Putting things in perspective.

Worst president in history?


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.
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, rushed 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.
(this one made me giggle)

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!!

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by The Edine]

[Bobmuhthol]

Bush sux.

[GSTamral]

What happened in Waco is far worse then Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, and Iraq combined.

You want to talk about protecting the rights of citizens, then why praise a president who stood by a person who ordered the execution of 51 AMERICANS who were, for the most part, not only unarmed, but staying inside of a building to themselves.

[Skirmisher]

I'm afraid Bob is correct.

[Artha]

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

To be fair, Iraq was declared over before it was really over. We ousted Saddam, but we're still picking up the pieces.

[GSTamral]

You know, being it Bob is a rather unintellectual 13 year old with no work experience, nor any real world experience in the field of politics, I think we should all agree with him on that statement, because it is simply the 12 year old thing to do.

[Skirmisher]

Noooooo. Say it isn't so.

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

Remember?

[Sean]

Are you really going to compare the war technology of WW2 and lives lost to the war on Iraq?

Also ..


iPosted by Edine

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.


Why would terrorists start a war on terror? Wouldn't that imply that they were fighting themselves? No one is claiming that terrorism didn't exist before Bush, atleast I hope they aren't. Just that he stepped up his self proclaimed war on terror.

[Artha]

Noooooo. Say it isn't so.

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

Remember?

This may surprise you, but I don't agree with everything the Administration says or does.

[GSTamral]

Bush should have been more like Clinton. Send 200 US troops armed with one handgun between them all, and ask them to be a peacekeeping force in Somalia. That would have set the whole world straight.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tijay
Just that he stepped up his self proclaimed war on terror.

Or that he ignored the war on terror to wage war on Iraq. Because, you know, and even the Bush administration no longer implies, Saddam had no part in 9/11 and no ties at all to Al Quaeda. And gee, not even a single nuke to threaten the US with.


It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

But yeah. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Raven

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
What happened in Waco is far worse then Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, and Iraq combined. Dude. Step away from the crack pipe. There were a hell of a lot more than 51 civilians in Hiroshima, I'll tell you that right now. I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it, and I'm not saying Japan's government at the time wasn't stupid, but geez. It's tough to get worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Artha]

Saddam had no part in 9/11 and no ties at all to Al Quaeda.

It's not the War on Al Qaeda, it's the War on Terror. There's a decent amount of proof that Saddam and/or his regime did indeed have ties to terrorists.


And gee, not even a single nuke to threaten the US with.

Nobody ever claimed he had nukes. The closest it came was Bush mentioning Iraq seeking uranium in one sentence of a SOTU address.

[GSTamral]

Actually, Latrin, there is no crack pipe. Those bombs were dropped with American intentions to cause destruction on the enemy in war to end a war. Killing the people in Waco accomplished nothing. It was senseless violence, and more importantly, it was militarily ordered violence on American people. To me, that is far worse than something done on foreign soil with the best intentions, wrong as they may be, for the prosperity and survival of the United States.

What could be gained from killing those civilians? What threat did they present? Why were american citizens firebombed, and why is the person who ORDERED the FIREBOMBING of law-abiding US Citizens not in jail?

Because she's a democrat. And that makes it ok.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Artha
It's not the War on Al Qaeda, it's the War on Terror.

It should be a war on Al Quaeda until we nail the bastards. Had we not wasted time in Iraq, bin Laden might be dead by now and more of his top people as well. They're a much bigger threat.


Nobody ever claimed he had nukes. The closest it came was Bush mentioning Iraq seeking uranium in one sentence of a SOTU address.

They warned that Iraq could have a nuke in a year's time. You can see how that might make people just a little concerned and more willing to take steps.

I was all for Afghanistan. And still am, seeing as how we still have troops there dying for their country (but they never get mentioned). And then we ignored the real problem and targetted Saddam.

I'll be blunt... Saddam? I don't give a fuck. bin Laden? I want his head on a spike. He's the one who is responsible for 9/11 and that should be our focus. Wipe out Al Quaeda and then we can worry about anyone else who looks cross eyed at us.

Raven

[peam]

Out of context much?

[Warriorbird]

Not that Edine actually came up with that himself or anything.

Originally posted by Tijay
Are you really going to compare the war technology of WW2 and lives lost to the war on Iraq?

a bullet kills the same now as it did then.




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.


Why would terrorists start a war on terror? Wouldn't that imply that they were fighting themselves? No one is claiming that terrorism didn't exist before Bush, atleast I hope they aren't. Just that he stepped up his self proclaimed war on terror.

I think the intention of the person who wrote the editorial was to say that they started the war with us. Terrorist organizations declared war upon the US FAR before we declared it upon them, and took action against them.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
a bullet kills the same now as it did then.False.

Ravenstorm you are suggesting we invade Pakistan? It is believed that UBL is in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are actively looking in the afghan region, but would have to invade Pakistan to look on their soil since they have stated they do not want American troops on their soil.

[Sean]

Originally posted by The Edine

Originally posted by Tijay
Are you really going to compare the war technology of WW2 and lives lost to the war on Iraq?

a bullet kills the same now as it did then.


I'm not trying to be a prick but do you seriously think its right to compare WW2 a war of super powers with the war in iraq 60 years later?

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by The Edine
a bullet kills the same now as it did then.False.

You are right, our guns are more accurate and the technology used in the bullets fired make them far more lethal when a person is shot.

[Artha]

It should be a war on Al Quaeda until we nail the bastards. Had we not wasted time in Iraq, bin Laden might be dead by now and more of his top people as well.

Al Qaeda's a lot worse off than it was a few years ago. Also, I don't understand the second statement...it's not like troops from Afghanistan were like "Well, the CNN crew's gone...time to take a break." the war there continued, even without media coverage. Another thing overlooked by a lot of people is that the terrain of Afghanistan (where the terrorists are hiding, especially) favors small forces. A large force would be slaughtered, which is probably why the one there's not giant.

It's just the numbers Tijay. They are making a point. Our war at the time was with Japan, not Germany. Germany did not attack us just as Iraq did not.
They are making the point that we went over there and fought a war that did not involve us directly. You seem to be missing the reasoning behind the examples used.

[Sean]

But its using old number from a different era in warfare to prove a point. The process of warfare has been refined so much since ww2 and the technology so far improved that it makes those numbers obsolete for comparison to modern standards.

This doesn't only go for ww2 but I'd also apply this thinking to everything in the preclinton era of warfare that was used as an example.

Then again this is just my personal thinking.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Tijay]

[Ben]

The war in Iraq is wrong.

[Sean]

Originally posted by The Edine
Tijay you really should not make things up about my posts. I said he needs to accept it not conform. This is not the only time today that you have read more into my posts than is there. If there is an underlying statement in a post I make I will point it out to you. Until that time take it for face value. Thanks.

And to not confuse things since you posted this in another thread but it was infact also about this one I'll reply to this here as well. I took the exact FACE VALUE of the post and replied to it. The underlying statement in your inital post is that Bush isn't the 1st president to goto war without being attacked first therefore he cannot be the worst president. You say you want me to refer to only what you present so I did. But now here you want to reply to the message. Make up your fucking mind.

[Hulkein]

It's actually a good article, whether you like Bush or not. Stop nitpicking shit that doesn't matter. THEY ARE ALL LIVES LOST. It doesn't matter how the fuck they died, the point is we've gone to war plenty of times without being attacked, and that people who say Bush is the worst president because of Iraq are just ignorant of the past.

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by The Edine
Tijay you really should not make things up about my posts. I said he needs to accept it not conform. This is not the only time today that you have read more into my posts than is there. If there is an underlying statement in a post I make I will point it out to you. Until that time take it for face value. Thanks.

And to not confuse things since you posted this in another thread but it was infact also about this one I'll reply to this here as well. I took the exact FACE VALUE of the post and replied to it. The underlying statement in your inital post is that Bush isn't the 1st president to goto war without being attacked first therefore he cannot be the worst president. You say you want me to refer to only what you present so I did. But now here you want to reply to the message. Make up your fucking mind.

You make a habbit of it Tijay and it starting to get old. Dont remark to the post when it is obvious that is not what is intended. I know you are smart enough to understand what is stated. So i can not mark it off due to stupidity.

This is not the first time it has occurred. Just the first time I have pointed it out. If needed I will continue to do so every time you pull it, but I hope it will not come to that.

[TheEschaton]

A) Japan was in a direct, openly admitted alliance with Germany.

B) You cannot compare warfare in 1940 to 2003. You can't even compare warfare in 1968 to 2003. Vietnam, if it did anything, was spur the military industrial complex into making sure warfare is a much cleaner affair on the part of the higher power. Furthermore, comparing the U.S. vs. Germany/Japan to the U.S. vs. Iraq is like comparing Ali vs Frasier to Ali vs. Joe on the corner.

C) WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, these missions were all undertaken on the idea that these countries were aggressive towards SOMEONE, whom we had vowed to protect. Iraq is unlike that case in that it was not aggressive towards ANYONE, and was effectively neutered prior to its invasion. Invading Iraq was like taking over the 6 year old's lemonade stand on the corner with an AK-47, and a tank battallion as backup.

D) Anything else? Oh yeah, Edine, you're a fucking moron. George W. Bush is the first person to put in place a pre-emptive policy against " a random, future possible threat. He has run up a 500 billion dollar deficit. He regularily hides and conceals the truth, and then runs misleading ads (such as his Medicare ad, which was pulled by CBS because they couldn't check its factual content) to fool the American people about it. We've had a slew of bad Presidents in the latter half of the 20th century, and the early 21st century, but G.W. is the worst of all of them. I'd almost rather have Reagan back in office.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Can never have too much backup. Those 6 year olds fight dirty.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Hulkein
It's actually a good article, whether you like Bush or not. Stop nitpicking shit that doesn't matter. THEY ARE ALL LIVES LOST. It doesn't matter how the fuck they died, the point is we've gone to war plenty of times without being attacked, and that people who say Bush is the worst president because of Iraq are just ignorant of the past.

