read three of them. VERY interesting how he addresses both the history of the world, religion, and what we are headed for if we don't wake up and realize that man is not the one divine animal made to rule this world, he's meerely another species on the planet that has been living outside the laws of nature to long. Look up Ishmael, My Ishmael, and The Story of B (those are the three I've read), The second two are sequels to the first, but it doesn't really matter what order you read them in as long as you start with Ishmael.

[gabossie]

For the record, Daniel Quinn and I share extremely similar views on the world, so anyone that reads these books, or may have already, now you know where I"m coming from.

[MaineExport]

I can't wait to see the documentary.

Have fun with that...

I'd almost like to see it just to hear what he has to say... or maybe it's for the blood-boiling voyeuristic thrill I'm sure I'd get... but whatever the reason... any show of support for that clown quickly negates anything positive I'd garner from the experience.

[StrangeLove]

So basically because it goes against what you think, its wrong and you refuse you acknowledge it?? That seems to be a recurring theme among your type...

[Jesda]

BTW Jesda. This is sarcasm: bush is a really smart man. I've never written that sentiment. When I call bush a dolt, I'm not being sarcastic.

The problem with insults is that there's no facts to argue with, there's only hatred to sort out and nothing worth responding to. Its kind of juvenile and gets us (and you) nowhere. If youre looking to win over more non-Bush voters, Mike, you might want to try dropping the vindictive nonsense.

And why havent you come out against Clinton, Kerry, and the UN, and every Democrat who signed the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act? And all the UN members who suspected Iraq of having WMD? Lets be fair here.

Kerry actually says it very well -- he never accuses Bush of explicitly "lying," he accuses Bush of being too hasty to go to war. (Nevermind that he also accused Bush of being too slow to go to war.) Its quite clever because it prevents the press from asking "Well what about the 1998 ILA you signed and all of your speeches about WMD threats in Iraq?"

-Jesda

[MaineExport]

So basically because it goes against what you think, its wrong and you refuse you acknowledge it?? That seems to be a recurring theme among your type...

Among my type?.... that's cute.

Did you read my post? Did I say that I wasn't going to see it because it goes against what I believe? If so, can you please quote me on that.

I believe I said I wouldn't go because regardless of content or anything I would gain from the experience, it would show (through my financial contribution of the price of a ticket) support for Moore. If I had an opportunity to see it for free... I'm sure I would take advantage of it.

Try actually READING a person's comments before you let your emotions get the best of you. Maybe even try constructing a valid and thoughtful post that has something to do with the point at hand.

There's all kinds of things I could say about your "type", but you already seem to be doing a swell job of pointing those things out about yourself.

[VimyJ]

And why havent you come out against Clinton, Kerry, and the UN, and every Democrat who signed the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act? And all the UN members who suspected Iraq of having WMD? Lets be fair here.

-Jesda

It seems all those wishing to make excuses for bush's inane invasion of Iraq on bogus grounds retreat to 5 years before the war for justification.

Blix was putting the lie bushies allegations. Remember, Blix was sent there to verify SH's claim of compliance with UN resolutions. Turns out that he was in compliance. No WMD.

bush had achieved a victory without the use of force by scaring SH into allowing unfettered access to all suspect sites. At that point, I began to wonder if I had "misunderestimated" bush. However, as Blix poked hole after hole into the bushies allegations, the push for invasion actually increased. My estimate of bush was correct after all.

There are some here who espouse invading one ME country after another. We can't even afford to occupy Iraq. A $417 billion defense spending bill was just passed today. None of that money is for Iraq operations which are reaching the $200 billion mark.

[StrangeLove]

Your type = Brainwashed

Your post = a feeble attempt at making me look stupid.

You said you would "Almost" like to see it, therefore you do not want to see it, and usually when you don't want to do something, you don't do it. In this case, you don't want to see the documentry.

[f1seb]

Originally posted by f1seb "]Mind you elaborate on that?

Sure.... here goes...

