Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue



Play Time: Move Your Feet (Shockwave required). Thanks Nick Brigden.
Links of the Day: Cannot find server make your time. Thanks Berklee. All your 404 error belong to us.
Stories of the Day: Smothers Brother's son is porn star. Thanks Chuck!
A web of cheating. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Iraq war could send German cars in wrong direction. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Wild Science: Riddle of 'Baghdad's batteries'. Thanks crazy0ne.
Cat on the Cutting Edge. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Weird Science: Secret to sleep is to have sex about five times a week. Thanks Bob James.
Images of the Day: Bubbacomp. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Digital Eel GDC Mystery Tour 2003.

View
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >

372. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 21:26 Pedle Zelnip
 
...and said his son should back off and listen to the world leaders. He said that the case for WOMD could be debated and that's it's not as clear cut as it was in 1991. He also said that Bush should not go against the UN. Here's the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html

Well, I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation. Note the article says "Although not addressed to his son in person...", so to say he said to his son such and such is perhaps reading into things a little bit.

Note too that the WMD could be debated part was a comment that was simply quoted as "could be debated", which could very easily have been taken out of context. For example, "Many people for some strange reason actually think that the issue of WMD could be debated" versus "There is considerable doubt in regards to the possession of WMD by Saddam, so this issue could be debated"

I'd feel a bit more comfortable reading into Bush Sr's comments if I had access to the entire speech.

...we must have some faith in our elected leaders, but we must also question their actions and their motives. ... and that is what I think is lacking from most people who support the war

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

...especially since the one that Powell took to the UN was plagerized from a collge students report that is over 12 years old

Where did you hear that?


PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
371. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 20:07 babar
 
Thank you for showing that you can have a civil discussion. I sincerely hope it continues.

I never said Bush is a bumbling idiot trying to finish "Daddy's" war, but I do find it interesting the Bush Sr spoke at a college a few weeks before the war and said his son should back off and listen to the world leaders. He said that the case for WOMD could be debated and that's it's not as clear cut as it was in 1991. He also said that Bush should not go against the UN. Here's the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html

Yes, we must have some faith in our elected leaders, but we must also question their actions and their motives. That is what I am doing, and that is what I think is lacking from most people who support the war. You better have a damn good reason to invade another country and so far we have not been presented with that reason. I don't think it's right to believe them just because they are our leaders. If they have the proof then show it. Leaders have lied to their citizens since the dawn of civilization, why would it be any different today?

Also, the rest of the world should have pretty much the same intellegence reports that we did, especially since the one that Powell took to the UN was plagerized from a collge students report that is over 12 years old. Why are they opposed to the war?

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 20:37.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
370. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 19:54 JM
 
If the US would have offered up proof I, and the rest of the world, would have backed this war, but they didn't. And they still haven't. Doesn't that bother you at all?

As an American citizen I have a certain amount of faith in my elected officials. I do not honestly believe that the United States and Britain would take such a strong stance against the will of the United Nations if there were no legitimacy behind the claims and accusations leveled against Iraq. If you recall, Colin Powell did provide a sampling of the types evidence the United States had indicating that Iraq had much to hide. All was not, nor could not, be revealed to the public as it would have greatly affected the security of members of our intelligence community. I understand this, you do not. When a President is elected into office there is a certain degree of trust required of the public that he will do what is in the best interest of the country. George Bush is well aware of the consequences of his actions should it be proven that he was knowingly deceiving the world. I think he's a little smarter than that regardless of your opinion of him. Rest assured, the proof will come in full when the time is right. If I learn down the road that we were lied to, then yes, I will be very bothered by this. However, I am willing to give my President the benefit of the doubt because I do not believe he is a bumbling idiot out to finish "Daddy's" war.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
369. Pedle welcome back! Apr 11, 2003, 19:51 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
Yeah being a Canadian, let's see your national language is what? FRENCH. F-R-E-N-C-H!!

Why did the French send Lady Liberty to America?