It does matter how they died when your presenting the numbers as factual infomation for comparison. If he had simply said "The opinions that some liberals have that Bush is the worst president because he led us to a war even though we were never attacked is flawed because of x,y, and z." I wouldn't have said anything because its simply that an opinion. But to compare warfare from now and warfare during WW2 and say this is the same is just wrong in my mind. Even to compare warfare for the Vietnam war to now is wrong in my opinion. The numbers serve as nothing but a tool to sway the opinion when they aren't even compariable.

[Sean]

Originally posted by The Edine
You make a habbit of it Tijay and it starting to get old. Dont remark to the post when it is obvious that is not what is intended. I know you are smart enough to understand what is stated. So i can not mark it off due to stupidity.

And you make a habit to post every piece of pro bush propoganda that you come across and it's starting to get old as well. If you post something you have to expect people to respond both positively and negatively to what you post. Your right I do understand what you posted and what the intent was I had a problem with how it was presented however and made a comment on it. And I will continue to do so in the future.

Originally posted by The Edine
Ravenstorm you are suggesting we invade Pakistan? It is believed that UBL is in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are actively looking in the afghan region, but would have to invade Pakistan to look on their soil since they have stated they do not want American troops on their soil.

Look for US forces moving into pakistan after the election.

[GSTamral]

<<<
A) Japan was in a direct, openly admitted alliance with Germany.

B) You cannot compare warfare in 1940 to 2003. You can't even compare warfare in 1968 to 2003. Vietnam, if it did anything, was spur the military industrial complex into making sure warfare is a much cleaner affair on the part of the higher power. Furthermore, comparing the U.S. vs. Germany/Japan to the U.S. vs. Iraq is like comparing Ali vs Frasier to Ali vs. Joe on the corner.

C) WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, these missions were all undertaken on the idea that these countries were aggressive towards SOMEONE, whom we had vowed to protect. Iraq is unlike that case in that it was not aggressive towards ANYONE, and was effectively neutered prior to its invasion. Invading Iraq was like taking over the 6 year old's lemonade stand on the corner with an AK-47, and a tank battallion as backup.

D) Anything else? Oh yeah, Edine, you're a fucking moron. George W. Bush is the first person to put in place a pre-emptive policy against " a random, future possible threat. He has run up a 500 billion dollar deficit. He regularily hides and conceals the truth, and then runs misleading ads (such as his Medicare ad, which was pulled by CBS because they couldn't check its factual content) to fool the American people about it. We've had a slew of bad Presidents in the latter half of the 20th century, and the early 21st century, but G.W. is the worst of all of them. I'd almost rather have Reagan back in office.

-TheE-
>>>


A. Correct
B. Correct
C. Incorrect. We had no ties to Korea at the time, and they were as threatening as a gaggle of geese until China sent troops. Vietnam was not actively threatening anybody. Kennedy set up a puppet government which failed, much like what Bush is doing, only Kennedy did not involve the UN in any way shape or form. If you are going to use historical analogies, get the facts straight. Lastly, in WW2, Japan attacked the United States because FDR basically asked them to, Using the same type of trickery used to get Russia into the war. FDR 3 times had asked for permission to go into war, only received 1 congressional vote on the matter prior to Pearl Harbor, and was denied. The US was supplying munitions to allied forces, and had signalled mobilization in the Pacific for months before Pearl Harbor happened. There ain't no saints in the business of politics, but to say Bush is any more wrong than the others is merely a biased and uninformed pot calling the kettle black.
D. gonna get this one piece by piece

<<
Anything else? Oh yeah, Edine, you're a fucking moron. George W. Bush is the first person to put in place a pre-emptive policy against " a random, future possible threat. He has run up a 500 billion dollar deficit. He regularily hides and conceals the truth, and then runs misleading ads (such as his Medicare ad, which was pulled by CBS because they couldn't check its factual content) to fool the American people about it. We've had a slew of bad Presidents in the latter half of the 20th century, and the early 21st century, but G.W. is the worst of all of them. I'd almost rather have Reagan back in office.
>>

Sentence 1. Correct
Sentence 2. Incorrect, Kennedy in Vietnam, Truman in Korea. Use of the word random is inappropriate in such a context, as we had been at war with this nation in a recent timespan.
Sentence 3. Incorrect, he has run up a 700 billion dollar deficit.
Sentence 4. Show a legitimate source for the supposed Medicare Ad, please, as for the lying and concealing the truth, that is merely a matter of your personal opinion. I believe he acted upon the evidence presented before him, and there is no proof to state otherwise. Personally I find him to be rather honest. And Blunt. He is the type of person that takes a stance and sticks to it stubbornly. Whereas John Kerry will walk into a gay bar and support gay marriage, and then go to church and oppose it, Bush is the type who would walk into the gay bar and stick to his guns. I know where he stands. Nobody but John Kerry knows where John Kerry stands.
Statement 5. Your opinion. Many would say the same about Clinton, or Nixon, or Carter, or Truman, or Kennedy. From a factual reporting standpoint, this means nothing. Personally, I would call Woodrow Wilson the worst president, followed by Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton. I would say the best was FDR, followed by Reagan, Truman and Ike. but that doesnt hold any water in an argument. If anything, from a moderate standpoint, given the fact that you've got nothing but liberalism on the agenda, and my honest choices don't discriminate by party, but rather by how the nation did under the given leadership, I would draw less ire from the extremes in a dinnertime conversation.
Statement 6: To insinuate Reagan was a bad president would be very much in opposition to popular culture in this country.

[Shari]

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by The Edine
You make a habbit of it Tijay and it starting to get old. Dont remark to the post when it is obvious that is not what is intended. I know you are smart enough to understand what is stated. So i can not mark it off due to stupidity.

And you make a habit to post every piece of pro bush propoganda that you come across and it's starting to get old as well. If you post something you have to expect people to respond both positively and negatively to what you post. Your right I do understand what you posted and what the intent was I had a problem with how it was presented however and made a comment on it. And I will continue to do so in the future.

I agree with Tijay here. If you're going to post pro-Bush propaganda here, expect those who don't like Bush to start slamming on him. And believe it or not, all your posts on defending him are starting to get old.

Most people don't hate Bush simply because of the war in Iraq. Many are sick of his concentration on that country and lack there of it on his own.

[Back]

Sorry, Tayre, Tamral is now the tool. Of the current administration.

[Hulkein]

Tamral isn't a blind follower of the administration at all.. Funny you call others tools while all you personally do is call anyone who isn't a liberal a 'tool' or a 'sheep'. Have a little more respect for someone posting when they actually hash out their points in a civilized and educated way.

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine
Worst president in history?


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.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by The Edine]

Please explain to me how the war in Iraq is related to the war on terrorism?

If you have any information, sources you could site, I would really appreciate it.

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. But, please explain to me how he was related to terrorism?

This is the only question I'm asking.

This is so you do not quote something else and argue it.

I'm not insulting you either. I'm hoping, since you post so much about this, that you might enlighten someone like me... who was really for the war, but now is completely embarrassed that we are getting our asses handed to us by a bunch of camel fuckers.

Ignore this last paragraph. Just answer the important question.

What does the war in Iraq have to do with the war on terrorism?

Longshot I can direct you to the 90% of bushes address before the UN that does not involve WMD. If you wish to read it for yourself I will post the link.

Edit:And longshot do you consider Hezbola and Hammas<sp> terrorist organizations? I just want to know what examples you need. And I dont know your stand on them and if you consider them terrorists or not.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by The Edine]

Tijay you are doing it again. I couldn't care less if you disagree with me politically. What I am saying is that You need to stop putting words into my mouth. You just did it again, and its getting old. I know people will disagree with me about Bush. I know most of the people here oppose him and his actions, and others have a seething hatred for the man. That is fine. What I do not appreciate as I sated before Jesae and Tijay, is that Tijay is making random comments in response to my posts that are obviously not what my posts are about. You give me the perfect example to use Jesae. Many of the people here are sheep and will quickly jump on a statement made by others. You just did it. I never said anything about having a problem with people disagreeing. Tijay, like TheE, warriorbird, Tsa'ah and others will come to any post I put up and disagree. But when they are coming in and throwing shit in my direction over something I never said it gets annoying.
I will point out AGAIN that this has been brought off topic and made about me by somebody other than myself.

[GSTamral]

<<
Sorry, Tayre, Tamral is now the tool. Of the current administration.
>>>

If thats the best you can come up with to refute the statements I had in reply to Eschaton's post, then I'm sorry if I say your words are empty. The difference here is I have voted for both parties. Have you? What makes you anything more than a liberal sheep?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

For all those "debating" Edine's monumental post, please reference the original, word for word essay in some Durham NC newspaper. Or you can check this site that references it below. I'm not trying to debunk the claims, or support them, I just dislike taking credit for others work.

The "Worst President" and His Management Claims

A BUZZFLASH PERSPECTIVE
Submitted by Maureen Farrell

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/04/worstpresident.html

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Oh, btw, its good reading if you like to see a claim and a rebutal :)

SHM I never claimed it was my work. I did say it was an editorial. Perhaps you should read my posts.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Why in the FUCK would I do that?

It was interesting reading until i got to this point
>>Richard Harden: "'Liberated' maybe. Occupied, definitely. We now have massive Army forces in those two countries. National Guard men and women have been torn from their lives here and sent to fight shadowy enemies in these countries with no end in sight. The cost cannot yet be counted. Recruiting for our armed forces is understandably down."
<<
Massive army forces in those two countries?
There are only 15,000 American service members in Afghanistan.
Ripped away from their lives?
They joined up, swore an oath, knowing that they may get called up and accepted that.
Recruiting in our armed forces id down.
We are in a wartime, so people who join fearing that they may go to war will not join. I am sorry but that is accepted. As much as our recruiting is down the reenlistment of solders is above the targeted goals for the army by some 9%, even in units with high causalities over in Iraq.

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Why in the FUCK would I do that?
Maybe because it is the smart thing to do when you are going to attempt to insult somebody...
I know you were all giddy and excited when you found that, thinking to yourself "HA I got him!!!"
I understand that sometimes your emotions can get the best of you, but that is not an excuse, you should read everything before you chime in, even if you are creaming in your pants with excitement.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Dude, if I want to read your tripe and self serving bullshit, there are hundreds of threads where you get ass handed to you and a "HA I got him" by various people.

I'm a fucking conservative and you've managed to offend me with your "I'm right, you're wrong, PROVE IT OR SHUT UP" posts. If there is an ounce of inteligence in your fucking head, you'll just shut up.

You aren't a fucking American Soldier, you are a glorified specialist trying to pass himself off as a some sort of prodigy optomitrist. Everyone here knows you are full of shit, calls you out that you are full of shit, and you insist on PROVING it to us over and over again.

Now go back to grinding lens, PRETENDING you are a soldier, and when you make it through boot camp, and actually are a soldier, put that in your fucking signature THEN. Right now, you are just full of shit, and we are tired of it.

Oh, and can you get me contacts at a discount?

Dude, if I want to read your tripe and self serving bullshit, there are hundreds of threads where you get ass handed to you and a "HA I got him" by various people. hundreds of threads? You may find one, and when I was incorrect i was glad to admit it.


I'm a fucking conservative and you've managed to offend me with your "I'm right, you're wrong, PROVE IT OR SHUT UP" posts. If there is an ounce of inteligence in your fucking head, you'll just shut up.
if it bothers you so much you are completely able to stop reading. I wont get into the <edine is stupid> argument again because it is pointless. I have said it to others and will say it here as well, you are free to think as you wish, I know my abilities and my achievements and that is enough to leave me content.


You aren't a fucking American Soldier
Even more of a reason for me to keep it in my signature I guess.
I am proud of my choice, you may think of it as you wish, but I refer you to the above comment of mine.

you are a glorified specialist trying to pass himself off as a some sort of prodigy optomitrist.
I have never claimed to be an optometrist; I am a Optician not a doctor. I know a fair amount about eyes and other things in relation to my profession because it is my job to.


Now go back to grinding lens
I am not a lab technician, though when needed I am fully capable of running jobs in a full surface lab.


PRETENDING you are a soldier, and when you make it through boot camp, and actually are a soldier, put that in your fucking signature THEN. Right now, you are just full of shit, and we are tired of it.
We? I take it you claim to speak for everyone who posts on the PC? The "collective" We you are speaking about would be the people who's opinions matter little to me, and because of that I disregard any criticism coming from you\them.


Oh, and can you get me contacts at a discount?
What kind do you wear?

[DeV]

I agree with what Tijay had to say. Edine, you are a master at making threads about yourself, your always the first one to bring up that someone is making it about you before anyone else does. lol...

I need to correct myself on the retention rate, it is at 96% after the march numbers came in.

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
I agree with what Tijay had to say. Edine, you are a master at making threads about yourself, your always the first one to bring up that someone is making it about you before anyone else does. lol...

Hmm, I have said this to you before but perhaps you forgot. The reason I now point that out every time somebody directs the thread at me, instead of the topic it was posted about, is because I was chastised in the past for threads ending up to be about me. So now I will point it out every time it happens.

Read that over a few times so that you will remember it, I don't feel it is worth explaining to you again.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by The Edine]

[longshot]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Dude, if I want to read your tripe and self serving bullshit, there are hundreds of threads where you get ass handed to you and a "HA I got him" by various people.

I'm a fucking conservative and you've managed to offend me with your "I'm right, you're wrong, PROVE IT OR SHUT UP" posts. If there is an ounce of inteligence in your fucking head, you'll just shut up.

You aren't a fucking American Soldier, you are a glorified specialist trying to pass himself off as a some sort of prodigy optomitrist. Everyone here knows you are full of shit, calls you out that you are full of shit, and you insist on PROVING it to us over and over again.

Now go back to grinding lens, PRETENDING you are a soldier, and when you make it through boot camp, and actually are a soldier, put that in your fucking signature THEN. Right now, you are just full of shit, and we are tired of it.

Oh, and can you get me contacts at a discount?

I have to agree. I don't know Edine's standing in his family business, but this sums up how I feel.

Edine, you do realize that you are the right wing Strayrogue, don't you?

Longshot, that has to be one of the meanest things you have ever said to me
:shrug:

You didnt answer the question i asked so i will give you the responce in advance
Hesbola<sp> and Hammas<sp> are both funding Al Sadar's insurgency. He has openly admitted that they support him. In my eyes thetas a big mistake on his part, making him even more of a target for bush and the military.

Oh and no longshot, I don't call people stupid, etc., for not having the same views. I also dont openly hate anyone as much as strayrogue does.
So I'm not quite like him. I am farther right in my views than most here I guess, so when it comes to him being farther left, I guess that is the only tangent that can be drawn between us.

[peam]

SHM pretty much nailed my opinion of you. :thumbsup:

[Wezas]

Originally posted by longshot
Edine, you do realize that you are the right wing Strayrogue, don't you?

I agree that He's a bit of an ass sometimes and he has some political blindness when it comes to spouting off stuff he reads in his Weekly Conservative Newsletter, but that was fucking harsh, Longshot.

[Hulkein]

Ravenstorm spouts just as much from the other side of the coin. He posts just as many links to the same type of articles as Edine does, but going the opposite way... What seperates them? The fact that Edine has to fight back against negative comments about it because he's outnumbered?

[DeV]

Originally posted by The Edine

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
I agree with what Tijay had to say. Edine, you are a master at making threads about yourself, your always the first one to bring up that someone is making it about you before anyone else does. lol...

Hmm, I have said this to you before but perhaps you forgot. The reason I now point that out every time somebody directs the thread at me, instead of the topic it was posted about, is because I was chastised in the past for threads ending up to be about me. So now I will point it out every time it happens.

Read that over a few times so that you will remember it, I don't feel it is worth explaining to you again.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by The Edine]

Why don't you stop pointing it out, then perhaps we won't have to be subjected to people making threads all about YOU. Its getting quite redundant.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Ravenstorm spouts just as much from the other side of the coin. He posts just as many links to the same type of articles as Edine does, but going the opposite way... What seperates them?

Edine, you are a good friend, but my opinion of your political beliefs may offend.

I think what seperates them is that Raven seems to actually be thinking for himself (where's the damn gender option in the profile, Kranar, so I don't have to edit).

Most of what I see Edine post can be found by doing a quick google search where it is spouted off of some Republican message board (or the BlueEyedTex.com he has stated). It's usually either conservative manufactured garbage or the jokes that he posts to put the liberals in a bad light (Timmy & Parents, 10 people at dinner, and of course the Kerry vs. Kerry flash)

Raven actually gives real life experience and beliefs. She states that she used to be a republican and some of the things she's seen over the years have steered her away from that party. As for her links, I've gone back and red almost all of the posts she's started this month. They have been two UNBIASED links. One for the truth in political ads, the other is a political compass.

My $0.02

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Wezas]

[DeV]

I think Wezas just put things in perspective.

[Hulkein]

Well just take this thread for example.. the point is that lives have been lost in wars in which we did not have to be involved in. People call Bush a murderer or a horrible president because we're currently in a war with servicemen dying... The point of this thread is that this type of situation isn't an anomoly, and in the past many more lives have been lost.

Warfare was different back then? Ok then, well doesn't that show that the past wars in which we sacrificed so many lives were in fact worse decisions to get involved in considering we knew we wouldn't have casualties in the tens of thousands (or even in the thousands.. thus far) this time around, while in the past they did?

I don't mind people disagreeing, but it just annoys me when irrelevent points are made in an attempt to detract from the theme of the thread. Maybe Edine should've been more clear on the point of this particular thread, but what I took from it was that people who say Bush is the worst president because of this war are just ignorant of the past.


[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Hulkein]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
People call Bush a murderer or a horrible president because we're currently in a war with servicemen dying...

Wrong. But you probably know that and are just doing what you always do so I'm not going to bother going back and rehashing it again.

And Wezas, I'm a he :grin:

Raven

edited to add:

Oh, I was never Republican. Though I did mention once that I was a lot more conservative when I was younger so that might be where the confusion lay.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[DeV]

Presidents are always considered horrible and evil when there is warfare going on and soldiers are dying at one point or another. Someone is always going to be for or against a war, no matter what the reasons. It comes more from an emotional prespective more often than not. Americans soldiers dying for all the right or wrong reasons is always going to stir emotion and passion in people. I am against the war, but I don't consider Bush a murderer for the good he sincerely thinks he's doing. He is not the only one making those decisions so we can't place full blame, or blame if any solely on his shoulders.

[Hulkein]

Raven, I didn't say you personally dislike him for only that reason... I said this thread was addressing the specific people who feel that way. I didn't mean to single you out, just the first name that came to my head. I didn't say the things you were saying were false, just on the other side of the spectrum.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Well just take this thread for example.. the point is that lives have been lost in wars in which we did not have to be involved in. People call Bush a murderer or a horrible president because we're currently in a war with servicemen dying... The point of this thread is that this type of situation isn't an anomoly, and in the past many more lives have been lost.


[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Hulkein]

The first line of Edine's post stated that terrorists started the war in Iraq. This is not true. We went to war in Afganistan for that. There was never any Iraqi terrorism threatening the United States.

Edine doesn't care. He eats up. Fine.

But then when you post it here, and have many people time and time again show the holes and flaws in the argument... most people would back down.

Not Edine. He just keeps on posting.

Just like Strayrogue.

Wezas, thanks for the kind words :smilegrin:
Of course you are going to think much of what I post is just propaganda we disagree on things politically. I view most of what is said by the other side as propaganda. It is a two way street. I accept that and do not feel a need as others do to insult them for their views.
The Kerry website was factual
10 people at dinner was Tamral not I, but I understand the point it is attempting to make
Timmy was a bit of a jest and points out a few simple flaws in the liberal ideology, which of course there are some in conservative ideology, though I have yet to find any (that was a joke for you people who are tempted to jump on it)

Hulkein completely understood my reason for posting what started this thread. Others either understand it and decide to attack me, or just are to dense to figure it out.



Why don't you stop pointing it out, then perhaps we won't have to be subjected to people making threads all about YOU. Its getting quite redundant.
I ask you to read your comment over a few times, and then get back to me.

How is my pointing it out after the fact going to make more threads about me?
You are smarter than that.:smilegrin:

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by The Edine]

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine
Longshot, that has to be one of the meanest things you have ever said to me
:shrug:

You didnt answer the question i asked so i will give you the responce in advance
Hesbola<sp> and Hammas<sp> are both funding Al Sadar's insurgency. He has openly admitted that they support him. In my eyes thetas a big mistake on his part, making him even more of a target for bush and the military.

I will reply to your tanget that fails to address the original question I asked. Then, I will ask you for proof of Iraqi terrorism that was threatening the United States. Post Bush's speech... political speeches are not evidence.

Hezbollah and Hamas have absolutely nothing to do with why we invaded Iraq. STOP DODGING THE QUESTION. So they support an anti-american cleric now... it's not a big surprise. DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS. JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Is this the Iraqi terrorism that required us to invade Iraq?

Please, explain to me how the terrorist threat from Iraq necessitated the invasion of the country?

Your article that you posted states this clearly in the first line... that terrorist started the war. Edine, this is not true.

The Iraqi war was a war of choice, and it was a poor decision.

Please, show us here that it was not a war of choice. Show us the terrorist threat from Iraq. Please.

Unitl then, you are no different than Strayrouge.... you have a crew cut, and he has dirty hippy hair. That's about it.

[DeV]

Originally posted by The Edine
How is my pointing it out after the fact going to make more threads about me?
You are smarter than that.:smilegrin:

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by The Edine] Just proving how easy it is to pull you in and make you think a thread is about you.

Matter of fact... just forget about this back and forth with me, I think longshot has some questions he needs answered.

[Edaarin]

So...how long till you leave for basic and things can start going back to the way they were here 4 months ago?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Presidents are always considered horrible and evil when there is warfare going on and soldiers are dying at one point or another.FDR got reelected a couple times during WWII. Lincoln got reelected once. Perhaps it's not that warfare is going on, perhaps it's the reason behind the warfare. :ponder:

[TheEschaton]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4264507/

That's the AP report on CBS pulling the Medicare Ad for factual concerns.

As for Edine's proof of Iraq being a terrorist state, he cited Hezbollah and Hamas supporting Al-Sadr. This is like saying America, because it supports, say, Nicauraga, means Nicauraga harbors Americans. It doesn't work both ways. Furthermore, since the fall of a structured Iraq, and Saddam, Al Qaeda has had free reign in the country. The Al-Zawhiri letter found in Iraq a few months back detailed how he came into Iraq after the war, and how the post-war chaos has made Iraq RIPE for terrorism. Why do you think that letter wasn't given much attention by the White House? Because it showed that the terrorists came AFTER the war started, BECAUSE of the war.

Let's look at some other claims to terrorist ties with Saddam.

Saddam supporting suicide bomber's families, with 25 large to the families of a suicide bomber. While this is despicable, it's not a formal tie to terrorism. If I said "I'll give 25,000 dollars to the family of every person who kills themself by jumping off the Peace Bridge", it doesn't mean I know anyone who is thinking of jumping off the Peace Bridge, it doesn't mean I know when they're going to do it, and it doesn't mean I have ties to them. What it might do is spur them on to do it, which is wrong, but that's it.

Ansar-il-Islam. This Al Qaeda group was a big deal leading up to the war, proof that Saddam had ties to terror. Not any more. Why? Because A) it was a Kurdish group, operating in the North of Iraq in Kurdish controlled areas, which were backed up by the no fly zones and American sorties. Because B) Saddam had no control of the group. Because C) The group, in fact, had declared itself hostile to Saddam. Because D) the ties just weren't there.

The other link: Al Qaeda operatives, specifically Ahmed Moussawai (sp?), the head hijacker in 9/11, met with Bagdhad officials in Frankfurt. First off, this is not substantiated - no one knows if they were actually Iraqi officials. Secondly, no one has any idea of what they were discussing. As quoted by one German official, "They could of been discussing the recent football match, for all we know." Thirdly, if it is true, maybe you should look at Pakistan's ISI, who not only met with Al Qaeda operatives, but ran them, funded them, and gave them targets.

Any other links to terror, Edine? Please, I'd be happy to see them.

-TheE-

[Tendarian]

Saddam supporting suicide bomber's families, with 25 large to the families of a suicide bomber. While this is despicable, it's not a formal tie to terrorism. If I said "I'll give 25,000 dollars to the family of every person who kills themself by jumping off the Peace Bridge", it doesn't mean I know anyone who is thinking of jumping off the Peace Bridge, it doesn't mean I know when they're going to do it, and it doesn't mean I have ties to them. What it might do is spur them on to do it, which is wrong, but that's it.

But after years of actually paying them instead of just words you would be known as that weird suicide guy who in all likelyhood supports people in killing themselves.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Presidents are always considered horrible and evil when there is warfare going on and soldiers are dying at one point or another.FDR got reelected a couple times during WWII. Lincoln got reelected once. Perhaps it's not that warfare is going on, perhaps it's the reason behind the warfare. :ponder: You must have missed the "at one point or another" reference. Clearly irrevalant to my point, but thanks for stating the obvious. :)

[TheEschaton]

But that still wouldn't be a tie.


That's like saying because I'm pro-life, I support the killing of abortion doctors....because I'm against abortion.


-TheE-

[longshot]

I really want to know how terrorists started this war too.

It's 3:00 in the morning though.

So, when I wake up and take a look, if you could provide some real sources for me, and the other people who want to learn, we'd really appreciate it.

[Tendarian]

Maybe not in your definition.

Ok longshot, I will do my best to answer your questions here.
Saddam Hussein has allowed and supported terrorist groups in Iraq
Directly groups that were making attacks on Turkey, Iran and support of Palestinian terror groups (for the last one I point to his offer to pay the families of suacide bombers for the Israeli’s they kill)
He gave money to The Palestine Liberation Front, Hammas, and the Arab Liberation Front, Islamic Jihad, and harbored other terrorists in his country.

Bush did not say that they were going to attack us, He did say that they believe that Saddam given the opportunity with the correct weapons would be willing to pass them on to terrorist organizations, and it is better we completely remove the possibility than take a chance with it.

Iraq was not the most active terrorist state in the Mid-East. Iran and others were far more willing and open with their support. Iraq was the best strategic location for an invasion, giving us the chance to get a true foothold. Saddam was the most oppressive of the rulers in the area, in relation to his willingness to kill any who opposed him. The way he terrorized the citizens of Iraq is what I am referring to. So it is a win-win situation by us taking over the country and allowing for a democratic government.

Of course it was a war of choice, as are any wars. But the end result of this war will give us a step up in the current fight on terror. The ramifications are already spreading through the area Libya is the perfect example of that. Iraq was a means to an end as I have said before.

The administration never made a link from Saddam and Iraq to 9\11. The only people who have done so are those who wish to discredit the reasons for going to war, or wish to be able to call bush a liar, but there is no evidence of Bush saying, “Iraq is responsible for 9\11.”
The one thing that did come up was from a Czech intelligence report that said Muhamad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in 2001 or something, but both sides us and the Czech have downplayed the report because it could not be proven.


The terrorist did not star the war?
I disagree
The embassy bombings some 300 people dead
The first WTC bombing
The Cole
The second WTC bombing

UBL declared a war on the United States back in 1995 I think
If you want I will look to see if I can get a transcript of his declaration.

[Wezas]

And to add a little fuel to the fire, now I hear the Iranian army is getting mixed up in this? Heard Mr. Bill "Spin Way Right" O'Reilly mention something on his radio show this afternoon (he comes on after Howard - the station was still left on).

Originally posted by Edaarin
So...how long till you leave for basic and things can start going back to the way they were here 4 months ago?

I leave on July 21st, but will be back a few months after that. My AIT will last 7 months or so and then it will be one of two places, Monterey Bay to continue training for another year, or to Korea <per my request when the time comes>

Thank you for showing you care Eddarin.:P

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by The Edine]

[TheEschaton]

Just one point of contention that the Bush camp waves around so freely:


Of course it was a war of choice, as are any wars. But the end result of this war will give us a step up in the current fight on terror. The ramifications are already spreading through the area Libya is the perfect example of that. Iraq was a means to an end as I have said before.

The only real success people quote is Libya. With that, I offer this:


Bush didn't put nuke inspectors in Iran or Libya, the UN IAEA did.

Libya's cooperation with IAEA is credited by most of the people involved (not politicians or the press) to long-term, persistent diplomacy and delicate negotiations over the past decade. By the way, it's spelled Libya, not "Lybia."

And I'd love to see some of those links re: Saddam's sending money to Hamas et al. Because I hadn't heard that, and, frankly, I think you're making it up.

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

Latrin, I think you've missed a point here. FDR attempted to get approval of the country to enter WW2, but was denied in a congressional vote. He then used a pattern of signaling to almost invite Japan to declare war on the United States, to get the needed approval to enter the war. Did he know that Japan would use a surprise attack instead of traditional means to actively declare war? No more than Bush knew that planes were going to strike the two towers on September 11.

Despite his apparent deception, I still believe FDR to have been the greatest president of the 20th century, because he stood firm by his beliefs no matter how unpopular they were, and no matter who he was speaking to, and he ended up doing the world a huge favor in helping to trick Russia into the war as well.

Where you and I disagree has become apparently clear. You seem to think whenever a democrat leads us to war, it is not only justified, but regardless of the circumstances, it was the right thing to do, and whenever a Republican does anything, it is wrong, no matter what it is, because there is always a spin that can be placed on every event. I mean, Lincoln wasnt really freeing the slaves, he was merely allowing them to become citizens so he could collect more tax revenue right? I try to look at the bigger picture. Do I agree with the war in Iraq? no, I don't. Do I agree with what Bush is doing all the time? Absolutely not.

But I will likely be voting for Bush, because frankly, I don't know where Kerry truly stands on any issue. He reminds me very much of Nixon, or Woodrow Wilson, two of whom I consider the worst presidents of the 20th century. Extremely political in caper, and full of deceit. I get the feeling he would throw his own mother into the Ocean if he knew it would get him the Hispanic vote, then fish her body out and cry kneeling beside her to win the Old Lady vote. His past decision making has show no tendencies, and absolutely no direction. That is a poor quality for a leader.

If this makes me a Bush lackey as you say, so be it. I will use the terminology of liberal sheep with equal fervor.

TheE do you think aside from googled responces, that the actions in Iraq had no Effect on Lybia?
Lybia did not go to the UN, it went to the United States. It loaded our planes with weapons and the items to create them to destroy, not the United Nations.

TheE toss

Saddam supporting Hamas into Google, You will get 32,700 links

[Wezas]

Originally posted by The Edine
TheE do you think aside from googled responces, that the actions in Iraq had no Effect on Lybia?
Lybia did not go to the UN, it went to the United States. It loaded our planes with weapons and the items to create them to destroy, not the United Nations.

<wonders if he's spelling Lybia like that on purpose to piss someone off after they correct him>

[Sean]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Ravenstorm spouts just as much from the other side of the coin. He posts just as many links to the same type of articles as Edine does, but going the opposite way... What seperates them? The fact that Edine has to fight back against negative comments about it because he's outnumbered?

He also posts his own opinion.

Tijay are you saying that I do not post my opinion?

[TheEschaton]

A) I did not google it, it was actually from the Buzzflash article posted earlier.

B) You should, again, read your news more carefully, because it handed over its weapons to the UN IAEA. We're just taking credit for it.

C) Do you not see the duplicity of telling me not to google things (which I haven't) and then in the VERY NEXT POST telling me to google "Saddam supporting Hamas" to find proof of YOUR assertation. Are you really that dense?

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

Interestingly enough there was an article in National Geographic a few years ago about Libya, well before 9-11 occurred.

Khadafi, the asshat of the 80's, isn't the big bad the Reagan and Bush administrations have made him out to be.

Prior to sanctions, utilities, housing, and medical care were provided to all of Libya without a direct cost to the populace. After sanctions the population had to pay for standard utilities, still at a fraction of the cost we pay. Unemployment was and still is minimal. There isn't a real homeless problem.

In fact, Khadafi leaves the people to govern themselves. In one instance he stepped on a new law. The law would require women to cover themselves in the traditional Muslim fashion, I believe that was the case, Khadafi threw out the law and declared any future law null unless both genders agreed upon it. Coincidently this opened the door to equal representation to both genders.

I'll accept that Libya, at one time, was a terrorist state, or even a sponsor state. That hasn't been the case since the mid-90's shortly before.

Libya has not acted out of fear of retribution by the U.S., Libya has acted in this manner to survive after Khadafi.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Wezas]

Originally posted by The Edine
TheE toss

Saddam supporting Hamas into Google, You will get 32,700 links

"Bush Lies" into google, You will get 42,300 links.

Just for reference, the words "Edine taking it in the ass" brings back 28 links.

Google statistics are iffy at best.

[Sean]

I'm saying you have a tendancy to post things you find either by email or the web and let them stand as is. This thread is an example. All you did was post something that someone else wrong and let it stand on its own. You didn't add anything except that you found one of the tidbits funny. Thats not an independant thought. Thats just mirroring someone elses.

and to not make this a total tangent:


Originally posted by The Edine

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
I agree with what Tijay had to say. Edine, you are a master at making threads about yourself, your always the first one to bring up that someone is making it about you before anyone else does. lol...

Hmm, I have said this to you before but perhaps you forgot. The reason I now point that out every time somebody directs the thread at me, instead of the topic it was posted about, is because I was chastised in the past for threads ending up to be about me. So now I will point it out every time it happens.

Read that over a few times so that you will remember it, I don't feel it is worth explaining to you again.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by The Edine]

All my posts in this threads have been responses. My 1st few posts were on THE FACE VALUE of the original post. I didn't make things about YOU until YOU decided to call me out. Although I will admit to responding to Hulkein which was slightly tangental.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Tijay]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
The administration never made a link from Saddam and Iraq to 911. The only people who have done so are those who wish to discredit the reasons for going to war, or wish to be able to call bush a liar, but there is no evidence of Bush saying, “Iraq is responsible for 911.”

How quickly they forget... Or just ignore what they want to ignore. Sorry, but I did have to google this since I didn't have the address memorized from from last year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

You will note this is from last September. Polls were taken that showed 7 out of 10 Americans believed Saddam was linked to 9/11. Why? Because Bush implied that might be the case. Did he say that Saddam was definitely linked to Al Qaeda? No. But when the President of your country suggests in a press conference that the dictator of a country you once were at war with /might/ be linked to the most devestating terrorist attack on American soil, people will tend to believe it's the truth. Especially when he never says during a later press conference that he was wrong.

Just like you are. Again.

Raven

You decided to bring it to this thread so you could make a scene Tijay, there would have been no other reason. You could have kept it where it started. Thank you and play again.
It is also obvious you knew exactly what I was talking about when I said that. I did not say a specific thread you came here knowing what you did and posted.

Raven, how am I wrong. Read my statment and read yours. You admit I am correct in my responce, hence in your own words I am right.
Thank you, and play again.

[Sean]

Becuase this is the only other thread I replied to you in yesterday. Don't be stupid and pretend like you were talking about some other thread. You knew exactly what you were talking about and exactly what you were talking about and so did I. Thanks you play again.

PS. I reply to things where they belong not necessarily where they are addressed. Just because you wanted to cross post doesn't mean I intended to.

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by The Edine
TheE toss

Saddam supporting Hamas into Google, You will get 32,700 links

"Bush Lies" into google, You will get 42,300 links.

Just for reference, the words "Edine taking it in the ass" brings back 28 links.

Google statistics are iffy at best.

Wezas, that was posted because of his request for information on the subject. He is able to find them on his own now instead of me having to pick 10 and post them for him

Wanted to cross post? Tijay your making shit up again.
The post was in direct responce to your "making shit up" about what I said. There was no cross posting by me. You sir posted it here. I think thats, well, cross posting don't you?

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by The Edine]

[TheEschaton]

You don't understand the nature of a debate. You provide proof, you cite where your proof is from.


-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
Raven, how am I wrong. Read my statment and read yours. You admit I am correct in my responce, hence in your own words I am right.
Thank you, and play again.

You are dense.

1) 70% of the American population believed Bush linked Saddam to 9/11. 70% of the American population are not out to discredit Bush or call him a liar. So therefore, "The only people who have done so are those who wish to discredit the reasons for going to war, or wish to be able to call bush a liar" is WRONG.

2) "The administration never made a link from Saddam and Iraq to 911." Bush /implying/ that Saddam /might/ be linked to 9/11 is a link. A link that most Americans believed because the president said so.

3) You are dense. You are wrong. I have proven it. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Raven, muttering about morons

Um a president who does not go off popular opinion poles?
A president who does not remark on them.
Why would he break his pattern because of that?
Bush NEVER said it. That is what I said. You agree with me so how does that make me wrong. What the American people at the time believed is not something that proves me wrong. I speak of his actions and his statements. If people believe something that could or could not be true and it aids you in your goals would you stop everything and say, "Hey guys you're wrong." Especially in a political atmosphere?
Use your head.

I will say it again
BUSH never said that Iraq was responsable for 9\11.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by The Edine]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
You must have missed the "at one point or another" reference. Clearly irrevalant to my point, but thanks for stating the obvious. :) I thought you meant the soldiers were dying at one point or another, not the public opinion part. My bad. :)
Originally posted by GSTamral
Where you and I disagree has become apparently clear. You seem to think whenever a democrat leads us to war, it is not only justified, but regardless of the circumstances, it was the right thing to do, and whenever a Republican does anything, it is wrong, no matter what it is, because there is always a spin that can be placed on every event. Uhhhh... you know I'm a Republican, right? :?: It's clear to you, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
If this makes me a Bush lackey as you sayYou have me confused with someone else, is all I can say.

And what's with the hating on Wilson? Cripes. It's not his fault that Lodge guy was a jerk.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
BUSH never said that Iraq was responsable for 911.

No, the Bush administration never once claimed Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda. 7 out of 10 Americans just pulled that little tidbit of misinformation out of thin air. Obviously, WE ARE ALL WRONG.

Oh, wait...

http://makeashorterlink.com/?E4B712B08

Here, I'll quote the fun part:


From the New York Times article linked to below:
September 28, 2002
Rumsfeld Says U.S. Has ‘Bulletproof‘ Evidence of Iraq‘s Links to Al Qaeda
By ERIC SCHMITT

ATLANTA, Sept. 27 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

Now you get to go on about how Rumsfeld is not Bush and how Bush himself never said anything about Saddam having ties to Al-Qaeda. You are going to right? I'll save you the trouble:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

And again, I 'll quote the fun part:


The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

Please don't even try to argue that isn't what responsible means. You'll just sound as stupid as Clinton did arguing about the definition of sex.

Say good night, Edine. 'Good night, Edine'

Raven

[Wezas]

Osama Bin Laden Speech Offers Peace Treaty with Europe, Says Al-Qa'ida 'Will Persist in Fighting' the U.S

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD69504

raven, Al-quida
It is known and proven that leaders of Alquida were given medical aid in iraq I fail to see them saying Iraq is responsable for 9\11
really you should read your own quotes.

Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.09/index.html

Read that over and get back to me when you know what your talking about. Thanks!

[Ravenstorm]

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Talking to you about it though, I see is futile. I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with the majority opinion of you.

Raven

[Mint]

Originally posted by The Edine
TheE do you think aside from googled responces...

Googling isn't all bad. Many things go into forming an opinion on any subject. As long as you use your brain to filter information the internet isn't a bad place to search. I get weary of the 'google = bad' arguments. Too often it seems a way to undermine a point without addressing it.

Mint, when TheE makes comments if I or others Google something, I think it becomes an issue.

[Mint]

Originally posted by The Edine
Mint, when TheE makes comments if I or others Google something, I think it becomes an issue.

My statement was a generality. Not aimed specifically at you. Get over yourself :P It was as much in defense of your right to google as anyone elses. IF the brain is used to filter.

[TheEschaton]

It doesn't matter if you google something, AS LONG AS YOU USE YOUR BRAIN TO ARGUE THE POINT.


Cutting and Pasting something as definitive proof, without even thinking, is not okay.

When I google, it's to prove a point I was already saying. You, on the other hand, get your points FROM google, or, maybe even better, newsmax or Matt Drudge, and that's that.


-TheE-

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
I know exactly what I'm talking about. Talking to you about it though, I see is futile. I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with the majority opinion of you.

Raven

Raven, You cannot come up with a comment from President bush or a member of the his administration that says Iraq is responsible for 9\11. The reason you are unable to do that is because it was never said.
I suggest you read that link I posted, It has ALL the reasons we went into Iraq in relation to terrorism that the Administration was willing to let in the open.
Al-Quida does not equal 9\11 Al-quida is a terrorist organization, 9\11 is a terrorist attack. When I see "IRAQ IS RESPONSABLE FOR 9\11," says President Bush, in the headline of a major newspaper I will caputlate. I know that was never said, so I have nothing to fear.

I suggest instead of putting your tail between your legs you read the statment that was presented before the UN which ilistrates our reasons for going. You will notice that it agrees with what you tried to use to prove your point. You will also notice he does not say once that Iraq is responsable for 9\11, Iraq harbored members of al-quida, yes. I thank you for your time and effort no matter how futile an attempt it was.

Mint you quoted me, it was directed at me. If you do not wish to direct something at somebody you quote, make sure you state that

[Mint]

Originally posted by The Edine
Mint you quoted me, it was directed at me. If you do not wish to direct something at somebody you quote, make sure you state that

Lighten up. You are going to end up with an ulcer...

EVERYONE: MY POST WAS NOT AIMED SOLEY AT EDINE.

Better?

[Ravenstorm]

Yes, yes. I suspected you'd start arguing the definition of responsible. Don't worry about me though... My tail is right where it always is. I just refuse to beat my head against a wall any longer.

Raven

yep thanks!

And as to the lighten up thing, read the thread, count how many insults are directed at me, why would I take your comment in it as something any diffrent than the rest?

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Yes, yes. I suspected you'd start arguing the definition of responsible. Don't worry about me though... My tail is right where it always is. I just refuse to beat my head against a wall any longer.

Raven

In other words you will not read the evidence that I have presented. The only reason I can assume that to be is because you know it proves my point.

[Mint]

Originally posted by The Edine
yep thanks!

And as to the lighten up thing, read the thread, count how many insults are directed at me, why would I take your comment in it as something any diffrent than the rest?

That is the risk you take when you adopt a hard stance on anything. And why I try to avoid political discussions. Sooo, I am out of here. Bye.

I refer you directly to the part about Abu Musab Zarqawi

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
And as to the lighten up thing, read the thread, count how many insults are directed at me,I counted nine, from TheEschaton, SHM (a lot), Tijay, and Ravenstorm, and quasi-insults from Warriorbird and Edaarin. Also, it turns out Ben got banned.

edit: oh yeah, and you didn't exactly pull a Gandhi in terms of not insulting back, Edine. As an aside.
why would I take your comment in it as something any diffrent than the rest? Mint is not a) theEschaton, b) SHM, c) Tijay, or d) Ravenstorm. Thus you should not "take" her comments as if they were from any of those people.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Latrinsorm]

Mine were only responses and extremely minimal in the nature. No insulting the person directly etc.

And you are right Latrinsorm,
Mint sorry for jumping on you like that I shouldn't have and was wrong to do so. My apologies.

[Mint]

Originally posted by The Edine
And you are right Latrinsorm,
Mint sorry for jumping on you like that I shouldn't have and was wrong to do so. My apologies.

Accepted :grin: You can be classy sometimes.

[TheEschaton]

In the same presentation, Powell offered pictures of the warehouses WHERE the WMD were. He held up vials of WHAT was in the warehouses, very dramatically. He cited ONE conversation between two Iraqi generals, which he then interpreted VERY liberally.

What was in those warehouses? Nothing. Where was the vial from? Just an example from our own stores. His interpretation of the conversation? The wrong one. I don't think you should be using Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. as fact, especially if you want to hide behind the, "It's not the President's fault we can't find WMD! He had bad intelligence!"

-TheE-

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine
Ok longshot, I will do my best to answer your questions here.
Saddam Hussein has allowed and supported terrorist groups in Iraq
Directly groups that were making attacks on Turkey, Iran and support of Palestinian terror groups (for the last one I point to his offer to pay the families of suacide bombers for the Israeli’s they kill)
He gave money to The Palestine Liberation Front, Hammas, and the Arab Liberation Front, Islamic Jihad, and harbored other terrorists in his country.

Bush did not say that they were going to attack us, He did say that they believe that Saddam given the opportunity with the correct weapons would be willing to pass them on to terrorist organizations, and it is better we completely remove the possibility than take a chance with it.

Iraq was not the most active terrorist state in the Mid-East. Iran and others were far more willing and open with their support. Iraq was the best strategic location for an invasion, giving us the chance to get a true foothold. Saddam was the most oppressive of the rulers in the area, in relation to his willingness to kill any who opposed him. The way he terrorized the citizens of Iraq is what I am referring to. So it is a win-win situation by us taking over the country and allowing for a democratic government.

Of course it was a war of choice, as are any wars. But the end result of this war will give us a step up in the current fight on terror. The ramifications are already spreading through the area Libya is the perfect example of that. Iraq was a means to an end as I have said before.

The administration never made a link from Saddam and Iraq to 911. The only people who have done so are those who wish to discredit the reasons for going to war, or wish to be able to call bush a liar, but there is no evidence of Bush saying, “Iraq is responsible for 911.”
The one thing that did come up was from a Czech intelligence report that said Muhamad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in 2001 or something, but both sides us and the Czech have downplayed the report because it could not be proven.


The terrorist did not star the war?
I disagree
The embassy bombings some 300 people dead
The first WTC bombing
The Cole
The second WTC bombing

UBL declared a war on the United States back in 1995 I think
If you want I will look to see if I can get a transcript of his declaration.

The WTC bombings, and the USS Cole were Al Qaida. Saddam was not responsible. UBL has nothing to do with Iraq. Zero.

You give me no source information.

There was no Iraqi terrorist threat against the United States. Saddam's government was secular, and not Islamic Fundamentalist.

While there is some element of "choice" in any armed conflitct, in many cases the reasons justy the extremem cost, hardship, and loss of life.

You give me that it's "The way he terrorized the citizens of Iraq is what I am referring to. So it is a win-win situation by us taking over the country and allowing for a democratic government." This is talking about how Saddam is a bad person. He's been bad for a long time. That doesn't justify the war.

So, you've given a bunch of opinion, with no factual information.

You continue to post, knowing that there is no support for your argument.

THERE WAS NO IRAQI TERRORIST THREAT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

It's okay to be wrong, Edine.

[Galleazzo]

Pretty much, yeah. The Iraq war came down to this:

"We hate that bunch of fucking ragheads."

"We hate that other bunch of fucking ragheads too."

"We're already boning one bunch, let's go get the other."

"W00t."

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
Pretty much, yeah. The Iraq war came down to this:

"We hate that bunch of fucking ragheads."

"We hate that other bunch of fucking ragheads too."

"We're already boning one bunch, let's go get the other."

"W00t."

Lol do you even believe that? Do you think politicians think or say "UBL that stupid raghead lets go kill him".

[longshot]

Galleazzo simplified it, but what other explanation is there?

It's a classic bait and switch.

1. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism against the United States.

2. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

Edine seems to think that number 1 is true, and that terrorists started the war in Iraq. He has yet to provide any evidence of this. Part of his problem is that none exists.

Why are we there then?

[Tendarian]

Terrorism or not im glad Saddam is out of power. I watched a show on the history channel about his sons and good lord was it disusting what they did. Him being locked in jail awaiting trial and his sons being killed can only be a good thing for the whole world. Now if we could only go out and get all the evil people in the world and have them stand trial too i would be happy.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by longshot
Why are we there then?

Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed
A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed,
Then one day he was shootin at some food,
And up through the ground came a bubblin crude.

Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.

[Tendarian]

Here is most likely my "duh" question of the day. If we went to war for oil how come in the last year my gas prices went up 30-40 cents a gallon? I think i saw on the news here recently last year the gas price was about $1.45 per gallon and now its around $1.75,thats in the MN area.

[Edaarin]

Originally posted by Tendarian
Terrorism or not im glad Saddam is out of power. I watched a show on the history channel about his sons and good lord was it disusting what they did. Him being locked in jail awaiting trial and his sons being killed can only be a good thing for the whole world. Now if we could only go out and get all the evil people in the world and have them stand trial too i would be happy.

This is where it gets dangerous. Is it safe to say then that the ends justifies the mean? In this case, Bush initially had a considerable percentage of public support in going to war. But where do you draw the line? What if he decides that next, he wants to oust a ruler whose policies he agrees with? Not likely to happen, no, but that argument leaves a very dangerous door open.

What Bush did was akin to a judge circumventing due process and sentencing a man to prison without allowing a case with evidence to be properly presented and argued.

[Tsa`ah]

You would have to ask the regulations committee why they are allowing the price hikes when the market has supposedly stabilized.

I can point out that instead of looking for WMDs when we reached Baghdad, considering we didn't even have teams assembled to look for them even at the time of invasion, we secured the oil and air fields. We ignored a nuclear facility and didn't even bother with it until the media aired footage of the facility being looted and people using waste drums as water cans.

Our number one priority once in Iraq was to secure the oil fields and get a military foothold in the region. We did nothing to find WMDs, nothing to secure the populace, nothing to recover the military’s weapons.

In fact we had no plan of action to follow after the regime collapsed. We destroyed and then dismantled the military as an effort to "get the guns". We didn't question about weapon stores, and we didn't utilize the existing military as a police force.

I don't think our administration cares about Iraq. They care about the oil and the money their buds will make from reconstruction contracts.


[Edited on 4-17-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Shari]

Let me see if I can sum up this whole thread.

"You are wrong"

"No, you are wrong"

"Nooo..you are"

"No, YOU are"

"Nuh-uh..you SO are"

"Nope, you are, why are you attacking me?"

"I wasn't attacking you"

"Yes you were"

"No I wasn't"

"Yes you were"

"There's this quote of you attacking me"

"I wasn't attacking you but if you're going to attack me now, I'm totally going to attack you now!"

"You're stupid"

"No you are"

"Noo...you are"

I think you get the idea.

[Tendarian]

This is where it gets dangerous. Is it safe to say then that the ends justifies the mean? In this case, Bush initially had a considerable percentage of public support in going to war. But where do you draw the line? What if he decides that next, he wants to oust a ruler whose policies he agrees with? Not likely to happen, no, but that argument leaves a very dangerous door open.

I think most people can agree on evil. Killing hundreds of thousands of your own people is pretty evil. I dont think even the anti war in iraq crowd is crying any tears that Saddam isnt in power anymore. When the new tape of UBL came out and offered a truce to Europe none of them jumped up and agreed to it as they know the man. I dont even hear anyone saying the US bullied those Europeans into saying that.



What Bush did was akin to a judge circumventing due process and sentencing a man to prison without allowing a case with evidence to be properly presented and argued.

Isnt Saddam going to be put on trial?

And for the other part didnt they want to secure the oil fields cause in the first Iraq war they were lit on fire and it was a big mess?

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Jesae
Let me see if I can sum up this whole thread.

"You are wrong"

"No, you are wrong"

"Nooo..you are"

"No, YOU are"

"Nuh-uh..you SO are"

"Nope, you are, why are you attacking me?"

"I wasn't attacking you"

"Yes you were"

"No I wasn't"

"Yes you were"

"There's this quote of you attacking me"

"I wasn't attacking you but if you're going to attack me now, I'm totally going to attack you now!"

"You're stupid"

"No you are"

"Noo...you are"

I think you get the idea.

You are wrong.

[Edaarin]

Originally posted by Tendarian
I think most people can agree on evil. Killing hundreds of thousands of your own people is pretty evil. I dont think even the anti war in iraq crowd is crying any tears that Saddam isnt in power anymore.


It's not our sole duty to be the police of the world. That's the UN's duty, which we do have a considerable say in. We should have gone through the proper venues and collected enough evidence to justify our presence there. The reasons stated for our being there turned out to be false. If it wasn't lying or misleading the public, it was at the least a badly informed decision.



What Bush did was akin to a judge circumventing due process and sentencing a man to prison without allowing a case with evidence to be properly presented and argued.

Isnt Saddam going to be put on trial?


Yes, he's going to be put on trial. That part will be due process (one would hope). What I meant was, Bush acted on information that was false and ignored requests from other nations and the UN for more proof before acting. Haphazard decision to go to war = not a good idea.

[Tsa`ah]

You can believe they wanted to secure the oil fields for that reason. In fact, that was the line given.

But tell me what sense it makes to secure an oil field, secure a landing field ... but not secure a nuclear facility?

What sense does it make to invade the country because they have WMDs, yet not even have a search team assembled and waiting?

Better yet, why go in the country under the now assumed guise of liberation, yet do nothing to protect the people and their national treasures?

If it's not about oil, then why was the Israeli pipeline opened up after like 3 decades of being closed?

If it is truly about terrorism, then why so few troops in Afghanistan? Why is the elected or appointed leader of that country reduced to nothing more than a mayor of the capitol?

I'm sure if we had a vested interest in the opium trade we would be in Afghanistan, but we're not and the Taliban isn't really out of power, they've only been moved out of the capitol.

Edited to add ...

How well do you think the trial of Sadam is going to go?

You did hear about the trial of a few Guantanamo Bay captives didn't you?

Because of the way we encarserated them, most may get off.

http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?aid=751

Hell, google it... there's plenty on it.

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Tendarian]

Why the landing and oil fields but not the nuclear facility? Thinking as i type but i assume cause they didnt have nuclear weapons? It takes someone smarter than shooting a rpg at a pipeline to screw up the facility? Is it easy to make a facility meltdown?


What sense does it make to invade the country because they have WMDs, yet not even have a search team assembled and waiting?

Thats a good question. I would assume (heh) that either the same people that fight do the searching or that its still not safe enough there to send in the civilian wmd search teams? I dont really know i just saying what makes sense in my head and didnt want to not answer this.


If it's not about oil, then why was the Israeli pipeline opened up after like 3 decades of being closed?

Its our closest ally in the region that wouldnt mess with us.

I was also under the impression that Afghanistan is such a rugged terrain that loads of soldiers wouldnt be an asset. Smaller groups to go digging out the bad guys is better for that area.

I know a lot of what i posted is reaching but hey i didnt google anything and i dont know it all. Hopefully the Fox News brainwashing has led me to some decent answers :)

[Tendarian]

How well do you think the trial of Sadam is going to go?

You did hear about the trial of a few Guantanamo Bay captives didn't you?

Because of the way we encarserated them, most may get off.

http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?aid=751

Hell, google it... there's plenty on it.

I dont think the US would do anything shady to screw up the Saddam trial as its pretty important. I mean how emberassing would that be? As for the Guantanamo Bay suspects being let off for the way we encarserated them i think that stinks. In the link it said some of the charges were not used cause they didnt let a witness talk. I think thats the right thing to do and can agree with that.

[Tsa`ah]

It's just an example of how our administration threw out due process in the attempt to detain these people indefinitely.

If they are indeed connected, I hope each and every one of them fry. Since our administration ignored the very judicial process, some may walk.

Sadam, I hope he fries, but since we invaded under false pretense, he may get a nice posh European prison.

Longshot I refer you to my later post of Colin Powell's speech

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by The Edine
Longshot I refer you to my later post of Colin Powell's speech

I am the sexiest man alive. No woman can resist me. I have to beat them off with a stick. I am the uber-sexy beast.

[Tendarian]

If you look anything like the pic in your sig id consider becoming gay for ya.

[Tsa`ah]

That's just wrong... I feel so dirty now.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by The Edine
Longshot I refer you to my later post of Colin Powell's speech

I am the sexiest man alive. No woman can resist me. I have to beat them off with a stick. I am the uber-sexy beast.

um ok where did that come from?

[Tsa`ah]

Think about it.

Well, I do not think Colin Powell has ever said anything like that.
I can only guess it is directed at me then, considering I know I have never said anything like that or insinuated to anything close I don't get what your saying.

[TheEschaton]

A) He's saying that just because he said it, doesn't mean its true.

B) I already pointed out the many, numerous flaws in Powell's speech.

C)



Here is most likely my "duh" question of the day. If we went to war for oil how come in the last year my gas prices went up 30-40 cents a gallon? I think i saw on the news here recently last year the gas price was about $1.45 per gallon and now its around $1.75,thats in the MN area.

You do realize, that in the time our gas prices have risen 30-40 cents, the whole rest of the world's, if you do the equations to equal them out, have gone up 3-5 dollars? We, by far, have the cheapest gas in the world.


-TheE-

TheE you also know that is because we do not tax our gas has highly as others do.

The ties to terrorism have not been shown as flaws TheE.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
It's just an example of how our administration threw out due process in the attempt to detain these people indefinitely. Lincoln did the same thing, for more or less the same reason. You don't hear anyone bitching him out.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Lincoln did the same thing, for more or less the same reason. You don't hear anyone bitching him out.

For two reasons.

1. Everyone from that era is dead.
2. Everyone from that era that heard and cared about the issue most certainly raised hell about it. They just didn't have a networked media or the internet, let alone the phone.

Today's dissenting voices are heard more often and at higher decibels than the dissenting voices of 100 years ago.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
For two reasons.

1. Everyone from that era is dead.
2. Everyone from that era that heard and cared about the issue most certainly raised hell about it. They just didn't have a networked media or the internet, let alone the phone.

Today's dissenting voices are heard more often and at higher decibels than the dissenting voices of 100 years ago. True, true. But my point was good Presidents can do and have done bad things.

[DeV]

Who can disagree with that Latrinsorm. After all, they're human.

[Skirmisher]

Lincoln = Benevelant tyrant

And thank goodness for that, but while the reasons may have been similar, I don't think a credible claim can be made the the threat levels are comparable.

[Myshel]

I didn't write this but I thought it very true.

Intellectual Dishonesty, What does it means? When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs, that's what it means.

I don't care what your political persuasion may be, I think that most of us from time to time (some more than others) have been guilty of it. But it’s sad that many of our elected officials are so adept at it. I'm sure that we can find cases of it on both side of the congressional isle, but some of the events relating to and stemming from the 9/11 hearings have really gotten me annoyed recently. We may never know the full and real truth about the political events of two administration prior to that day. Any statements, theories and documents are always open to interpretation based on an individual’s mindset, but lord, lets try to be honest... The other day there was a caller to a nationally aired radio talk show (not Rush Limbaugh's) where the caller was completely Anti-Bush.. When asked, by the talk show host, why he was so vehemently opposed to Bush, the caller, in essence, cited "Bush lied about WMD's". The host asked why he felt that way when not only previous president, Bill Clinton, had stated in previous speeches during and after his tenure, that he was convinced from intelligence reports, that Saddam had been in possesion of WMD's.. But that several European governments had in the very recent past also believed there were WMD's in Iraq, based on reports of their own intelligence services. The caller answered thusly "Clinton was mistaken but Bush Lied!". What? Can someone explain that to me? I'll grant you that many of the reports gathered and compiled by intelligence services world wide may not have be 100% accurate, again many of the conclusions in these reports are based on hints, clues, paper trails, trends, stories and such, that have been pieced together like jig saw puzzles. But Bush didn't make the reports. Bush had to make his decisions based on those same reports that were so convincing to the democrats only a few years earlier, the knowledge that Saddam did use gas weapons on the Iranians during his war with Iran and on the Kurds in his own country. Yes, there were newer intelligence reports put together since Clinton left office, these reports are updated constantly but remember that most of the people doing these reports are the same people that were doing the reports for the prior administration, so if the available "information" hasn't changed much, they why should their conclusions change much. So, If Bush believed that Iraq had WMD's for the same reasons that Clinton believed Iraq had WMD's, why is it that Clinton was mistaken, but Bush Lied ??? That is being Intellectually Dishonest.

Let’s face it, JFK brought us within the space of a heartbeat to the brink of nuclear war with Russia because of intelligence reports based heavily on surveillance photos that showed what the photo analysts believed to the building of nuclear missile launching sites in Cuba. We know now the reports were correct, but how he must have agonized over the decisions he had to make based on hearsay, opinions, and other peoples interpretations of "the facts".

We may yet find WMD's in Iraq, remember Iraq is bigger than California, Iraq is 168,754 sq. miles (437,072 sq km) and California is 155,973 sq. Miles (403,968 sq km), Is it not possible that some WMD's are buried out in the desert? To say its not possible is being Intellectually Dishonest, remember he buried his whole air force to keep us from blowing it up. We did find the planes because an Iraqi citizen showed us where they were buried.

Meanwhile back at the 9/11 hearings... People were screaming that Dr. Rice should testify before the commission.. Even though she already had appeared and testified for 5 hours in closed session. Finally President Bush, with the understanding that this was not to be a precedent setting event, allowed Dr. Rice to appear before the committee again, this time publicly. So what happens? The committee members took 60% of the allotted time to make personal and politically self serving statements along with their questions and then had to nerve to try to make Dr. Rice cut her answers short because she was using up to much of their allotted time to ask questions. That is being Intellectually Dishonest. Then we have one of the democratic members of the commission call her Dr. Clark on 5 occasions. How can he expect her to be responsible for the details of a meeting from 3 years ago when he can't even remember her name?

Did either Richard Clark or Condoleezza Rice spin the facts to fit an agenda? Maybe, they both have motive, so we may never have the 100% truth, yet there are people out there applauding Clark as righteous whistle blower and decrying Rice for doing CYA for Bush. To all those people, that is being Intellectually Dishonest

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by The Edine
Longshot I refer you to my later post of Colin Powell's speech

I am the sexiest man alive. No woman can resist me. I have to beat them off with a stick. I am the uber-sexy beast.

um ok where did that come from?

Edine, Tsa'ah was using himself as an example to show that a speech is merely a speech, and does not count as evidence.

It had nothing to do with your looks.

That's what he wanted you to think about.

Edine, terrorists did not start the war in Iraq. The quicker you accept this, the easier a time you will understand why people feel like they were lied to, and why so many are against the war. This includes a large number of people who were originally supportive of military action, like myself.

Longshot I never said they started the war in Iraq. Where you got that idea from I don't know. Terrorists have been at war with America for a very long time, far longer than we have been actively against them.
Iraq as most of the middle-eastern countries have some ties to terrorism. You asked for examples, and I gave them.

Edit: Tossing this in so I don't have to point it out later. You asked to show what terrorist ties Iraq had before the war, I did.( I only put the link in because it was to long to edit down or to post the whole thing.) The post I put up was the intelligence data we had at the time, and I believe that at the time the Administration felt that it was factual and true. ( but that is up to interpretation depending on which side you lean towards so it is a pointless debate) If you question the original post that started this thread I will quote the part that is relevant to the conversation

"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. "

What the author of the editorial is trying to communicate in this is that we have been attacked repeatedly by terrorists and have done nothing, until 9\11, they started the war and we are going to finish it. (at least that is what I get out of it) If you have any other questions ask.

[Edited on 4-18-2004 by The Edine]

[Tendarian]

This story is great and most likely true of what would have happened. Heres the link:

http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_3241.shtml

[Latrinsorm]

A pop-up from that site. :giggle:

[Tendarian]

Ahh sorry there was a bunch of different sites that ran the story,i just tried to pick one that didnt seem too republican :) I have pop ups disabled so i never know.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tendarian
Ahh sorry there was a bunch of different sites that ran the story,i just tried to pick one that didnt seem too republican.

Two notes...

Since it's speculation, it qualifies more as an editorial as opposed to an article or a story. And two...



About MichNews.com

MichNews.com is a news and commentary Website. Our goal is to provide you with the most in-depth, concise, honest news and commentary. The MichNews.com Website also contains news and commentary links to and from other Websites.

What Do We Stand For?
We stand for Conservative traditions, values and ideas.

We Are:
Pro-American
Pro-Freedom
Pro-Life
Pro-Family Values
Pro-Christian/Judeo Values
Pro-Gun Rights
Pro-Free Speech
Pro-Marriage
Pro-Religion
Pro-Death Penalty
Against Illegal Immigration
Against Homosexuality
Against Liberal Media Bias

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Ouch, contradictory. Those crazy conservatives. I liked the story/editorial though.

[Celexei]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
A pop-up from that site. :giggle:

*pushes da Ittle NO button at first slowly but then furiosly lays into it OVER AND OVER again*

[TheEschaton]

Hard to believe a website that says at the top "Most In-Depth, Concise, Honest News and Commentary" (emphasis mine), and then has a button to donate to the BushCheney campaign on the bottom left.

And one doesn't need a reaction of invading Afghanistan to prevent 9/11. One could of just detained the 19 hijackers.

Exaggerate much?

-TheE-

[Tendarian]

Haha thats funny as hell. There was about 20 sites to choose from,which most likely were conservative but boy did i choose a good one. Anyway i thought the editorial was a good enough read and wanted to share.

http://staugustine.com/stories/041104/opi_2255094.shtml

Here it is in just a local newspaper

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by The Edine
http://staugustine.com/stories/041104/opi_2255094.shtml

Here it is in just a local newspaper

Just goes to augument that saying...

"Sometimes, you just can't win"

[TheEschaton]

But it's by the same person, who writes for that website. With all the goals stated above by Raven.


You do know that papers buy the rights to columns, to run them, right? You don't think the St. Augustine whatever the fucks have a reporter in Iraq, do you?

-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
"Sometimes, you just can't win"

Indeed. Especially when you're not trying to 'win' anything.

Tendarian said he tried to pick an unbiased site. I was pointing out that that one definitely didn't qualify. Had he clicked on the 'about' link, he'd have seen that. A small lesson in checking sources is all. You may have noticed I never said that the essay wasn't printed anywhere else.

Raven

[Tendarian]

:thumbsup: I just chose the link after googling the author that looked the least conservative. If Latrin hadnt been so perceptive to pop ups my evil plan would have worked too. Damn meddling kids :)