But let me get this how it is: We go after a poor country that doesn't even have nuclear weapons, an army that the rest of the world can laugh at,

Oh... I see you've already started to put some of the pieces together....

But we refuse to go after a country that is already nuclear

mmhmm... looks like you've got a grasp on part of the problem. Do you really need someone to connect the dots a little bit more?

All I am getting from your argument is that we should treat Korea and China the same way we treated Iraq. There is no "color-by-numer" picture or formula that works for all of them. Foreign policy is more of an art than a science. You are ignorant to make some off-hand remark that we should have "dealt" with China and Korea if we were going to deal with Iraq. It just simply doesn't work that way...

It's like saying.... geez you shouldn't have gotten that nose job because you still have small titties. They are different problems.. and need to be dealt with differently. You don't see plastic surgeons putting fake noses on women's chests do you?

No man, Im not ignorant I never said myself we have to go to North Korea and invade them, those posts were just asking all the Bush supporters why go straight to Iraq where that country poses the less risk to us out of all the 3 I mentioned. So far Nathan is the only one of them who has responded to that part of my question and his response is a balls out lets go invade them too. But nevertheless its a response. Now to see the world from your eyes: We go and bully a country that has no ways of defending themselves, go and fight a war against the wishes of many allies that have helped us in the first gulf war and all of that to gain practicaly nothing. It wont make us any safer then we are here, there are still many other countries that will harbor terrorlst training camps and pose a greater threat to us then Iraq ever has. But what will we do about that? Most likely absolutely nothing. This will still leave Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries in that region that will continue to have anti-American sentiments for number of years to come. Now North Korea is hostile to us, they have a massive amount of WMD, they said that they will even sell them, they don't care they have starving people and they need to feed them somehow. They are also close to us and said they have missles capable of reaching the western US boarders. Now those sound like threats the Iraqis have never made and we went in there mind you go back in that little head of yours and think back to the UN presentations that Powell made FIRST PRIORITY: WMD!!! FOUND? NO!! Just many speculations on what might have happened, that they were moved to Syria, but I dont think the american satelites wouldnt have picked up a giant convoy of trucks entering syria before our invasion of Iraq. Now if WMD is our priority so why the hell not try to resolve whatever there is to with the Koreans, but as you can see in the great Bush foreign policy North Korea is part of the axis of evil, and so was Iraq, so are we going to deal with them just like we dealt with Iraq? or will we just let them do what they want which I think is going to happen. But this point just proves the bush organization is a damn joke. And also if all you're doing to do is quote everybody like you just did and then try to insult them by calling them ignorant and then post some anologies of titites and noses which make no sense then would you please refrain from posting in here caue all you're going to do is make people mad and cuss at one another. The only reason I called you having a little head is cause you called me ignorant(a point which you have also failed to prove). And also explain to me why this was the right way to deal with Iraq but the ways to deal with Korea and China have to be different. The whole argument of my posts is why not deal with Iraq the way we will or should deal with North Korea and China.

[ilovedrifting]

Jeeze Louise, Jesda. No WMD and no AQ in Iraq. Try those friggin facts on. Iraq was never a threat to US security. Try thinking forward again. This backwards stuff you're trying is stunting your comprehension.

look vimy THERE WERE WMD'S IN IRAQ AND THERE WAS AQ i have said this many times and you just say thats bushie propaganda. iraq was a threat to the us, just indirectly. He was funding terrorlst and he himself was a terrorlst. you're the one thinking backwards and shouting lies and claiming them as fact. I don't even think you believe yourself

[MaineExport]

Originally posted by pills "]Your type = Brainwashed

Your post = a feeble attempt at making me look stupid.

Brainwashed? You're obviously the enlightened one with an unfettered, unbiased, objective, and clear view of everything. :rolleyes

The fact that you would imply your opinions are free of outside influence speaks volumes of your own state of mind.

You said you would "Almost" like to see it,

Yes,... and for the THIRD time... the reason it is "almost" and not "I am" is because I would rather not show support for ANYTHING Moore will receive credit for. Just as you won't cast your vote for Bush... I will not cast a "vote" for this clown by paying for a ticket.

If there was an opportunity to see the film without making a gesture of gratitude towards Moore... I would surely see it for my own edification... if only to have more ammo.

In this case, you don't want to see the documentry.

For the reasons that I have stated and you obviously can't understand... yes... you are correct.

[MaineExport]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by f1seb "]No man, Im not ignorant I never said myself we have to go to North Korea and invade them, those posts were just asking all the Bush supporters why go straight to Iraq where that country poses the less risk to us out of all the 3 I mentioned.

Because, for reasons beyond what you or I have privilege to, this was the "best" way to deal with the Iraq situation at the time. Hindsight being 20/20... was it perfect? NO. Did it work? YES.

Now to see the world from your eyes: We go and bully a country that has no ways of defending themselves, go and fight a war against the wishes of many allies that have helped us in the first gulf war and all of that to gain practicaly nothing. It wont make us any safer then we are here, there are still many other countries that will harbor terrorlst training camps and pose a greater threat to us then Iraq ever has.

So are you saying the solution is to do NOTHING because this part of the war on terror isn't the grandiose solution you would require?

Now North Korea is hostile to us, they have a massive amount of WMD, they said that they will even sell them, they don't care they have starving people and they need to feed them somehow. They are also close to us and said they have missles capable of reaching the western US boarders. Now those sound like threats the Iraqis have never made and we went in there mind

North Korea has a much more "stable" history of negotiations. They have a lot more to lose, and as such they are a tad less likely to act on their threats.

you go back in that little head of yours

That's funny.... I usually get accused of having a big head... that damn ego thing gets me in trouble usually.

and think back to the UN presentations that Powell made FIRST PRIORITY: WMD!!! FOUND? NO!!

And I ask again.... does this make the freedom of MILLIONS of oppressed people any less important? Does this mean that we failed as a country? Is you suggestion that we just hand Iraq back over to Saddam because we haven't found piles and piles of WMD's in his closet? Like David Spade said... if your mom said, "hey, I'm gonna search your bedroom in two months for pot."... are you going to be stupid enough to leave pot in your room when she comes to inspect? No, you're going to give it to your best friend, Syria, to hang on to.

but I dont think the american satelites wouldnt have picked up a giant convoy of trucks entering syria before our invasion of Iraq.

THEY HAD FOUR YEARS TO MOVE WEAPONS!!!!!! Were you asleep through the late 90's?

And also if all you're doing to do is quote everybody like you just did

This seems to be the most effective way of addressing points one at a time. It is certainly not to irritate or annoy. If it has that effect... oh well.

and then try to insult them by calling them ignorant

I said that if you believe we should treat all situations with the same formula... then you are ignorant. Ever raised any kids? You would quickly learn that everyone has a different personality and must be handled differently. North Korea and Iraq are two different problems with two different solutions. If you believe otherwise then yes.. the ignorant shoe fits. It's not name calling.. it's just a statement. Ignorant fool or stupid idiot or something... now that's name calling... but I know plenty of ignorant people... I am ignorant in many ways... I couldn't launch a satellite into space... so in that regard I'm ignorant. Relax... it's not a playground.

and then post some anologies of titites and noses which make no sense

Actually I thought it was quite clever and spot on.

then would you please refrain from posting in here

Once I start violating the forum rules then I'll be banned and stop posting. Until then... get over it.

And also explain to me why this was the right way to deal with Iraq but the ways to deal with Korea and China have to be different. The whole argument of my posts is why not deal with Iraq the way we will or should deal with North Korea and China.

Are you serious? So the nose job on a woman's chest seems sensible to you?