A. They had no use for her anyway

B. They didn't want the tired, poor, huddled masses to come to France for God's sake.

C. She wouldn't put out

D. To be a constant reminder of the help they gave to defeat the British. As if WE'RE the ones with the short memory.

E. They wanted to remind future generations that they once had the balls to do what is right.

F. All of the above





"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes."

-Mark Twain

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."

- General George S. Patton

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
368. Re: Poor Babar.... Apr 11, 2003, 19:48 babar
 
Thank you again for proving my points for me. I didn't really need your help, but thanks anyway.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
367. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 19:42 babar
 
>You're questions have been answered several times over!!!

No, they have not.

I asked you what Iraq has to do with 9/11 and you didn't answer.

I asked you how Saddam posed a threat to the US and our way of life and you didn't answer.

Instead, you resorted to childish name calling and personal attacks. Would you like to try answering them now?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
366. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 19:36 JM
 
Also, my feelings have not been hurt, I was just pointing out to you that you have once again had to resort to childish name calling and personal attacks instead of answering my questions

This is the crap I'm talking about. You're questions have been answered several times over!!! Just because you don't agree with the answer doesn't change the fact that an answer was provided.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
365. Poor Babar.... Apr 11, 2003, 19:32 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
Babar... you are now on the receiving end of the 77% approval rating for this war. (that's right 77% of the people you bump into, going through your daily life, don't agree with you, 20% will probably want to kick your wimpy ass), Don't sit back and start whining about it! Take it in the pants! Take it like a man.

Only 13% of the people in this country think like you now. Most are ignorant or uninformed, in mental institutions, or just extreme left wing fringe liberals. 77% of people are behind the president because they like winners, not losers like your crowd.

Even the Iraqi people like and respect the show of strength, they don't respect the rubber spine weakness of your type, you're a joke.

At first you probably thought your thoughts were original, and it was a cool thing. Welcome to reality. You are now a very small minorty(13% ) and as the days go by you will look more and more like an ID10T. The college chicks won't think your "peace is patriotic" bumper sticker is cool anymore, and alas, since you can't get laid, you will give up.
-Spanker has Spanketh

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 19:35.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
364. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 11, 2003, 19:25 Pedle Zelnip
 
In the middle of that article there's a link titled Patriot II that takes you here: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0310/hentoff.php
Scary stuff.

No shit. I wish I could just take comfort in the fact that I'm Canadian, but traditionally Canada tends to follow the US's model when it comes to governmental legislation.


PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
363. Re: The means will justify the end...... Apr 11, 2003, 19:20 Pedle Zelnip
 
"Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY PRAVDA.Ru" The "RU" means it's from Russia.... DUH....dopty doh.... You're an ID10T. and may I add a Socialist.

Have you never heard of the fallacy called "guilt by association"? Just because Russians believe something we should believe the opposite. Well you know something, Russians believe that the Earth is round, that 2+2=4, and that the sky is blue. Should we reject those Russian falsehoods?


PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
362. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 19:16 Pedle Zelnip
 
Never explain--your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

Am I the only one who thinks this is a really goofy quote? "Don't debate, there's no point" is basically what this is saying. If that's the case, then how can we ever come to change our minds?


PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
361. Did I miss something? Apr 11, 2003, 19:14 Pedle Zelnip
 
So I disappear from these threads for a couple of days, only to come back and find: A flame war. Remember a few pages of postings back when Blue came on and talked about not resorting to personal attacks? Gosh that seems like so long ago.

So in response to Spanker's "If you were smart you will just go away and never come back to this thread" remark, yeah, I probably should leave this thread behind, because I'm more interested in thoughtful debate rather than an all out shouting match.


PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
360. Re: The means will justify the end...... Apr 11, 2003, 19:10 Pedle Zelnip
 
Because in every truth there is a little bit of BS and in every BS there's a little bit of truth.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Well said.


PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
359. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 19:01 babar
 
Yes, people did consider Al Qaeda a threat, but some of the FBI agents were told to back off months before 9/11, remember?