[VimyJ]

look vimy THERE WERE WMD'S IN IRAQ AND THERE WAS AQ i have said this many times and you just say thats bushie propaganda. iraq was a threat to the us, just indirectly. He was funding terrorlst and he himself was a terrorlst. you're the one thinking backwards and shouting lies and claiming them as fact. I don't even think you believe yourself

According to the UN at least 95% of Iraq's WMD were destroyed immediately following the Gulf War. The bushies big sticking point was that SH wasn't providing the proper paperwork to show that whatever might be left (26,000 liters of anthrax, the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, the 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX gas according to the bush himself) was destroyed. You think the neo-cons would believe SH's paperwork? It was all talk. The invasion was going to happen.

The last time Iraq used WMD was over 13 years prior to the invasion. There were WMD back then but, and this is a big but, there were no WMD there in the months if not years prior to March, 2003. Blix was proving this and Kay has since confirmed it. Your ignorance and fear enabled bush to exploit you.

As for AQ in Iraq, there was none. Frequently cited by the bush apologists is the organization Ansar al Islam and its leader Zarqawi (sp?). Ansar is not AQ and never was. They were never involved in attacking the US. They knew of each other and Zarqawi even attended an AQ terrorlst camp in Afghanistan when he was just starting off. However, Ansar is a non-Saudi rival of AQ. Zarqawi set it up specifically excluding Saudis in Jordan where his outfit killed a US diplomat. It had nothing to do with AQ. The only similarity with the two groups is that they are both Islamic extremists. Their main mission was trying to take over the Kurdish area fighting a really complicated power struggle with numerous other Kurdish political and religous groups. They were protected from SH by the no fly zones. SH never had anything to with them and was even trying to kill them if he got the chance.

SH did provide money and services to the families of Palestinian "martyrs". No evidence incriminating Iraq of actual or direct funding and support of anti West Islamic terrorists has ever been discovered.

I check things out.

[VimyJ]

Maine, that stuff about freeing "millions of poor Iraqis" is pap for the masses. Hell is going to break loose over there.

The United States doesn't fight wars unless its interests are threatened. bush never got permission from congress or the American people to waste $100s of billions to free Muslims. He got permission to go after Iraq if thy had WMD or connections to 9-11. bush camouflaged an invasion to secure resources as a mission to free the "poor Iraqis." What the bushies actually mean when they say they want to restore Iraq to a viable liberal democracy is a stabile and secure source of oil. That is the most valuable payoff for the bushies. The rest is pap for the masses. bush might even believe that's why God sent him there. Bet your a$$ that his controllers know different.

Sure would have liked to be a fly on the wall during Cheney's secret energy meetings.

Wars are fought for power and resources. Even religous ones.

[ceniack]

iraq had plenty of time to get WMD's out of iraq (if i remember right, there were buses and stuff going into syria prior and during the war, we were just not far enoug north to stop them) or to bury them in the sand (remember the pics of the burried Migs?)

also, the reason why we havn't/won't attac north korea is because:

1) they have nukes and we know it (nuclear war with korea that close to china who is one of their allies and also has nukes and out numbers us in population by a significant margin)2) we go after north korea, china goes after tiawan, WWIII ensues3) north korea listens to reason and knows how to keep the "dogs at bay" so to speak alot better than SH did.

we won't attach china because:

1) diplomatic realationships with china have been imporving over the last decade or so2) they have nukes, and are probably crazy enough to use them3) they have alot more people that we do, and a larger land mass, invading a country like china would almost be as foolish as when hitler invaded russia.

oh, and the cuba thing

we have actually went after them before (covertly), we tried to assasinate castro at least once that i know of. and also, while cuba may be a communist nation, they havnt' posed a threat to the US in quite some time because we have a naval base on thier front porch, we can keep a pretty close eye on cuba.

and those who think that the war in iraq was just for the oil, wake up. sure oil may have been a factor (although not in the context that you are thinking of) SH was abbusing the oil for food program, and we knew it, that was a known way for him to smuggle in contraband.

and more oil production from that nation woudl benefit more than just the US. it would benefit pretty much everyone (cept maybe the greedy bastards in OPEC that are lining their pockets with money)

next thing i am waiting to hear from the left is that there is no Osama Bin Laden. sure, we've seen him, knew he was around, but we havn't found him yet, must not exist...

[ilovedrifting]

vimy it doesn't matter when the last time iraq had used wmd's they still had them in the form of sarin gas missiles, why you won't believe they were found i will never know. you said yourself the un said that iraq had destroyed 95%, well what about the other 5%. and for the last time, al-qaeda WAS in iraq, the camps existed and were real, yet you deny this also. and stop talking about bushie propaganda, cuz you are spreading more false leftist propaganda than i have ever seen. you admit he was funding terrorists agains israel, so why isn't that enough. this is the war on terror, not the war on terrorism against america. we are fighting against terrorism against us and our allies, israel being one of those. so saddam funding anti-israeli terroists is a good enough reason for me as this makes saddam a terrorlst not counting the acts of terrorism he commited on the kurds

[gabossie]

Show some proof that WMD were found. You saying that there were terrrorist camps and WMD found means jack until you show me something from a reliable source that supports what you're saying. I mean, it can't be that hard to find support for your views if it's the truth, right? I don't remember anything about our government asking to go to war against terrorists attacking Isreal. You realize what that would encompass if we were to actually do that?

[Jesda]

Do people ignore every post here?

I posted an article and a UN report. Go back a few pages. Im done with this since no one apparently reads anything I say. I'm off to the Ketchup vs. Mayo vs. Mustard thread.

[StrangeLove]

MaineExport and friends, go ahead, vote for bush, send our country down the crapper... I'm moving to Australia... I should be safe when bush blows everything up...

[cys19]

I like how Bush is somehow causing companies to send all these IT people to India. No sarcasm. I am for real.

[gabossie]

Sorry, I missed it. There's alot to read here. Here's the first two sentences from what Jesda posted on page 7 for those who missed it:

Quote »Saddam’s alleged link with terrorists was a central justification of the Bush administration for toppling the former Iraqi government.

A commission staff report says that while there were contacts between Osama bin Laden’s network and the Iraqi government, they did not appear to have produced a collaborative relationship.[/quote]More of it, slightly contradicting, but not quite.Quote »“The Bush administration has never said that [Iraq] participated in the 9/11 attack,” Lehman said. “They've said, and our staff has confirmed, there have been numerous contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida over a period of 10 years, at least.”[/quote]True, they never said directly that there was any correlation, they just made it appear that way so that a vast majority of the American public believes that there was a connection. And there has been contact between Al-Qaida and Iraq over the last 10 years...no ****. That doesn't mean he was funding and sheltering them.

One last quote from it:Quote »Hamilton said the White House and the commission agree on the central point: There is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.[/quote]^^EVERYONE READ THIS AND UNDERSTAND IT.... PLEEEEAAAASE

[f1seb]

Last time I checked people in North Korea are also opressed and there are many millions of them there too. How are we going to free them then? And as far as it being worth it to go and free millions of Iraqi people it's too early to tell. Do I feel better right now that they have been free as a person? I dont think I feel any better now then I did when the war started. I actually was for the war but now I retracted my decision on it since what bush has said nothing came out to be like that. Nobody knoew that this is how it was going to be right now... I mean Afghanistan seems like a safer place to travel and this was a much more backward country than Iraq, but then again maybe we are not supposed to hear news about Afghanistan. Im just saying there are many more countries in this world that are opressed and if that is our priority then be sure that Iraq is gonna be the last country that we are going to liberate for a long long long time because thats not what we are in it for in the 1st place.

[The Mic]

Im gonna use AzHitman's analogy:

iraq= kid whose arse is kicked on the playground by a bigger person (USA) on a daily basis. Its a weakling, so it has no way to stop this from happening bc it doesnt have any friends, so it continues.

N. korea= Kid who isnt as big but knows how to defend itself, and has BIGGER, STRONGER friends who has even bigger friends.