How is removing our civil liberties going to help? I noticed that not one person has even commented on the fact that we have lost many civil liberties since 9/11, and we stand to lose more of them permanently if Patriot Act II gets passed. Do you not care?

Iraq only has to potential to deploy WOMD if they actually have WOMD. I do not agree with "pre-emptive strikes" based on lies and faulty intellegence reports (the intellegence report on Iraq that Colin Powell took to the UN was plagerized from a college students report on Iraq that is over 12 years old), and neither do the majority of world leaders and citizens. If the US would have offered up proof I, and the rest of the world, would have backed this war, but they didn't. And they still haven't. Doesn't that bother you at all?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
358. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 18:51 babar
 
There was no accuracy in that article regarding WOMD. If we had found WOMD Bush and Blair would be on TV showing the world they were right. It would be plastered all over every single newspaper throughout the world. That has not happened now, has it?

Also, my feelings have not been hurt, I was just pointing out to you that you have once again had to resort to childish name calling and personal attacks instead of answering my questions, and that is a sure sign you've lost the debate. If you would like to continue the little discussion we are having then you should try focusing on the topic.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
357. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 16:20 JM
 
As soon as you resort to personal insults instead of showing me how Saddam is/was a threat to our way of life and was the world most dangerous threat ever, you've lost the debate.

You've been shown over and over again and it's pointless repeating myself when you've chosen not to listen. As far as any debate is concerned, I've lost nothing. National opinion and the cheers of the Iraqi people tell me I was on the winning side all along. Unfortunately for you, you have no new valid points left to make so you chose to bail out claiming that your tender feelings have been hurt. Only problem is you should have bailed out about 12 posts ago and spared yourself the insults that resulted from your unwillingness to listen and your spouting off the same liberal propaganda like a broken record. I also notice you didn't have a single comment regarding the accuracy of the WOMD claims in that article, i.e. "how Saddam is/was a threat", so I'll assume you accept them as fact. In other words, you've lost the debate.

Thanks for playing.

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 16:21.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
356. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 16:08 Huntman
 
The problem is that nobody considered Al Qaeda a threat to our way of life in the United States (except for a handful of higher ups in the CIA/FBI) on Setpember 10th. Only after planes started flying into buildings that terrible Tuesday did we realize the magnitude of their intentions.

Iraq must be treated the same way. They are a clear and present danger because they have the POTENTIAL to deploy WMD (via terrorist cells or other means). And that, by its very definition, is a direct threat to our national security and our personal safety.

You cannot negotiate with psychopaths. Leaders in his "inner circle" could not even tell him the truth for fear of execution. How could we trust Saddam to not distribute WMD to a terrorist group that hates the United States as much as he did? Is that a risk you want to take?

September 11th did it for me. I'm all for removing any threats to our safety. Anything that reduces the threat, has my complete and unabated support.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
355. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 15:36 babar
 
>You truly are a dolt.

As soon as you resort to personal insults instead of showing me how Saddam is/was a threat to our way of life and was the world most dangerous threat ever, you've lost the debate.

Thanks for playing.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
354. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 15:31 JM
 
The most dangerous threat manking has possibly ever faced?!? LOL! Yeah, it was such a threat that we conquered them in less than a month.

Some big threat.


You truly are a dolt. You measure the threat of our enemies by how long it takes us to conquer them? So I guess a single terrorist with a suitcase nuke or a vial of smallpox isn't a major threat since we could take him out with a single bullet.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
353. Re: WOMD? Apr 11, 2003, 15:06 babar
 
I liked this quote:

"The naysayers, including some of America's most decorated military commanders and political leaders, should understand once and for all why this war had to be fought, and how ridding the world of the most dangerous threat mankind has possibly ever faced was necessary to insure he couldn't distribute Iraq's weapons of mass terror through networks of Islamist lunatics willing to martyr themselves."

The most dangerous threat manking has possibly ever faced?!? LOL! Yeah, it was such a threat that we conquered them in less than a month.

Some big threat.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo